G.R. No. 104658. April 7, 1993.
PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and CLARITA T. CAMACHO, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Clarita T. Camacho, operator of a gasoline station selling petitioner Shell’s products, requested a hydro-pressure test on her underground storage tanks to check for leakages. Petitioner acceded, and on April 27, 1983, Jesus “Jessie” Feliciano and his men arrived with a Job Order from petitioner to perform the test. They drained a tank, filled it with water, and left after instructing a gasoline boy to shut off the water. The following morning, water had mixed with gasoline in an adjacent tank, causing customer complaints, a police complaint, and negative publicity. Feliciano, upon returning, investigated with a Shell superintendent. Petitioner settled the criminal complaint filed by a customer. Private respondent then demanded damages from petitioner, which was refused on the ground that Feliciano was an independent contractor. Private respondent filed a complaint for damages. The trial court dismissed the complaint, ruling Feliciano was an independent contractor responsible for his own acts. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding petitioner liable. Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation and Jesus Feliciano, making petitioner liable for the damages resulting from the hydro-pressure test.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court ruled that no employer-employee relationship existed. The Court applied the four-fold test, emphasizing the control test as the most important element. Petitioner did not exercise control over Feliciano regarding the manner of conducting the hydro-pressure test; it merely relayed the request. There was no Shell representative at the job site during the test. Feliciano maintained an independent business (“JFS Repair and Maintenance Service”), was duly registered, charged lump sums per job, used his own tools and workers, was not required to work regularly, and could accept other clients (except from other oil companies). These are hallmarks of an independent contractor under Section 8, Rule VIII, Book III of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. As an independent contractor, Feliciano alone was responsible for his own acts and omissions. Consequently, petitioner could not be held liable. The decision of the Court of Appeals was set aside and the trial court’s decision was reinstated.