Manila Golf &Country Club, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court and Fermin Llamar GR no.

64948 September 27, 1994 | CASE FLOW

SSS Case no. 5443 R4-LRDX-M-10-504-78 MED-ARBITER GRANTED THE CERTIFICATION
FIRST PROCEEDING PTCCEA v. Manila Golf ELECTION
Petition for review was originally filed with the Social Security SECOND PROCEEDING Med Arbiter Orlando Rojo granted the certification election and
Commission via 17 persons who styled themselves “Caddies of Certification election case filed with was thereafter upheld by director Carmelo S. Noriel, denying
Manila Golf and Country Club-PTCCEA (Philippine, Technical, Labor Relations division of the Manila Golf’s motion for reconsideration
Clerical, Commercial Employees Association)”` for coverage and Ministry of Labor by the PTCCEA on
availment of benefits under Social Security Act as amended. The 17 behalf of the 17 caddies of Manila
caddies are allegedly employees of Manila Golf. Golf
The case was dismissed for PTCCEA, Fermin Lalamar, and
lack of merit by Labor Ramundo Jomok v. Manila Golf,
The SSC, after protracted 15 of the 17 caddies In the case before SSC, Manila Golf filed aArbiter Cornelio Miguel Celdram, Henry Lim and
proceedings, dismissed the withdrew their answer praying for the dismissal of the Linsangan, a decision later Geronimo Alejo
case for lack of merit ruling claim for social case, alleging in substance that the affirmed on appeal by NLRC
that caddy’s fees were paid by security coverage. caddies by occupation are allowed in their on that ground that there THIRD PROCEEDING
the golf players themselves Left in the case premises to render service to their guests was no employer-employee A compulsory arbitration case.
and not by Manila Golf. were Llamar and who paid for such and they were not their relationship between
Why caddies are not Jomok employees. Caddies were not subject to Cadies and the Club
employees; absence of: control and direction by Manila Golf.
1. Payment of wages
2. Control or supervision After the appeal was Appeal ascribed two errors to the SSC:
over them docketed and some 1. Refusing to suspend the proceedings to
months before decision await judgement by the Labor Relations
thereon was reached The IAC dismissed the first assigned
Division of NCR Office in the certification
and promulgated, error as it is of least importance.
election case (R4-LRDX-M-10-504-78)
Jomok’s appeal was IAC reversed the appealed SSC
Appeal was taken to the 2. Adjudging the selfsame issue in a manner decision and declared Llamar an
dismissed at his contrary to the ruling of the director of
Intermediate Appellate employee of Manila Gold, ordering that
instance, leaving the Bureau of Labor Relations, which has
Court by the Union he be reported for SSS coverage and
Llamar the lone
representing Llamar and not only become finality but has been pay corresponding benefits.
appellant.
Jomok. executed or become res adjudicata.

Issue: WON Llamar is an employee of Manila Golf.

Ruling: NO. The Court does not agree that said facts necessarily or logically point to such a relationship, and to the exclusion of any form of arrangements, other than of employment, that would
make the respondent's services available to the members and guest of the petitioner.As long as it is, the list made in the appealed decision detailing the various matters of conduct, dress,
language, etc. covered by the petitioner's regulations, does not, in the mind of the Court, so circumscribe the actions or judgment of the caddies concerned as to leave them little or no freedom of
choice whatsoever in the manner of carrying out their services. In the very nature of things, caddies must submit to some supervision of their conduct while enjoying the privilege of pursuing their
occupation within the premises and grounds of whatever club they do their work in. For all that is made to appear, they work for the club to which they attach themselves on sufference but, on
the other hand, also without having to observe any working hours, free to leave anytime they please, to stay away for as long they like. It is not pretended that if found remiss in the observance of
said rules, any discipline may be meted them beyond barring them from the premises which, it may be supposed, the Club may do in any case even absent any breach of the rules, and without
violating any right to work on their part. All these considerations clash frontally with the concept of employment.The IAC would point to the fact that the Club suggests the rate of fees payable by
the players to the caddies as still another indication of the latter's status as employees. It seems to the Court, however, that the intendment of such fact is to the contrary, showing that the Club
has not the measure of control over the incidents of the caddies' work and compensation that an employer would possess.