Search bar

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

BROTHERHOOD LABOR UNITY MOVEMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ZAMORA

BROTHERHOOD LABOR UNITY MOVEMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ZAMORA
G.R. No. L-48645 January 7, 1987
Ponente: J. Guiterrez

FACTS:

BLUM filed a complaint with the now defunct Court of Industrial Relations, charging San Miguel Corporation, and the following officers: Enrique Camahort, Federico Ofiate Feliciano Arceo, Melencio Eugenia Jr., Ernesto Villanueva, Antonio Bocaling and Godofredo Cueto of unfair labor practice as set forth in Section 4 (a), sub-sections (1) and (4) of Republic Act No. 875 and of Legal dismissal. It was alleged that respondents ordered the individual complainants to disaffiliate from the complainant union; and that management dismissed the individual complainants when they insisted on their union membership.

On their part, respondents moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the grounds that the complainants are not and have never been employees of respondent company but employees of the independent contractor; that respondent company has never had control over the means and methods followed by the independent contractor who enjoyed full authority to hire and control said employees; and that the individual complainants are barred by estoppel from asserting that they are employees of respondent company.

ISSUE:
The question of whether an employer-employee relationship exists

HELD:

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. It. is the called "control test" that is the most important element.

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" 

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.




No comments:

Post a Comment