Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Manila Golf Vs Iac Digest Case

    Uploaded by

    Mariam Petilla
    The Supreme Court ruled that caddies at the Manila Golf and Country Club were not employees of the club and were therefore not eligible for coverage under the Social Security Act. While the club had some regulations for caddies regarding their conduct and a group rotation system, this did not give the club sufficient control over the caddies to establish an employer-employee relationship. The club did not pay wages to the caddies and did not control how they did their work or how many hours they worked. Therefore, the golf club was not obligated to enroll the caddies in the Social Security System.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Manila Golf Vs Iac Digest Case

    Uploaded by

    Mariam Petilla
    1K views3 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that caddies at the Manila Golf and Country Club were not employees of the club and were therefore not eligible for coverage under the Social Security Act. While the club had some regulations for caddies regarding their conduct and a group rotation system, this did not give the club sufficient control over the caddies to establish an employer-employee relationship. The club did not pay wages to the caddies and did not control how they did their work or how many hours they worked. Therefore, the golf club was not obligated to enroll the caddies in the Social Security System.

    Original Description:

    MANILA GOLF vs IAC

    Original Title

    Manila Golf vs Iac Digest Case

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that caddies at the Manila Golf and Country Club were not employees of the club and were therefore not eligible for coverage under the Social Security Act. While the club had some regulations for caddies regarding their conduct and a group rotation system, this did not give the club sufficient control over the caddies to establish an employer-employee relationship. The club did not pay wages to the caddies and did not control how they did their work or how many hours they worked. Therefore, the golf club was not obligated to enroll the caddies in the Social Security System.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views3 pages

    Manila Golf Vs Iac Digest Case

    Uploaded by

    Mariam Petilla
    The Supreme Court ruled that caddies at the Manila Golf and Country Club were not employees of the club and were therefore not eligible for coverage under the Social Security Act. While the club had some regulations for caddies regarding their conduct and a group rotation system, this did not give the club sufficient control over the caddies to establish an employer-employee relationship. The club did not pay wages to the caddies and did not control how they did their work or how many hours they worked. Therefore, the golf club was not obligated to enroll the caddies in the Social Security System.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Manila Golf & Country Club Inc. vs.

    IAC
    237 SCRA 207

    Facts: The "Caddies of Manila Golf and Country Club-PTCCEA" petitioned with Social Security
    Commission (SSC) for coverage and availment of benefits under the Social Security Act as
    amended. Manila Golf and Country Club (MGC), had not registered them as employees with the
    SSS based on the absence of 2 elements: (1) payment of wages(paid by the golf players
    themselves and not by respondent club. ) and (2) control or supervision over them.(manner in
    which they performed their work). SSC dismissed their petition.Thus they appealed to IAC. The
    latter declared that employer-employee relationship between the Club and Fermin Llamar
    passed the so-called "control test,".: 24-hour rules and regulations, group rotation system,
    club's "suggesting" the rate of fees payable to the caddies.

    Issue: Whether or not persons rendering caddying services for members of golf clubs and their
    guests in said clubs’ courses or premises are the employees and therefore within the
    compulsory coverage of the Social Security System(SSS).

    HELD: No. Petitioner's regulations, does not circumscribe the actions or judgment of the
    caddiesconcerned as to leave them little or no freedom of choice whatsoever in the manner of
    carrying out theirservices. Caddies must submit to some supervision of their conduct while
    enjoying the privilege of pursuing their occupation within the premises. Club has no measure of
    control over the incidents of thecaddies' work and compensation that an employer would
    possess. The group rotation system so-called, is less a measure of employer control than an
    assurance that the work is fairly distributed, a caddy who is absent when his turn number is
    called simply losing his turn to serve and being assigned instead the last number for the day.
    The caddies were not required to render a definite number of hours of work on a single day.
    Even the group rotation of caddies is not absolute because a player is at liberty to choose
    acaddy of his preference regardless of the caddy's order in the rotation.
    Fermin Llamar is not an employee of the petitioner Manila Golf and Country Club and that
    petitioner is under no obligation to report him for compulsory coverage to the Social Security
    System.
    Recommended Documents

    You might also like