[54] OROZCO v.

CA o Wilhelmina continuously submitted an article every

G.R. No. 155207; August 13, 2008; Nachura, J. week, except for a 6-month period when she was in
New York.
TOPIC: CONTROL TEST v. ECONOMIC REALITY TEST o Even then, she still sent her article through mail and
received P250, and later P300, per published article.
SUMMARY  [November 7, 1992] was the last time her articles were
Wilhelmina Orozco was engaged by the Philippine Daily published.
Inquirer to write a weekly column. She claims that her editor  Petitioner claims that she was told by her editor that
wanted her to stop publication because it failed to improve and respondent Magsanok wanted to stop publishing for no
was superficially and poorly written; failing to meet the high reason, but when brought up to Magsanok herself claimed
standards of the newspaper. Wilhelmina then filed a complaint that the PDI chairperson found that there were too many
for illegal dismissal, back wages, moral and exemplary articles published in the Lifestyle section.
damages. LA & NLRC ruled in favor of Wilhelmina. CA  PDI claims that the reason why it had stopped publication of
reversed their decision and the same is affirmed by the SC Wilhelmina’s articles was because it failed to improve and was
arguing that Wilhelmina was not dependent on PDI because superficially and poorly written; failing to meet the high
her main occupation was being a women’s right activist in standards of the newspaper.
several organizations and even contributes to other articles. o Wilhelmina then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal,
Their relationship then also fails the Economic Reality Test. backwages, moral and exemplary damages before
the NLRC.
DOCTRINE  LABOR ARBITER: ruled in favor of Wilhelmina on the ground
The determination of whether or not an employer-employee that the essential element of control was present and thus the
relationship exists is on a case-to-case basis. In determining latter was an employee of PDC.
however, the four-fold test has been consistently used. The The Labor Arbiter bases his findings on the fact that
most important element in the four-fold test is control. Control PDC had control over the subject of the article, length,
not only means control over the end product but also the and even perspective in that Wilhelmina’s articles had
means and methods in accomplishing the work. Where certain to be written on matters of feminine interest. The fact
limitations are inherent in the industry or business involved, that Wilhelmina did not have to report to work is of no
such inherent limitations cannot be considered in determining matter because her tasks were mainly mental. This
the presence of control. was supported by the occasion when PDI refused to
publish petitioner’s article about death for All Saints
RELEVANT PROVISION(S) Day.
 NLRC: On appeal, affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision.
FACTS  CA: Reversed the decision of the NLRC.
 [On March 1990], petitioner Wilhelmina Orozco was engaged o The CA found that no employment contract existed.
by the Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) to write a weekly column This is supported by the fact that Wilhelmina did not
for its Lifestyle Section. report 8 hours a day and left for New York for 6
 months without PDI’s permission; with no use whatever method of research. In fact, the title
repercussions. “Feminist Reflections” was chosen by her.
o With regard to the element of control, the CA found it o The only thing that PDC controlled was whether or not
to be lacking as well. The length is only a concern of to publish and nothing else.
practicality was to properly fit the page, while the  The Court also used the Economic Reality Test. This test
claimed control over the topic is not really such since involves looking into the economic realties prevailing
she could write about anything that would match a between the parties.
lifestyle section. PDI could control the result but not o In the present, Wilhelmina was not dependent on
the means. PDI because her main occupation was being a
women’s right activist in several organizations
ISSUE(S)/HELD and even contributes to other articles. Their
WON petitioner Wilhelmina is an employee of PDI. – NO relationship then also fails the Economic Reality
 Although Wilhelmina herself admitted that she "was not, and Test.
had never been considered respondent’s employee because  Wilhelmina is an independent contractor because PDI
the terms of works were arbitrarily decided upon by the was not involved in the actual performance of the product
respondent," it is the law and not the will of the parties that but only reserved the right to cancel or shorten the article
defines the status of employment in this jurisdiction. based on the newspaper’s capacity.
 The “four-fold test” has constantly been used by the court to
determine the existence of an employer-employee RULING
relationship. The test is whether or not the four elements of Considering that respondent PDI was not petitioner’s
employment exist; namely: employer, it cannot be held guilty of illegal dismissal.
a. the selection and engagement of the employee;
b. the payment of wages; DISPOSITIVE: Decision of the CA is AFFIRMED.
c. the power of dismissal; and
d. the employer’s power to control the employee’s
conduct.
 The element of control, or whether the employer controls or
may control the means and methods in accomplishing the
work as well as the end product, is the most important in
determining said relationship.
 The Court found that the “control” that PDI exerted on
Wilhelmina are inherent conditions in every newspaper and
such restrictions are dictated by the nature of the business
and not the “employer.”
o Petitioner in the present case was proven to be able
to write in the style she was accustomed to as well as