FACTS:

Sometime in February 2016, each of the Petitioner executed an

Independent Contractor Agreement with Lazada E-Services Philippines, Inc.
whereby they agreed to be riders for Lazada. Lazada is an online selling site which
allows sellers to sell their products online via their website or mobile application.
The primary task of the riders is to pick up items for sale from sellers and then
bring those items to Lazada’s warehouse. In January 2017, the riders were told
that they were no longer given any schedules. They still reported for work for
three days until they learned that their routes were given to other riders. The
petitioners then filed a labor case against Lazada for illegal dismissal. Lazada then
argued that the riders are independent contractors as proven by their contract;
that after the December 2016 holidays, the demand for riders went down hence
they had to reorganize their riders’ schedules; that the contracts of the riders
were not terminated. This resolves a Petition for Review assailing the Resolutions
of the CA, which affirms the ruling of the NLRC. The NLRC ruled that there is no
employer-employee relationship between the parties.

ISSUE:

Whether or not employer-employee relationship exist?

LAWS APPLICABLE:

1. Art. XIII, Sec. 3 of the Constitution

2. Art. 106, 280, and 295 of the Labor Code

3. Art. 1700 of the Civil Code

RULING:

Yes, there is an Employer-employee relationship between the petitioners

and LAZADA applying the Four-fold test rule.

OPINION:

My Opinion as a student is that I concur with the decision of the Supreme

Court reversing the ruling of the Court of Appeals by applying the Four-Fold test.
First, they were hired by the company, interviewed, tested, and then engaged to
work. Second, they were paid daily compensation. No matter what you call this
pay, whether it is commission, rental, or boundary, in the eyes of the law, they
are wages. Third, the control test which is the power of Lazada to discipline,
reprimand, suspend, or punish the riders for violations of company policy which is
apparent on the routes which is only to be followed by the riders. Fourth, is the
power of dismissal. Even if there is no written order terminating their services,
when they were not given any tasks anymore or their routes were given to other
riders, there was already, in the eyes of the law, an act of dismissal. It was illegal
because the riders were not even formally charged with any offense, much less
given due process to explain their side.

CHRONOLOGY OF THE CASE:

In this case, the Justice was delayed since in the court of the first instance it
can already be resolved if only the laws applicable was properly applied.