Dear PAO,

A friend worked as a delivery rider for an online shopping website that also offers free delivery of its products. The online company directly hired my friend, and his supervisor assigned the pickup and drop-off of the packages, including the number of packages to be delivered. A daily delivery route was also given to my friend. However, he was recently terminated from work after getting his salary from the company. He was not given any reason for his termination. Thus, he informed his supervisor of his intention to file a complaint for illegal dismissal. However, his supervisor claimed that he cannot file a complaint for illegal dismissal since he is not considered an employee of the company. Is my friend an employee of the company?

Greta

Dear Greta,

The 1987 Philippine Constitution recognizes labor as a primary social economic force and provides full protection to labor. This social policy is enshrined in Article XIII, Section 3, which states that:

“SECTION 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.

“It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law. xxx”

In the case of Ditiangkin v. Lazada E-Services Philippines, Inc. (GR 246892, Sept. 21, 2022, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen), the Supreme Court used the four-fold test in determining whether a delivery rider is considered an employee of Lazada:

“Here, the four factors are present. First, petitioners are directly employed by respondent Lazada as evidenced by the Contracts they signed. Petitioner’s former employer, RGSERVE, Inc., is not a party to the Contract with respondent Lazada. Second, as indicated in the Contract, petitioners receive their salaries from respondent Lazada. Petitioners are paid by respondent Lazada the amount of P1,200.00 for each day of service. Third, respondent Lazada has the power to dismiss petitioners. In their contract, respondents can immediately terminate the agreement if there is a breach of material provisions of the Contract. Lastly, respondent Lazada has control over the means and methods of the performance of petitioners’ work.”

Thus, based on your narration and applying the four-fold test, your friend may be considered an employee of the online shopping company. Your friend was directly hired by the company and receives a salary from the latter for work rendered. The power to dismiss was also exhibited when the company terminated the services of your friend. Lastly, control was present, considering that the company supervised the pickup and drop-off of the packages, including the number of packages to be delivered and the day-to-day delivery route.

It is also important to note that the work rendered by your friend in the company, which offers free delivery of items ordered online, is an essential and indispensable process in the operations of its business; a badge of regular employment. The delivery of its products is certainly integrated in the services offered by the company. Similar to the Lazada case: “In carrying out their business, they are not merely a platform where parties can transact; they also offer the delivery of the items from the sellers to the buyers. The delivery eases the transaction between the sellers and buyers and is an integral part of respondent Lazada’s business. Further, respondent Lazada admitted that it has different route managers to supervise the delivery of the products from the sellers to the buyers. Thus, it has taken steps to facilitate not only the transaction of the seller and buyer in the online platform but also the delivery of the items.” (Supra)

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]