After she was fired, petitioner insisted she was an employee of the respondent real estate company. She maintained that she was in charge of the cleanliness and upkeep of the premises and rendered more than a year of service. Respondent company, however, denied this.

It alleged that the company was only made up of four employees, and she was not one of them. Rather, it argued that she was the domestic helper of the other respondent who maintained her residence in the same building where the respondent company held office.

Dissatisfied, petitioner haled both respondents to the National Labor Relations Commission, which has exclusive jurisdiction over labor disputes. The labor arbiter, applying the four-fold test, found for the respondents and ruled that petitioner was not an employee of the company.

Unfazed, petitioner brought the matter up to the Court of Appeals, which sustained the Commission.

Not giving up, she went to the Supreme Court to question the ruling of the Court of Appeals. She insisted all throughout that she was an employee of the respondent company. Thus, decreed the High Tribunal: “The Court scrutinized the relationship between petitioner and M.I.Y., and found that there was no employer-employee relationship between them.”

In the recent case of Ditiangkin, the High Court ruled that the existence of an employer-employee relationship is determined by employing a two-tiered test: the four-fold test and the economic dependence test.

The often-cited four-fold test requires the concurrence of the following factors: (1) the employer’s selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power to dismiss; and (4) the power to control the employee’s conduct.

The Court held that the power to control is the most significant among the four factors. Under this test, an employer-employee relationship exists where the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end achieved, but also the manner and means to be used in reaching that end.

In Ditiangkin, the Court elaborated that the power to control extends not only over the work done but over the means and methods by which the employee must accomplish the work. Moreover, it is sufficient that the employer “has a right to wield the power [of control]” even without actually exercising such power.

The Court only applies the economic dependence test when the control test is insufficient. In the economic dependence test, the economic realities of the employment, such as, among others, the extent to which the services performed are an integral part of the employer’s business, or the extent of the worker’s investment in equipment and facilities, are considered to get a comprehensive assessment of the true classification of the worker.

We agree with the appellate court’s application of the four-fold test in the case at bar and its finding that there was an absence of an employer-­employee relationship between petitioner and M.I.Y.

First, there was no evidence to prove that M.I.Y. selected the petitioner and engaged her to work as FM&S staff in the company. She merely presented clearances from a certain “Asian Group of Companies,” which did not prove that she was hired by M.I.Y.

Second, there was no evidence to prove that M.I.Y. paid her wages. Although petitioner presented petty cash vouchers and an unauthenticated and unverified copy of an ATM card, these pieces of evidence could not be considered evidence of an employment relationship between the parties. (To be continued)