Gapayao vs. Fulo
Gapayao vs. Fulo
Gapayao vs. Fulo
We agree with the CA that petitioner wielded control over the deceased in
the discharge of his functions. Being the owner of the farm, petitioner
necessarily had the right to review the quality of work produced by his
laborers. It matters not whether the deceased conducted his work inside
petitioners farm or not because petitioner retained the right to control him
in his work, and in fact exercised it through his farm manager Amado Gacelo.
The latte himself testified that petitioner had hired the deceased as one of
the pakyaw workers whose salaries were derived from the gross proceeds of
the harvest.
Petitioner entered into the agreement with full knowledge that he was
described as the employer of the deceased. This knowledge cannot simply be
denied by a statement that petitioner was merely forced into such an
agreement.