Almirante: Employer-employee relationship

PETITIONER Expedition Construction Corp. (Expedition) is engaged in garbage collection and hauling.

It engaged the services of respondents Alexander M. Africa and 14 others as garbage truck drivers to collect garbage from different cities and transport the same to the designated dumping site.

Respondents filed separate cases against Expedition for illegal dismissal, asking for separation pay, labor standard benefits, damages and attorney’s fees.

Expedition invoked the defense that respondents were not its employees. It claimed that respondents were not part of the company’s payroll but were being paid on a per trip basis. They were not under Expedition’s direct control and supervision as they worked on their own, were not subjected to company rules nor were required to observe regular/fixed working hours and that they hired and paid their respective garbage collectors.

Does this defense find merit?

Ruling: No.

The Court finds Expedition’s position untenable.

First, as clearly admitted, respondents were engaged/hired by Expedition as garbage truck drivers. Second, it is undeniable that respondents received compensation from Expedition for the services that they rendered to the latter. The fact that respondents were paid on a per trip basis is irrelevant in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship because this was merely the method of computing the proper compensation due to respondents. Third, Expedition’s power to dismiss was apparent when work was withheld from respondents as a result of the termination of the contracts with Quezon City and Caloocan City. Finally, Expedition has the power of control over respondents in the performance of their work. It was held that “the power of control refers merely to the existence of the power and not to the actual exercise thereof.”

As aptly observed by the CA, the agreements for the collection of garbage were between Expedition and the various LGUs, and respondents needed the instruction and supervision of Expedition to effectively perform their work in accordance with the stipulations of the agreements.

Moreover, the trucks driven by respondents were owned by Expedition. There was an express instruction that these trucks were to be exclusively used to collect and transport garbage. Respondents were mandated to return the trucks to the premises of Expedition after the collection of garbage. Expedition determined the clients to be served, the location where the garbage is to be collected and when it is to be collected.

Indeed, Expedition determined how, where, and when respondents would perform their tasks. (Expedition Construction Corporation, et.al. vs. Alexander M. Africa, et. al., G.R. No. 228671, December 14, 2017).