Elements Considered To Determine An Employee Employer Relationship

[13] Republic v Asiapro compensation or wages from the cooperative, but receive a share in the
service surplus. In this case, the owner-members receive a share in the

GR No. 172101 | November 23, 2007 | Labor; Employer-Employee relationship | income derived from the service contract with Stanflico
Vince 2. The owner-members of Asiapro requested from Stanflico to register
them with the SSS as self-employed and to remit their contributions as
Petitioner:
such.
Respondents:
3. However the SSS informed Asiapro that based on the service contract
with Stanflico, Asiapro is actually a manpower contractor supplying
Recit-Ready: manpower to Stanflico. The SSS further claimed there is an employee-
employer relationship between the members. Thus, Asiapro should
Asiapro Cooperative entered into Service Contracts with Stanflico wherein the register itself with SSS as an employer.
members of the cooperative render services for Stanflico. The members of the 4. Asiapro denied this assertion
cooperative requested from Stanflico to register them with the SSS as self-
Procedure before the Social Security Council
employed. However the SSS informed Asiapro that Asiapro is actually the
employer of the member-owners rendering services for Stanflico. Hence, SSS 1. SSS filed a Petition before the Social Security Council (SSC) praying that
ordered Asiapro to register with the SSS as an employer. Asiapro be directed to register as an employer of its member-owners
2. Asiapro filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the SSC has no
Asiapro denied this assertion. The SSS then filed a petition before the SSC praying jurisdiction over the cooperative.
a. This was denied
that Asiapro be directed to register as an employer of its member-owners. Asiapro
filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the SSC has no jurisdiction over the Procedure before the CA
cooperative because there is no employee-employer relationship. The MD was
denied. Asiapro went up to the CA on the same ground and granted the dismissal 1. Asiapro filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA on the same ground
of the case. mentioned above
2. The main argument of Asiapro is that it is not the employer of its
members within the contemplation of the Labor Code
Hence this case
3. The CA ruled that the SSC has no jurisdiction over the case because
there is no employee-employer relationship between the cooperative and
Doctrine: its members.
The existence of an employer-employee relationship cannot be negated by
ISSUES:
expressly repudiating it in a contract, when the terms and surrounding
circumstances show otherwise. The employment status of a person is defined 1. W/N the SSC has jurisdiction over the cooperative. YES
and prescribed by law and not by what the parties say it should be [note. I think 2. W/N there is an employee employer relationship between Asiapro and
this is the important doctrine, however this just suddenly popped up in the ruling] its member-owners. YES (MAIN)
RATIO:
FACTS:
Elements considered to determine an employee employer relationship
1. Asipro is a cooperative which entered into several Service Contracts 1. Selection and engagement of the workers
with Stanflico. The owner-members of the cooperative do not receive
2. Payment of wages 1. The facts show that the Service Contract states that there is no
3. Power of dismissal employer-employee relationship between the cooperative and its
4. Power to control the worker’s conduct members
a. Control not only refers to the work to be done, but also as to the 2. However said provision cannot be given effect
means to accomplish said work 3. The existence of an employer-employee relationship cannot be negated
b. The employer does not need to actually supervise the by expressly repudiating it in a contract. The employment status of the
employee. parties is defined by law and not what the parties say
c. It is enough that the employer has the right to wield said power
There is an employee-employer relationship
Element 1
1. It is said in the Service Contract that it is Asiapro which has the
exclusive discretion in the selection and engagement of the owner-
members who will be assigned to Stanflico
Element 2
1. Wages are “remuneration or earnings however designated payable by an
employer to an employee...for work done or to be done, or for service
rendered or to be rendered.”
2. The weekly stipends or shares in the service surplus are essentially
wages
3. The amounts were equivalent to not lower than that prescribed by
existing labor laws
4. These were actually given as compensation for services rendered to
Stanflico
Element 3
1. The service contract states that Asiapro has the power to investigate,
discipline, and remove its members who were rendering services to
Stanflico
Element 4
1. The Service Contract shows that Asiapro has the sole control over the
manner and means of performing the service and work with Stanflico
Asiapro cannot stipulate in the Service Contract that there is no employee-

employer relationship

Elements Considered To Determine An Employee Employer Relationship

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Elements Considered To Determine An Employee Employer Relationship

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Elements Considered To Determine An Employee Employer Relationship

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[13] Republic v Asiapro compensation or wages from the cooperative, but receive a share in the

service surplus. In this case, the owner-members receive a share in the

There is an employee-employer relationship

Asiapro cannot stipulate in the Service Contract that there is no employee-

You might also like