[FOUR-FOLD TEST-BURDEN OF PROOF]  LA: Ruled that petitioners are regular employees since they performed work

MARTICIO SEMBLANTE AND DUBRICK PILAR V. CA, GALLERA DE MANDAUE that was necessary and indispensable to the usual trad and business of
AND SPOUSES LOOT respondents for years. Thus, they were illegally dismissed.
August 15, 2011 | VELASCO JR., J.  NLRC: Reversed LA saying there was no employer-employee relationship
since Sps. Loot had no part in the selection and engagement of petitioners
Petitioner/s: MARTICIO SEMBLANTE AND DUBRICK PILAR and no separate individual contract was executed between them.
Respondents: CA, GALLERA DE MANDAUE / SPOUSES VICENTE AND MARIA  CA: Upheld NLRC ruling that referees and bet-takers in a cockfight need to
LUISA LOOT have the kind of expertise that is characteristic of the game to interpret
messages conveyed by mere gestures. Hence, petitioners are akin to
Doctrine: Four-fold test of employment We have repeatedly mentioned in countless independent contractors who possess unique skills, expertise, and talent to
decisions: distinguish them from ordinary employees. Further, respondents did not
1) the selection and engagement of the employee; supply petitioners with the tools and instrumentalities they needed to perform
2) the payment of wages; work.
3) the power of dismissal; and
4) the power to control the employee's conduct, which is the most Issues/Ruling:
important element W/N there is an employer-employee relationship between petitioner and
respondent, hence illegal dismissal – NO, their relationship failed to pass the four-
Facts: fold test.
 Semblante and Pilar assert that they were hired by Sps. Loot, the owners of  Four-fold test of employment We have repeatedly mentioned in countless
a cockpit called Gallera de Mandaue, as the official masiador and decisions:
sentenciador, respectively, of the cockpit sometime in 1993. o the selection and engagement of the employee;
o As the masiador: Semblante calls and takes the bets from the o the payment of wages;
gamecock owners and other bettors and orders the start of the o the power of dismissal; and
cockfight. He also distributes the winnings after deducting the o the power to control the employee's conduct, which is the most
arriba, or the commission for the cockpit. important element
o As the sentenciador: Pilar oversees the proper gaffing of fighting  Petitioners' compensation was paid out of the arriba (which is a percentage
cocks, determines the fighting cocks' physical condition and deducted from the total bets), not by respondents.
capabilities to continue the cockfight, and eventually declares the  Petitioners performed their functions as masiador and sentenciador free from
result of the cockfight. the direction and control of respondents.
 Semblante receives PhP 2,000 per week or a total of PhP 8,000 per month, o In the conduct of their work, petitioners relied mainly on their
while Pilar gets PhP 3,500 a week or PhP 14,000 per month. "expertise that is characteristic of the cockfight gambling,"and were
 They work every Tuesday, Wednesday, Saturday, and Sunday every week, never given by respondents any tool needed for the performance of
excluding monthly derbies and cockfights held on special holidays. their work.
 Their working days start at 1:00 p.m. and last until 12:00 midnight, or until  Respondents, not being petitioners' employers, could never have dismissed,
the early hours of the morning depending on the needs of the cockpit. legally or illegally, petitioners, since respondents were without power or
 They were both issued employees' identification cards that they wear every prerogative to do so in the first place.
time they report for duty.
 On November 14, 2003, they were denied entry into the cockpit upon Dispositive
instructions of Sps. Loot and were informed of the termination of their WHEREFORE, We DENY this petition and AFFIRM the May 29, 2009 Decision and
services effective that day. February 23, 2010 Resolution of the CA, and the October 18, 2006 Resolution of the
 They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. NLRC.
 Sps. Loot denied that petitioners were their employees and alleged that they
were associates of their independent contractor, Tomas Vega.
o Claimed that petitioners have no regular working time or day and
they are free to decide for themselves whether to report for work or
not on any cockfighting day.
o In times when there are few cockfights in Gallera de Mandaue,
petitioners go to other cockpits in the vicinity.
o Lastly, they asserted that petitioners were only issued identification
cards to indicate that they were free from the normal entrance fee
and to differentiate them from the general public.