As found by both the NLRC and the CA, respondents had no part in petitioners’ selection and management; petitioners’ compensation was paid out of the arriba(which is a percentage deducted from the total bets), not by petitioners; and petitioners performed their functions as masiador and sentenciador free from the direction and control of respondents. In the conduct of their work, petitioners relied mainly on their “expertise that is characteristic of the cockfight gambling,” and were never given by respondents any tool needed for the performance of their work.
Respondents, not being petitioners’ employers, could never have dismissed, legally or illegally, petitioners, since respondents were without power or prerogative to do so in the first place (Marticio Semblante and Dubrick Pilar Vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 196426. August 15, 2011).
No comments:
Post a Comment