LABOR CASES

Ariel L. David v. John G. Macasio GR No. 195466

Date: July 2, 2014
Ponente: Brion, J:
DOCTRINE
Engagement in “pakyaw” or task basis does not negate the existence of employer-employee relationship.
FACTS
Macasio filed a complaint against David, doing business under the name and style “Yiels Hog Dealer”, for
non-payment of overtime pay, holiday pay, 13th month pay, and SIL plus moral and exemplary damages
and attorney’s fees.
Macasio alleged that he has been working as a butcher for David. Macasio claimed that David exercised
control and supervision over his work because David:
1. Set the work day, reporting time and hogs to be chopped, as well as the manner by which he was to
perform his work;
2. Daily paid his salary of P700.00;
3. Approved and disapproved his lease; and
4. Owned the hogs delivered for chopping, as well as the work and implements and also rented the
workplace.
On the otherhand, David claimed that he hired Macasio on “pakyaw” or task basis thus he is not entitled to
the benefits claimed. David pointed out that Macasio’s work starts at 10:00 pm to 2:00 am depending on
the volume of hogs delivered. Macasio was paid a fixed amount regardless of the number of hogs chopped
but was not engaged to work, and accordingly not paid, when no hogs are delivered.
To support his claim, he presented the Certificate of Employment issued to him and likewise faulted David
for not presenting evidence the DTR’s and payrolls which could have easily established Macasio’s claims.
David however, insists that Macasio wa snpt his employee as he was engaged in “pakyaw” or task basis
and that the COE was issued only for overseas employment purposes.
ISSUE/S
I. Whether or not the engagement on “pakyaw” or task basis negates the existence of employer-
employee relationship between the parties involved.
RULING
The Court ruled in the NEGATIVE. Engagement in “pakyaw” or task basis does not characterize the
relationship between the parties whether employment or independent contractorship. It only determines the
manner of calculation of the wages due to the employee which, is in this case, is the quantity or quality of
work done.
Moreover, applying the control test, employer-employee relationship exists in this case as shown by the
following circumstance;
1. David engaged the services of Macasio;
2. David paid Macasio’s wages;
3. David had been setting the day and time when Macasio should report for work;
4. David rents the place where Macasio had been performing his tasks;
 5. Macasio would elave the workplace only after he had finished chopping all of the hog meats given
to him for the day’s task; and
6. David would engage Macasio’s services and have him report for work even during the days when
only few hogs were delivered for butchering.
The totality of the surrounding circumstances of the present case sufficiently points to an employer-
employee relationship existing between David and Macasio.