15 - Hydro V Pagalilauan
15 - Hydro V Pagalilauan
15 - Hydro V Pagalilauan
LABOR
ARBITER ADRIAN N. PAGALILAUAN and the NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION, public respondents, and ROGELIO A.
ABAN, private respondent.
FACTS:
The petitioner contends that its relationship with Aban is that of a client
with his lawyer. It is its position that a lawyer as long as he is acting as such, as
long as he is performing acts constituting practice of law, can never be
considered an employee. His relationship with those to whom he renders
services, as such lawyer, can never be governed by the labor laws. For a lawyer
to so argue is not only demeaning to himself, but also his profession and to his
brothers in the profession. Thus, the petitioner argues that the labor arbiter and
NLRC have no jurisdiction over the instant case.
ISSUE:
HELD:
Yes. A lawyer, like any other professional, may very well be an employee of
a private corporation or even of the government. It is not unusual for a big
corporation to hire a staff of lawyers as its in-house counsel, pay them regular
salaries, rank them in its table of organization, and otherwise treat them like its
other officers and employees. At the same time, it may also contract with a law
firm to act as outside counsel on a retainer basis. The two classes of lawyers
often work closely together but one group is made up of employees while the
other is not. A similar arrangement may exist as to doctors, nurses, dentists,
public relations practitioners, and other professionals.
The determination of whether or not there is an employer-employee
relation depends upon four standards: (1) the manner of selection and
engagement of the putative employee; (2) the mode of payment of wages; (3) the
presence or absence of a power of dismissal; and (4) the presence or absence of
a power to control the putative employee's conduct. Of the four, the right-of-
control test has been held to be the decisive factor.
ADJUDICATION: