When one notes a contract, one is not expressing his agreement or approval, as a party would.[46] In Sichangco v. Board of Commissioners of Immigration,[47] the Court recognized that the term noted means that the person so noting has merely taken cognizance of the existence of an act or declaration, without exercising a judicious deliberation or rendering a decision on the matter. Mr. Cergueda merely signed the witnessing part of the document. The witnessing part of the document is that which, in a deed or other formal instrument is that part which comes after the recitals, or where there are no recitals, after the parties (emphasis ours).[48] As opposed to a party to a contract, a witness is simply one who, being present, personally sees or perceives a thing; a beholder, a spectator, or eyewitness.[49]One who notes something just makes a brief written statement[50] a memorandum or observation. Second, and more importantly, there was no existing employer-employee relationship between Santos and MHICL. In determining the existence of an employeremployee relationship, the following elements are considered:[51] (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power to dismiss; and (4) the power to control employees conduct. MHICL did not have and did not exercise any of the aforementioned powers. It did not select respondent Santos as an employee for the Palace Hotel. He was referred to the Palace Hotel by his friend, Nestor Buenio. MHICL did not engage respondent Santos to work. The terms of employment were negotiated and finalized through correspondence between respondent Santos, Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Henk, who were officers and representatives of the Palace Hotel and not MHICL. Neither did respondent Santos adduce any proof that MHICL had the power to control his conduct. Finally, it was the Palace Hotel, through Mr. Schmidt and not MHICL that terminated respondent Santos services. Neither is there evidence to suggest that MHICL was a labor-only contractor.[52] There is no proof that MHICL supplied respondent Santos or even referred him for employment to the Palace Hotel. Likewise, there is no evidence to show that the Palace Hotel and MHICL are one and the same entity. The fact that the Palace Hotel is a member of the Manila Hotel Group is not enough to pierce the corporate veil between MHICL and the Palace Hotel. IV. Grave Abuse of Discretion Considering that the NLRC was forum non-conveniens and considering further that no employer-employee relationship existed between MHICL, MHC and respondent