G.R. No. L-23727 November 29, 1971
SNOW WHITE ICE CREAM & ICE DROP FACTORY and/or JOSE FUTCHIAN CHING (SO DEE), petitioners, vs. EMILIO GARCIA (Deceased), Substituted by: JOVITA LOZANO VDA. DE GARCIA, for herself and in behalf of her minor children RODOLFO, ANGELITA, MARIA, EMILIO, JR., and CORAZON, all surnamed GARCIA, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from a claim for workmen’s compensation filed by Emilio Garcia, an ice drop vendor, against Snow White Ice Cream & Ice Drop Factory. Garcia began working for the petitioner in 1953, selling ice drops on a commission basis of P0.02 per piece. His duties included breaking blocks of ice, loading them into a pushcart to preserve the ice drops, and repairing pushcarts. On July 27, 1960, while preparing his pushcart, a block of ice fell on his right foot, injuring three toes. He continued working but later suffered a subsequent injury when his swollen foot was hit by barbed wire. The condition worsened, leading to the amputation of his right foot below the knee. Garcia died on September 3, 1962, and his heirs were substituted as claimants.
The Workmen’s Compensation Commission, through Associate Commissioner Jose Sanchez, found an employer-employee relationship and awarded compensation. The Commission en banc, upon motion for reconsideration, failed to muster a majority vote to set aside the award, resulting in its affirmation. The petitioners sought review, arguing primarily that Garcia was an independent contractor, not an employee, as he bought ice drops at P0.03 and sold them at P0.05, could return unsold items for credit, and his earnings were based on sales.

ISSUE

The principal issue is whether an employer-employee relationship existed between the deceased ice drop vendor, Emilio Garcia, and the petitioner, Snow White Ice Cream & Ice Drop Factory, such that the Workmen’s Compensation Act applies.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the award, ruling that an employer-employee relationship did exist. The Court applied the “control test” established in Investment Planning Corporation v. Social Security System. The decisive criterion is whether the employer has the right to control not only the end to be achieved but also the means and methods by which the work is accomplished.
From the established facts, the Court found the element of control present. Garcia was supplied with essential tools like the pushcart, crushed ice, ice picks, and salt by the petitioner. The pushcart bore the company’s trade name, indicating he was representing the business. While his compensation was commission-based, the arrangement where he could return unsold ice drops for credit undermined the assertion of an independent vendor-purchaser relationship. His work was integral to the petitioner’s distribution system, and he devoted his entire time to selling the petitioner’s product. These circumstances demonstrated that the petitioner retained control over significant aspects of the work. The Court cited Larson’s treatise on workmen’s compensation and analogous American jurisprudence, which presumes employment for distributors who do not hold themselves out as independent businessmen. The findings of fact by the Commission were binding, and the legal conclusion of employment was correct. The award to the deceased’s heirs was sustained.