11 M.Y. Sans Biscuits, Inc vs Laguesma, Et Al

Publish in

Documents

184 views

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 3
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Share
Description
digest
Tags
Transcript
  Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT ManilaFIRST DIVISION  G.R. No. 95011 April 22, 1991M.Y. SAN BISCUITS, INC., petitioner, vs. ACTING SECRETARY BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA ! P#ILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND GENERAL $OR%ERS ORGANI&ATIONS, respondents .  Ambrosio B. De Luna for petitioner.Pedro A. Lopez for private respondent.   GANCAYCO, J.:p The issue presented b this petition is !hether or not the ed#arbiter or the Secretar of $abor and % plo ent has the authorit to deter ine the e&istence of an e ploer#e ploee relationship bet!een the parties in a petition for certification election.On Ma '(, ')*), private respondent Philippine Transport and +eneral or-ers Orani/ation 01nion for short2 file a petition for certification election as a barainin aent for a roup of e ploees of petitioner M.3. San 4iscuits, Inc. before the ed#arbiter of the Depart ent of $abor and % plo ent 0DO$%2. 5fter the parties sub itted their position papers, on 5uust (6, ')*), the ed#arbiter issued an order dis issin the petition for lac- of erit as there is no e ploer#e ploee relationship bet!een petitioner and the deliver drivers7helpers represented b respondent 1nion. 1 Mean!hile, respondent 1nion and several others filed before the N$R8 4ranch of Reion No. IV a co plaint for underpa ent of !aes9 non#pa ent of ':th onth pa9 service incentive pa and 8O$59 da aes and attorne;s fees.On Februar ), '))<, the labor arbiter rendered a decision dis issin the said co plaint on the round that there is no e ploer#e ploee relationship bet!een the parties. 2   On Februar (=, '))< private respondent appealed to the National $abor Relations 8o ission 0N$R82.In the certification election case, private respondent appealed to the Secretar of DO$%. On Dece ber '6, ')*), then DO$% Secretar Fran-lin Drilon pro ulated a resolution reversin the decision of the ed#arbiter, thus findin that there e&ists an e ploer#e ploee relationship bet!een petitioner and private respondent. ' Petitioner filed a otion for reconsideration of this resolution on >anuar ((, '))< and a anifestation on Februar '(, '))< as-in that action be held in abeance pendin consideration of the other case !here the labor arbiter rendered a decision declarin the absence of an e ploer#e ploee relationship bet!een the parties. (  On 5pril '=, '))<, public respondent issued an order denin the relief souht in the anifestation of petitioner. 5  Petitioner filed a otion for reconsideration therefro )  but it !as denied on >une '*, '))<. * Thus, this petition for certiorari      !ith praer for the issuance of a !rit of preli inar prohibitor in?unction and te porar restrainin order based on the follo!in rounds@I. The 5ctin Secretar 4ienvenido %. $aues a abused his discretion in denin the Manifestation filed b Petitioner on the round of a Pre?udicial Auestion involvin the issue of e ploer#e ploee relationship pendin before the National $abor Relations 8o ission 0N$R82.II. The Bon. Secretar has no ?urisdiction to deter ine the e&istence of Can e ploer#e ploee relationship bet!een petitioner and private respondent.  + On Septe ber '), '))<, the 8ourt, !ithout ivin due course to the petition, reAuired the respondents to co ent thereon !ithin ten 0'<2 das fro notice and ranted the praer for the issuance of a te porar restrainin order en?oinin the e&ecution of the Auestioned orders dated Dece ber '6, ')*) and >une '*, '))<.The ain thrust of the petition is that the public respondent Secretar has no ?urisdiction to deter ine the e&istence of an e ploer#e ploee relationship bet!een the parties and that its deter ination is vested in the N$R8.  The petition ust fail.1nder 5rticle ((= of the $abor 8ode, as a ended, the 4ureau of $abor Relations 04$R2, of !hich the ed#arbiter is an officer, has the follo!in  ?urisdiction EE 5rt. ((=. Bureau of Labor Relations . EE The 4ureau of $abor Relations and the $abor Relations divisions in the reional offices of the Depart ent of $abor shall have oriinal and e&clusive authorit to act, at their o!n initiative or upon reAuest of either or both parties, on all inter#union and intra#union conflicts, and all disputes, grievances or problems arising from or affecting labor-management relations in all work places weter agricultural or non-agricultural  , e&cept those arisin fro the i ple entation or interpretation of collective barainin aree ents !hich shall be the sub?ect of rievance procedure and7or voluntar arbitration.The 4ureau shall have fifteen 0'62 !or-in das to act on labor cases before it, sub?ect to e&tension b aree ent of the parties. 0% phasis supplied.2Fro the foreoin, the 4$R has the oriinal and e&clusive ?urisdiction to inter alia , decide all disputes, rievances or proble s arisin fro or affectin labor# anae ent relations in all !or-places !hether aricultural or non#aricultural. Necessaril, in the e&ercise of this ?urisdiction over labor# anae ent relations, the ed#arbiter has the authorit, oriinal and e&clusive, to deter ine the e&istence of an e ploer#e ploee relationship bet!een the parties. 