Law Dictionary

Question I, Labor Law, 2017 Bar Exam

Notice: The following suggested answers simulate those that a bar examinee may provide as an answer to a bar exam question. Thus, specific citations (i.e., republic acts, articles/sections, jurisprudence, etc.) are not provided because it is not required in the bar exam. For purposes other than answering the bar exam, please be reminded that proper referencing or legal citation is required.

Question I, Labor Law, 2017 Bar Exam

What are the accepted tests to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship? (5%)

B.

Applying the tests to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship, is a jeepney driver operating under the boundary system an employee of his jeepney operator or a mere lessee of the jeepney? Explain your answer. (3%)

Suggested Answer:

A. There are two accepted tests as follows:

1) The control test, which is also known as the four-fold test, is used to ascertain the existence of an employer-employee relationship, using these factors: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the employee’s conduct, or the so-called “control test.” 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.

2) Under this economic reality test, the economic realities prevailing within the activity or between the parties are examined, taking into consideration the totality of circumstances surrounding the true nature of the relationship between the parties. This is especially appropriate when there is no written agreement or contract on which to base the relationship.

Thus, the determination of the relationship between employer and employee depends upon the circumstances of the whole economic activity, such as: (1) the extent to which the services performed are an integral part of the employer’s business; (2) the extent of the worker’s investment in equipment and facilities; (3) the nature and degree of control exercised by the employer; (4) the worker’s opportunity for profit and loss; (5) the amount of initiative, skill, judgment or foresight required for the success of the claimed independent enterprise; (6) the permanency and duration of the relationship between the worker and the employer; and (7) the degree of dependency of the worker upon the employer for his continued employment in that line of business.

B. The relationship between jeepney owners/operators and jeepney drivers under the boundary system is that of employer-employee and not of lessor-lessee. The fact that the drivers do not receive fixed wages but only get the amount in excess of the so-called “boundary” that they pay to the owner/operator is not sufficient to negate the relationship between them as employer and employee. Jeepney drivers are employees because they are engaged to perform activities which were usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer.

Disclaimer: All information is for educational and general information only. These should not be taken as professional legal advice or opinion. Please consult a competent lawyer to address your specific concerns. Any statements or opinions of the author are solely his own and do not reflect that of any organization he may be connected.

Suggested Answers

Question XV, Civil Law, 2017 Bar Exam

Kevin signed a loan agreement with ABC Bank. To secure payment, Kevin requested his girlfriend Rosella to execute a document entitled “Continuing Guaranty Agreement” whereby

Top Read

Capacity to buy or sell

All persons who are authorized in the Civil Code to obligate themselves, may enter into a contract of sale, saving the modifications contained in the

Concubinage, A334 Revised Penal Code

Concubinage is an offense whereby a married man has sexual intercourse with a woman not his wife under scandalous circumstances. 1. Concept Concubinage – is

Video Lessons

Legal Maxims

summun jus, summa injuria

Latin maxim. • “circumstances alter cases” (Sanchez v. CA, G.R. No. 96306, August 20 1993 [Per J. Romero, Concurring Opinion])

nullum crimen, nulla poena sige lege

Latin maxim. • “that there can exist no punishable act except those previously and specifically provided for by penal statute” (Corpuz v. People, En Banc,

Read more

Annotations

You cannot copy content of this page