6-16

6-17Quite apart from the evidently distinct and different character of the requirement to pay income tax in contrast to the requirement to file a tax return, it appears that the exemption granted to the petitioners by the Bases Agreement from payment of income tax is not absolute. By the explicit terms of the Bases Agreement, it exists only as regards income derived from their employment "in the Philippines in connection with construction, maintenance, operation or defense of the bases;" it does not exist in respect of other income, i.e., "income derived from Philippine sources or sources other than the US sources." Obviously, with respect to the latter form of income, i.e., that obtained or proceeding from "Philippine sources or sources other than the US sources," the petitioners, and all other American nationals who are residents of the Philippines, are legally bound to pay tax thereon. In other words, so that American nationals residing in the country may be relieved of the duty to pay income tax for any given year, it is incumbent on them to show the Bureau of Internal Revenue that in that year they had derived income exclusively from their employment in connection with the U.S. bases, and none whatever "from Philippine sources or sources other than the US sources." They have to make this known to the Government authorities. It is not in the first instance the latter's duty or burden to make unaided verification of the sources of income of American residents. The duty rests on the U.S. nationals concerned to invoke andprima facieestablish their tax-exempt status. It cannot simply be presumed that they earned no income from any other sources than their employment in the American bases and are therefore totally exempt from income tax. The situation is no different from that of Filipino and other resident income-earners in the Philippines who, by reason of the personal exemptions and permissible deductions under the Tax Code, may not be liable to pay income tax year for any particular year; that they are not liable to pay income tax, no matter how plain or irrefutable such a proposition might be, does not exempt them from the duty to file an income tax return.6-18In determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, the elements that are generally considered are the following: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer's power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished. It. is the called "control test" that is the most important element (Investment Planning Corp. of the Phils. v. The Social Security System, 21 SCRA 924; Mafinco Trading Corp. v. Ople,supra,and Rosario Brothers, Inc. v. Ople, 131 SCRA 72).Applying the above criteria, the evidence strongly indicates the existence of an employer-employee relationship between petitioner workers and respondent San Miguel Corporation. The respondent asserts that the petitioners are employees of the Guaranteed Labor Contractor, an independent labor contracting firm.The facts and evidence on record negate respondent SMC's claim.The existence of an independent contractor relationship is generally established by the following criteria: "whether or not the contractor is carrying on an independent business; the nature and extent of the work; the skill required; the term and duration of the relationship; the right to assign the performance of a specified piece of work; the control and supervision of the work to another; the employer's power with respect to the hiring, firing and payment of the contractor's workers; the control of the premises; the duty to supply the premises tools, appliances, materials and labor; and the mode, manner and terms of payment" (56 CJS Master and Servant, Sec. 3(2), 46; See also 27 AM. Jur. Independent Contractor, Sec. 5, 485 and Annex 75 ALR 7260727)None of the above criteria exists in the case at bar.Highly unusual and suspect is the absence of a written contract to specify the performance of a specified piece of work, the nature and extent of the work and the term and duration of the relationship. The records fail to show that a large commercial outfit, such as the San Miguel Corporation, entered into mere oral agreements of employment or labor contracting where the same would involve considerable expenses and dealings with a large number of workers over a long period of time. Despite respondent company's allegations not an iota of evidence was offered to prove the same or its particulars. Such failure makes respondent SMC's stand subject to serious doubts.Uncontroverted is the fact that for an average of seven (7) years, each of the petitioners had worked continuously and exclusively for the respondent company's shipping and warehousing department. Considering the length of time that the petitioners have worked with the respondent company, there is justification to conclude that they were engaged to perform activities necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the respondent, and the petitioners are, therefore regular employees (Phil. Fishing Boat Officers and Engineers Union v. Court of Industrial Relations, 112 SCRA 159 and RJL Martinez Fishing Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 127 SCRA 454).6-19Susana Paterno, wife of Vicente Madrigal, has an inchoate right in the property of her husband Vicente Madrigal during the life of the conjugal partnership. She has an interest in the ultimate property rights and in the ultimate ownership of property acquired as income after such income has become capital. Susana Paterno has no absolute right to one-half the income of the conjugal partnership. Not being seized of a separate estate, Susana Paterno cannot make a separate return in order to receive the benefit of the exemption which would arise by reason of the additional tax. As she has no estate and income, actually and legally vested in her and entirely distinct from her husband's property, the income cannot properly be considered the separate income of the wife for the purposes of the additional tax. Moreover, the Income Tax Law does not look on the spouses as individual partners in an ordinary partnership. The husband and wife are only entitled to the exemption of P8,000 specifically granted by the law. The higher schedules of the additional tax directed at the incomes of the wealthy may not be partially defeated by reliance on provisions in our Civil Code dealing with the conjugal partnership and having no application to the Income Tax Law. The aims and purposes of the Income Tax Law must be given effect.