Based on the records, the petty cash vouchers were signed only by petitioner while the portion for “approved for payment” was unsigned. The petty cash vouchers were also the standard petty cash vouchers available at bookstores and other shops which could easily be manufactured by any person. On the other hand, it could not be certified that M.I.Y. was the payor of the ATM card.

Third, M.I.Y. did not have the power to dismiss petitioner. The Notice of Termination presented by petitioner was not signed by an employee of M.I.Y. Based on the records, the Notice of Termination designated a certain Jerickson Añonuevo as the HR&T Supervisor but the Notice of Termination remained unsigned. It was not proven that Jerickson Añonuevo was in any way connected to M.I.Y.

Finally, M.I.Y. did not have the power to control petitioner’s conduct. M.I.Y. did not control the means and methods by which petitioner performed her tasks as FM&S staff. The clear absence of the power of control led to the conclusion that petitioner was not an employee of M.I.Y.

Here, the control test was sufficient to determine the absence of an employer-employee relationship between petitioner and M.I.Y. Thus, the economic realities of the employment under the economic dependence test will not be discussed.

Moreover, we agree with the CA that petitioner’s employment with Yu was undisputed under the records and that this fact strengthened M.I.Y.’s argument that petitioner was not its regular employee:

What was undisputed under the records was that [Gaspar] was hired by [Yu] as a househelp and was assigned initially to the latter’s residence in Pasig. Later, she was transferred to [Yu’s Makati City residence] located in the same building where [M.I.Y.] holds office.

These pieces of factual evidence strengthened the allegation that [Gaspar] was not an employee of [M.I.Y.]. Since the employer-­employee relationship was not proven, there was no illegal dismissal to speak of. Therefore, [Gaspar] was not entitled to separation pay, back wages, and damages.

Accordingly, the CA correctly ruled that there was no illegal dismissal and that Gaspar was not entitled to any of her money claims. The specific provisions mandating the grant of overtime pay, holiday pay, premium pay, and service incentive leave are provided under Book III, Title I of the Labor Code of the Philippines. In fact, Article 82 of the Labor Code specifically defines the scope of application of the relevant provisions and expressly excludes domestic helpers from its coverage.

The Court scrutinized the relationship between petitioner and Yu, and found that there existed a domestic employment relationship between them.

Under Republic Act No. 10361, known as the “Domestic Workers Act” or “Batas Kasambahay,” “domestic work” is defined as work performed in or for a household or households. The same law defines a “domestic worker” or “kasambahay” as any person engaged in domestic work within an employment relationship such as, but not limited to, the following: general house help (sic), nursemaid or “yaya,” cook, gardener, or laundry person, but shall exclude any person who performs domestic work only occasionally or sporadically and not on an occupational basis.

(To be continued)