G.R. No. 249737, September 15, 2021
EDITA SANTOS DEGAMO, PETITIONER, VS. MY CITIHOMES (CITIHOMES BUILDER & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION), JOHN WANG, AND ROSIE WANG, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Edita Santos Degamo filed a Complaint for non-payment of commission fees against respondent My Citihomes (Citihomes), a domestic corporation engaged in real estate development and construction. Petitioner alleged she was hired by Citihomes on March 1, 2015, through its licensed real estate broker, Evelyn Abapo, initially as an agent and later promoted to sales manager. Her tasks included soliciting clients, advising on properties, supervising consultants, manning booths, and reporting to the office. She resigned effective April 30, 2017, due to low sales, but claimed Citihomes refused to pay her commission fees for 18 successfully sold properties. Citihomes contended that petitioner was not its employee but a sales agent of Ms. Abapo, an independent licensed broker who hired and paid petitioner from her allocated commissions. Citihomes argued it did not exercise control over petitioner’s work methods and that no employer-employee relationship existed, thus the Labor Arbiter lacked jurisdiction. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner, finding Ms. Abapo to be a labor-only contractor and Citihomes as the real employer, ordering payment of commission fees for 10 accounts. The NLRC reversed this decision, holding no employer-employee relationship existed, as petitioner was engaged by Ms. Abapo as an independent contractor, and Citihomes did not control her means and methods of work. The CA affirmed the NLRC ruling, dismissing the petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether there was an employer-employee relationship between Citihomes and petitioner.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA Decision. The Court held that the four-fold test for establishing an employer-employee relationship was not satisfied. Petitioner failed to substantiate her claim with substantial evidence. Specifically: (1) The selection and engagement were done by Ms. Abapo, an independent licensed broker, not directly by Citihomes; (2) The payment of commissions came from Ms. Abapo’s allocation, not directly from Citihomes as wages; (3) Citihomes did not have the power to dismiss petitioner; and (4) Citihomes did not exercise control over the means and methods by which petitioner performed her work—the “control test,” which is the most significant determinant, was absent. The periodic reports to Citihomes were merely for updates on performance, not indicative of control over work methods. The Court also noted that allegations of labor-only contracting were unproven, and the burden of proving an employer-employee relationship rested on petitioner, which she failed to discharge. Consequently, without such a relationship, the labor tribunals had no jurisdiction over the money claim.