fiction.[45] In this case, we find no evidence to show that MHICL and MHC are one and the same entity. III. MHICL not Liable Respondent Santos predicates MHICLs liability on the fact that MHICL signed his employment contract with the Palace Hotel. This fact fails to persuade us. First, we note that the Vice President (Operations and Development) of MHICL, Miguel D. Cergueda signed the employment contract as a mere witness. He merely signed under the word noted. 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.