E-E criteria: (Viana v.
Al-LAgadan)  There exists an E-E relationship between a
1. Selection and engagement of employee
 Hiring
 Written contract, not necessary
 An understanding that one is to render
service to the other,and a recognition by
them of the right of one to order and
control the other is sufficient
2. Payment of wages
 Wages – remuneration of earnings
 Considered wages if paid in consideration
of:
a) The labor being performed
b) The results or finished work
3. Power of dismissal
 Person hired is subjected to the rules of
discipline of the
Employer
4. Power to control the employee’s conduct
 Most important element
 Control test: the person for whom the
services are performed reserves the rights
to control not only the end to be achieved
but also the means to be used in reaching
such end.
 The control should be on both the means
and the end
 Insurance agents:
1. Salaried personnel who keep definite hours
and work under
the control and supervision of the company –
E-E
relationship exists
2. Registered representatives who work on
commission basis
– no E-E relationship
 The nature of the relationship between a
company and its
collecting agents depends on the
circumstances of each
particular relationship.
corporation and an in-house lawyer as
they are paid regular salaries
 E-E relationship exists between a school
and its professors. The school has control
over the work of the professors and the
latter are compensated for their services
by wages or salaries rather than by
profits.
 No E-E relationship exists between
working students and the colleges or
universities. Such rule applies only to
laborcontroversies, not to civil suits for
damages arising from atortuous act of a
working student.
• E-E relationship between resident
physicians and traininghospitals exists, unless:
1. There is training agreement between them
2. The training program is duly accredited or
approved by the appropriate government
agency
• E-E relationship exists between hospitals
and their consultants only for purposes of
allocating responsibility in medical negligence
cases
• E-E relationship between a jeepney
ownerand driver under the boundary system
exists.
• There is no E-E relationship between a
shipping company and the workers of
stevedoring or arrastre company, unless the
same in fact acted as agent only.
• An E-E relationship is created by contract
and cannot be forced upon either party
simply upon order of a labor arbiter.
  Any competent and relevant evidence
may be admitted as proofof E-E
relationship.
• The E-E relationship is deemed suspended
in the ff cases:
1. When the employee is under suspension,
either as a disciplinary penalty or as a
preventive measure during the pendency of
disciplinary proceedings against him
2. During off season, in case of regular
seasonal employees
3. When fishing vessels are drydocked or
undergoing repairs
4. When an employee is laid-off for a period
not exceeding 6mos due to suspension of
business operations
5. When an employee fulfills a civic or military
duty
• Termination of E-E relationship:
1. Dismissal
2. Resignation or abandonment of employment
3. Expiration of employment period
• Factors that do not interrupt employment
relationship:
1. Leave of absence with pay
2. Illegal dismissal
3. Strike
Security of tenure (SOT)= Cause(C)+ Due Process
(DP)
1.UNOD( Usually necessary or desirable)
2.UBOT( Usually business or trade)
If both 1 & 2 present regular employee
Only regular employee can form a union
Francisco vs. NLRC
Issue: Whether or not there was employer-
employee relationship between the parties?
Ruling: Yes, in certain cases the control test is not
sufficient to give a complete picture of the
relationship between the parties, owing to the
complexity of such a relationship where several
positions have been held by the worker. There
are instances when, aside from the employer’s
power to control the employee with respect to
the means and methods by which the work is to
be accomplished, economic realities of the
employment relations help provide a
comprehensive analysis of the true classification
of the individual, whether as employee,
independent contractor, corporate officer or
some other capacity.
The better approach would therefore be to adopt
a two tiered test involving:
(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. She reported for work regularly
and served in various capacities as Accountant, Liaison
Officer, Technical Consultant, Acting Manager and
Corporate Secretary, with substantially the same job
functions, that is, rendering accounting and tax
services to the company and performing functions
necessary and desirable for the proper operation
of the corporation such as securingbusiness
permits and other licenses over an indefinite
period of engagement.

Under the broader economic reality test, the

petitioner can likewise be said to be an employee
of respondent corporation because she had
served the company for six years before her
dismissal, receiving check vouchers indicating her
salaries/ wages, benefits, 13th month pay,
bonuses and allowances, as well as deductions
and Social Security contributions from August 1,
1999 to December 18, 2000. When petitioner was
designated General Manager, respondent
corporation made a report to the SSS signed by
Irene Ballesteros. Petitioner’s membership in the
SSS as manifested by a copy of the SSS specimen
signature card which was signed by the President
of Kasei Corporation and the inclusion of her
name in the online inquiry system of the SSS
evinces the existence of an employer-employee
relationship between petitioner and respondent
corporation.

It is therefore apparent that petitioner is

economically dependent on respondent
corporation for her continued employment in the
latter’s line of business.