Practice question
A company directly engages and pays routine delivery workers, but invokes a rule about a separate contractor’s substantial capital as if a third-party contracting business had hired them. No such intermediary exists. Under Ditiangkin, which evidentiary approach is correct?
- Examine the actual bilateral engagement and asserted independent status rather than invent a missing contractor
- Assume a third-party contractor exists whenever a worker owns a vehicle
- Treat capital language as conclusive proof of every classification
- Disregard the company’s direct contracts and payment
- Require the workers to prove the financial statements of a nonexistent intermediary
Legal references
- Ditiangkin v Lazada GR246892 September21,2022 MAIN: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/sep2022/gr_246892_2022.html Evidence of retained control and economic realities.
- Hacienda San Isidro v Villaruel GR220087 August11,2025 MAIN resolution: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/aug2025/gr_220087_2025.html Employment existence precedes Article295 classification.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.