GR 64948; (September, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 64948 September 27, 1994
MANILA GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB, INC., petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and FERMIN LLAMAR, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Fermin Llamar, along with other caddies, filed a petition with the Social Security Commission (SSC Case No. 5443) seeking compulsory coverage and benefits under the Social Security Act, alleging they were employees of the Manila Golf & Country Club, Inc. The Club contested, arguing the caddies were not its employees as they rendered services to individual members/guests who paid them directly, and the Club did not control the manner of their work. The SSC dismissed the petition, ruling no employer-employee relationship existed, emphasizing that caddy fees were paid by players, not the Club, and the Club’s rules were for discipline, not control over work means and methods. Llamar appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC), which reversed the SSC, declaring him an employee based on the Club’s rules, group rotation system, and suggested fee rates, applying the “control test.” The Club elevated the case to the Supreme Court via petition for review.
ISSUE
Whether persons rendering caddying services for members and guests of a golf club are employees of the club, thereby subject to compulsory Social Security System coverage.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the IAC decision and reinstated the SSC’s dismissal. The Court held that no employer-employee relationship existed between the Club and Fermin Llamar. The “control test” is decisive, requiring the employer to control not only the work result but also the means and methods to accomplish it. The Club’s rules and regulations were primarily for discipline and order within its premises, not for controlling how the caddies performed their actual work of assisting players. The caddies were free to offer their services, were paid directly by the players, observed no definite working hours, and had no fixed income. The Club did not have the power to dismiss them as employees; withdrawing their access to the premises was a withdrawal of a privilege, not a termination of employment. Thus, the Club had no obligation to report Llamar for SSS coverage.