Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 107 views

    Lopez V MWSS

    Uploaded by

    Joshua Pielago
    The petitioners, who were contracted by MWSS as collector-contractors, sued MWSS for separation pay after their services were terminated when the collections department was transferred to a private company. MWSS claimed the petitioners were not employees. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding that MWSS exercised control over the petitioners' work, establishing an employer-employee relationship regardless of the contract terms. The Court said MWSS controlled work procedures, provided supplies and office space, and deducted taxes, among other factors showing an employment relationship existed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lopez V MWSS

    Uploaded by

    Joshua Pielago
    107 views1 page
    The petitioners, who were contracted by MWSS as collector-contractors, sued MWSS for separation pay after their services were terminated when the collections department was transferred to a private company. MWSS claimed the petitioners were not employees. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding that MWSS exercised control over the petitioners' work, establishing an employer-employee relationship regardless of the contract terms. The Court said MWSS controlled work procedures, provided supplies and office space, and deducted taxes, among other factors showing an employment relationship existed.

    Original Description:

    labor law, MWSS, contractual, regularization

    Original Title

    Lopez v MWSS

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioners, who were contracted by MWSS as collector-contractors, sued MWSS for separation pay after their services were terminated when the collections department was transferred to a private company. MWSS claimed the petitioners were not employees. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding that MWSS exercised control over the petitioners' work, establishing an employer-employee relationship regardless of the contract terms. The Court said MWSS controlled work procedures, provided supplies and office space, and deducted taxes, among other factors showing an employment relationship existed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    107 views1 page

    Lopez V MWSS

    Uploaded by

    Joshua Pielago
    The petitioners, who were contracted by MWSS as collector-contractors, sued MWSS for separation pay after their services were terminated when the collections department was transferred to a private company. MWSS claimed the petitioners were not employees. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding that MWSS exercised control over the petitioners' work, establishing an employer-employee relationship regardless of the contract terms. The Court said MWSS controlled work procedures, provided supplies and office space, and deducted taxes, among other factors showing an employment relationship existed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    LOPEZ v MWSS GR 12600 October 7, 1988 CONTROL TEST

    A lot of petitioners (half a page). Contractor-collectors asserting that they are employees because MWSS exercises control. SC
    rules in favor of petitioner.
    Facts:
    - Lopez et al (many, many petitioners) were contracted by the MWSS as collector-contractors in different years
    - 1997: The collections department of MWSS was transferred to a private concessionaire. MWSS then terminated the
    services of the collector-contractors as well as their own employees in the said department. They gave separation pay
    to the latter but did not give any to the collector-contractors.
    - Lopez et al, the group of collector contractors, now sue MWSS on the grounds that they are employees of MWSS via
    the control test which means they should receive corresponding separation pays according to their service (citing Chua
    case)
    - MWSS states that they are not employees but mere contractors as can be clearly discerned from the contract.
    - MWSS also states that the petitioners are employees of the independent contractor ACGI.
    ISSUE:
    WoN the petitioners are actually employees of MWSS despite the clear pronouncement on the contract that they are
    simply contractors and denies the existence of an employee-employer relationship
    RULING:
    CA denies petition stating that the contract was clear in saying that the contractors are merely contractors. SC grants
    the petition.
    HELD:
    - YES, the petitioners are employees of MWSS because MWSS exercises control over them which creates an employee-
    employer relationship. This control is not present in a contractor:
    o On the contract stipulation:
    It is axiomatic that the existence of an employer-employee relationship cannot be negated by
    expressly repudiating it in an agreement and providing therein that the employee is "not an MWSS
    employee" when the terms of the agreement and the surrounding circumstances show otherwise. The
    employment status of a person is defined and prescribed by law and not by what the parties say it
    should be.
    o Control can be simply in existence and not practiced:
    In addition, the control test merely calls for the existence of the right to control, and not the exercise
    thereof. It is not essential for the employer to actually supervise the performance of duties of the
    employee, it is enough that the former has a right to wield the power.
    o Evidence of control are clearly shown in the records:
    Contrary to MWSS assertion that petitioners were "free to adopt (their) own method/strategy in the
    matter of collection", the Agreement clearly provided that the procedure and/or manner of the
    collection of bills to be followed shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Manual of
    Procedures. Art. VI of the Agreement
    Furthermore, petitioners did not have their own offices nor their own supplies and equipment. MWSS
    provides them with company stationeries, office space and equipment.74 Likewise, MWSS comported
    itself as the employer of petitioners, providing them with I.D.s. and certifications which declared them
    as employees of MWSS It also deducted and remitted petitioners withholding taxes and Medicare
    contributions
    - ON ACGI not being the employer:
    o ACGI does not have substantial capitalization or investment in the form of tools, equipment, machineries, work
    premises, and other materials, to qualify as an independent contractor.
    o the work of the private respondents was directly related to the principal business or operation of MWSS
    o ACGI did not carry on an independent business or undertake the performance of its service contract according
    to its own manner and method, free from the control and supervision of its principal, petitioner.

    You might also like