G.R. No. L-48645 January 7, 1987"BROTHERHOOD" LABOR UNITY MOVEMENT OF THEPHILIPPINES, ANTONIO CASBADILLO, PROSPERO TABLADA,ERNESTO BENGSON, PATRICIO SERRANO, ANTONIO B.BOBIAS, VIRGILIO ECHAS, DOMINGO PARINAS, NORBERTOGALANG, JUANITO NAVARRO, NESTORIO MARCELLANA,TEOFILO B. CACATIAN, RUFO L. EGUIA, CARLOS SUMOYAN,LAMBERTO RONQUILLO, ANGELITO AMANCIO, DANILO B.MATIAR, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. RONALDO B. ZAMORA,PRESIDENTIAL ASSISTANT FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS, OFFICE OFTHE PRESIDENT, HON. AMADO G. INCIONG,UNDERSECRETARY OF LABOR, SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION,GENARO OLIVES, ENRIQUE CAMAHORT, FEDERICO OÑATE,ERNESTO VILLANUEVA, ANTONIO BOCALING andGODOFREDO CUETO, respondents. Armando V. Ampil for petitioners.Siguion Reyna, Montecillo and Ongsiako Law Office for privaterespondents. GUTIERREZ, JR., The Petitioners were Cargadores or Pahinantes (they just loaded the trucks) for the San Miguel Corp n bottle factory. They were all allegedly hired not by SMC but by Guaranteed And Reliable Labor Contractor which was basically a desk in the premises of SMC. However, their gate passes and work paraphernalia are issued by SMC and their pay, which was piece rate (by the bottles they load), were given directly to them through their group leaders. The workers had no regular work hours but were not allowed to work in any other branches of SMC. Because of poor wages and ill-treatment, the 140 members formed a union. SMC would not bargain with the union, alleging that petitioners are not employees. Many union members were also dismissed from work to castigate them. The union then filed a notice to strike with the Bureau of Labor Relations in relation to the dismissal of some of its members. Thereafter, all of the union members were dismissed and denied entry to the factory. Issue: W/n there was an er-ee rel p between SMC and the union members? YES (on a side note, the union won, they were entitled to backwages) Held: The court affirmed the er-ee rel p on several points: 1. The control test In 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. ..The facts and evidence on record negate respondent SMC's claim.
suggesting the existence of a "labor only" contracting scheme prohibited by law. It is only the manpower or labor force which the alleged contractors supply.Labor Relations
2. The petitioners were engaged to perform activities necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the respondent. The premises. tools. equipment and paraphernalia used by the petitioners in their jobs are admittedly all supplied by respondent company.
. supervision as to the means and manner of performing the same is practically nil. Documentary evidence presented by the petitioners establish respondent SMC's right to impose disciplinary measures for violations or infractions of its rules and regulations as well as its right to recommend transfers and dismissals of the piece workers. More evident and pronounced is respondent company's right to control in the discipline of petitioners. Prohibition of a labor-only contracting and We find that Guaranteed and Reliable Labor contractors have neither substantial capital nor investment to qualify as an independent contractor under the law. Because of the nature of the petitioners' work as cargadores or pahinantes. 3. therefore regular employees. For. how many ways are there to load and unload bottles and wooden shells? 4. and the petitioners are. The inter-office memoranda submitted in evidence prove the company's control over the petitioners.