Jo vs. NLRC, G.R. No.

121605, February 2, 2000; 324 SCRA 437

(Labor Standards – Existence of employer-employee relationship)

Facts: Private respondent working as a barber on piece-rate basis was designated by petitioners
as caretaker of their barbershop. Private respondent’s duties as caretaker, in addition to his
being a barber, were: 1) to report to the owners of the barbershop whenever the aircondition
units malfunction and/or whenever water or electric power supply was interrupted; 2) to call the
laundry woman to wash dirty linen; 3) to recommend applicants for interview and hiring; 4) to
attend to other needs of the shop. For this additional job, he was given an honorarium
equivalent to1/3 of the net income of the shop.

Private respondent left his job voluntarily because of his misunderstanding with his co-worker
and demanded separation pay and other monetary benefits. Petitioner’s contends that
respondent was not their employee but their “partner in trade” whose compensation was based
on a sharing arrangement per haircut or shaving job done.

Issue: Whether or not there exist an employer-employee relationship.

Held: Yes. In determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, the following

elements are considered: 1) selection and engagement of worker; 2) power of dismissal; 3) the
payment of wages; and 4) the power to control the worker’s conduct, with the latter assuming
primacy in the overall consideration. The power of control refers to the existence of the power
and not necessarily to the actual exercise thereof. It is not essential for the employer to actually
supervise the performance of duties of the employee; it is enough that the employer has the
right to wield that power.

Jo v. NLRC [324 SCRA 437, February 2, 2000]

Labels: Case Digests, Labor Law

FACTS: Peter Mejila was a barber employed by a barbershop. The owners of the shop attempted
to mediate in the incessant squabbling between Mejila and a fellow employee. Mejila then
unilaterally demanded his separation pay and other benefits, despite his employers’ assurance
that he was not being dismissed. He then turned over the duplicate keys of the shop (which he
held as caretaker) to the cashier and took all his personal belongings from his workplace, and
found similar employment in another shop. He then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

ISSUE: Was Mejila dismissed, or did he abandon his employment?

HELD: He abandoned his work. This was manifested by: His having bragged to fellow workers his
intention to quit his work in the shop; his surrender of the shop’s keys and his taking all of his
personal belongings from the said place; his failure to report fro work and not giving any valid
reason for such; he acquired employment in another shop immediately, despite reassurances
that he could stay in his old place of work; and finally, his complaint for illegal dismissal did not
include a prayer for reinstatement. All of these show concurrence of the intent to abandon his
work and over acts that show his lack of interest in continuing his work.