5propos to the present case, once there is a deter ination as to the e&istence of such a relationship, the ed#arbiter can then decide the certification election case. 9  5s the authorit to deter ine the e ploer#e ploee relationship is necessar and indispensable in the e&ercise of ?urisdiction b the ed#arbiter, his findin thereon a onl be revie!ed and reversed b the Secretar of $abor !ho e&ercises appellate ?urisdiction under 5rticle (6) of the $abor 8ode, as a ended, !hich provides EE 5rt. (6).  Appeal from certification election orders .  5n part to an election a appeal the order or results of the election as deter ined b the Med#5rbiter directl to the Secretar of $abor and % plo ent on the round that the rules and reulations or parts thereof established b the Secretar of $abor and % plo ent for the conduct of the election have been violated. Such appeal shall be decided !ithin fifteen 0'62 calendar das.hen as in this case Secretar Drilon of DO$% rendered a resolution dated Dece ber '6, ')*) reversin the order of the ed#arbiter dated 5uust (6, ')*) b declarin the e&istence of an e ploer#e ploee relationship bet!een the parties, such findin cannot be rendered nuator b a contrar findin of the labor arbiter in a separate dispute for one clai s bet!een sa e parties.It is absurd to suest that the ed#arbiter and Secretar of $abor cannot a-e their o!n independent findin as to the sentence of such relationship and ust have to rel and !ait for such a deter ination b the labor arbiter or N$R8 in a separate proceedin. For then, iven a situation !here there is no separate co plaint filed !ith the labor arbiter, the ed#arbiter and7or the Secretar of $abor can never decide a certification election case or an labor# anae ent dispute properl brouht before the as the have no authorit to deter ine the e&istence of an e ploer#e ploee relationship. Such a proposition is, to sa the least, ano alous.8orrectl indeed, the Secretar of $abor denied the praer in the anifestation of petitioner to a!ait the resolution of the N$R8 as to the e&istence of such e ploer#e ploee relationship.The 8ourt reproduces !ith approval the findins and conclusions of the Secretar in the said resolution dated Dece ber '6, ')*).The sole issue to be resolved is !hether or not there e&ists an e ploer#e ploee relationship bet!een e bers of petitionin union and the co pan. 5fter a careful revie! of the records of the case, !e find for the appellant.It has been !ell settled in ?urisprudence that the factors to be considered in deter inin the e&istence of e ploer#e ploee relationship are as follo!s@ 0a2 selection and enae ent of the e ploees9 0b2 the pa ent of !aes9 0e2 the process C sic   of dis issal9 and, 0d2 the e ploer;s po!er to control the e ploee !ith respect to the eans and ethods C!ith !hich the !or- is to be acco plished.On the first factor, 0selection and enae ent of the e ploer2, C sic   it is ver apparent fro the records that the personnel of M.3. San 4iscuits are the one responsible for hirin of e ploees. 5ssu in, it is the sales an that enaes his o!n driver, it could be inferred ho!ever that such authorit e anates fro the respondent.On the second factor 0pa ent of !aes2, !hile the respondent tried to i press upon us that the drivers7helpers are not in the paroll of the co pan and, therefore, not receivin salaries fro it, this at best is but an ad inistrative arrane ent in order to save the respondent fro the burden of -eepin records and other indirect cost.On the third factor, 0the po!er of dis issal2, it is ver clear that herein respondent is the authorit that i poses disciplinar easures aainst errin drivers. This alone proves that it !ields disciplinar authorit over the drivers7helpers.Finall, on the fourth factor !hich is the control test, the fact that the respondent ives dail instructions to the drivers on ho! to o about their !or- is sufficient indication that it e&ercises control over the ove ents of the drivers7helpers. The drivers are instructed as to !hat ti e the are supposed to report to the office and !hat ti e the are supposed to return.  Vie!ed fro the above circu stances, it is ever clear that the herein respondent is the real e ploer of the drivers7helpers. The are in truth and in fact the e ploees of the respondent and its atte pt to see- refue on its sales en as the ostensible e ploer of the drivers7helpers !as nothin but an elaborate sche e to deprive drivers7helpers their riht to self#orani/ation.B%R%FOR%, pre ises considered, the appeal is hereb ranted and the Med#5rbiter;s Order dated (6 5uust ')*) vacated, and in lieu thereof, a ne! one is entered callin for the conduct of a certification election a on the drivers7helpers of M.3. San 4iscuits !ith the follo!in as choices@'. Philippine Transport and +eneral or-ers Orani/ation 0PT+O29 and,(. No 1nion.SO ORD%R%D.  10 On Septe ber '), '))<, the N$R8 pro ulated its resolution reversin the decision of the labor arbiter and findin the e&istence of an e ploer#e ploee relationship bet!een the parties. 11  5 otion for reconsideration filed b petitioner !as denied in a resolution dated Nove ber '=, '))<. 12  On all counts, the petition ust be struc- do!n.B%R%FOR%, the petition is DISMISS%D. The te porar restrainin order !hich the 8ourt issued on Septe ber '), '))< is hereb lifted, !ith costs aainst petitioner.SO ORD%R%D. !arvasa, ruz, #ri$o-A%uino and &edialdea, ''., concur.  oo-!o-/ ' 5nne& D to the Petition.( 5nne& % to the Petition.: 5nne& F to the Petition.G 5nne& B to the Petition.6 5nne& I to the Petition.= 5nne& > to the Petition.H 5nne&  to the Petition.* Pae =, Rollo .) 4esa vs. Tra?ano, 'G= S8R5 6<' 0')*H2.'< 5nne& + to the Petition9 paes '=( to '=:, Rollo .'' Paes ':( to 'G:, Rollo .'( Paes 'G6 to 'GH, Rollo .
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks