Abante vs.
Lamadrid Bearings and Parts
G.R. No. 159890. May 28, 2004
Well-entrenched is the doctrine that the existence of an employer-employee
relationship is ultimately a question of fact and that the findings thereon by the Labor
Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission shall be accorded not only
respect but even finality when supported by substantial evidence. The decisive factor in
such finality is the presence of substantial evidence to support said finding, otherwise,
such factual findings cannot be accorded finality by this Court. Considering the
conflicting findings of fact by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC as well as the Court of
Appeals, there is a need to reexamine the records to determine with certainty which of
the propositions espoused by the contending parties is supported by substantial
evidence.
To ascertain the existence of an employer-employee relationship, jurisprudence
has invariably applied the four-fold test, namely: (1) the manner of selection and
engagement; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the presence or absence of the power of
dismissal; and (4) the presence or absence of the power of control. Of these four, the
last one is the most important. The so-called control test is commonly regarded as the
most crucial and determinative indicator of the presence or absence of an employer-
employee relationship. Under the control test, an employer-employee relationship exists
where the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not
only the end achieved, but also the manner and means to be used in reaching that end.
An employer-employee relationship is notably absent in the case of a
commission salesman who received a 3% commission of his gross sales, where no
quota was imposed on him by the alleged employer, he was not required to report to the
office at any time or submit any periodic written report on his sales performance and
activities, and he was not designated by the respondent to conduct his sales activities at
any particular or specific place.
Applying the aforementioned test, an employer-employee relationship is notably
absent in this case. It is undisputed that petitioner Abante was a commission salesman
who received 3% commission of his gross sales. Yet no quota was imposed on him by
the respondent; such that a dismal performance or even a dead result will not result in
any sanction or provide a ground for dismissal. He was not required to report to the
office at any time or submit any periodic written report on his sales performance and
activities. Although he had the whole of Mindanao as his base of operation, he was not
designated by respondent to conduct his sales activities at any particular or specific
place. He pursued his selling activities without interference or supervision from
respondent company and relied on his own resources to perform his functions.
Respondent company did not prescribe the manner of selling the merchandise; he was
left alone to adopt any style or strategy to entice his customers. While it is true that he
occasionally reported to the Manila office to attend conferences on marketing strategies,
it was intended not to control the manner and means to be used in reaching the desired
end, but to serve as a guide and to upgrade his skills for a more efficient marketing
performance. As correctly observed by the appellate court, reports on sales, collection,
competitors, market strategies, price listings and new offers relayed by petitioner during
his conferences to Manila do not indicate that he was under the control of respondent.
Moreover, petitioner was free to offer his services to other companies engaged in
similar or related marketing activities as evidenced by the certifications issued by
various customers.
