ANGELINA FRANCISCO, Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, KASEI CORPORATION, SEIICHIRO TAKAHASHI, TIMOTEO ACEDO, DELFIN LIZA, IRENE BALLESTEROS, TRINIDAD LIZA and RAMON ESCUETA, Respondents.
G.R. No. 170087 August 31, 2006
Facts:
In 1995, Francisco was hired by Kasei. She was designated as Accountant and Corporate Secretary and was assigned to handle all the accounting needs of the company. She was also designated as Liaison Officer to the City of Makati to secure business permits, construction permits and other licenses for the initial operation of the company. In 1996, petitioner was designated as Acting Manager and has performed her duties for 5 years.
In 1995, Francisco was hired by Kasei. She was designated as Accountant and Corporate Secretary and was assigned to handle all the accounting needs of the company. She was also designated as Liaison Officer to the City of Makati to secure business permits, construction permits and other licenses for the initial operation of the company. In 1996, petitioner was designated as Acting Manager and has performed her duties for 5 years.
In January 2001, petitioner was replaced but she was assured that she would and still be connected with Kasei Corporation. Thereafter, Kasei Corporation reduced her salary and did not pay her with mid-year bonus allegedly because the company was not earning well. On October 2001, petitioner did not receive her salary from the company. When she demanded for her salary, she was informed that she is no longer connected with the company. Hence, she did not report for work and filed an action for constructive dismissal before the labor arbiter.
Respondents, on the other, hand, maintained that she is not an employee of Kasei. She was hired as a technical consultant and she performed her work at her own discretion without control and supervision of the company. Her services are only temporary in nature. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Francisco which decision as affirmed by NLRC. CA, on the other hand, dismissed Francisco’s complaint on the ground of constructive dismissal.
Issue:
Whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists.
Whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists.
Ruling:
Yes, she is an employee of Kasei.
Yes, she is an employee of Kasei.
The Supreme Court applied the two-tiered test to determine the existence of employer-employee relationship which involved: (1) the putative employer’s power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished; and (2) the underlying economic realities of the activity or relationship.
By applying the control test, there is no doubt that petitioner is an employee of Kasei Corporation because she was under the direct control and supervision of Seiji Kamura, the corporation’s Technical Consultant. Under the broader economic reality test, the petitioner can likewise be said to be an employee of Kasei because she is economically dependent on the company for her continued employment in the latter’s line of business.
She was selected and engaged by the company for compensation, and is economically dependent upon respondent for her continued employment in that line of business. More importantly, Kasei had the power to control petitioner with the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished.
Therefore, the petition was granted.