BROTHERHOOD LABOR UNITY MOVEMENT vs HON.

ZAMORA (1991)

FACTS: Petitioners-members of Brotherhood Labor Unit Movement of the Philippines (BLUM), worked as car adores or pahinante since !"#! at the $M% Plant& $ometime in 'an(ar) !"#", the petitioner workers * n(mberin !+, or ani-ed themselves and en a ed in (nion activities& Believin that the) are entitled to overtime and holida) pa), the petitioners aired their ripes and rievances b(t it was not heeded b) the respondents& .ne of the (nion member was dismissed from work& /ence, the petitioners filed a complaint of unfair labor practice a ainst respondent $M% on the ro(nd of ille al dismissal& .n the other hand, $M% ar (ed that the complainant are not or have never been their emplo)ees b(t the) are the emplo)ees of the 0(aranteed Labor %ontractor, an independent labor contractin firm Labor 1rbiter 2estor Lim rendered a decision i !"v#$ #! %&' (#)*+"i " %s which was affirmed b) the 2L3% .n appeal, the $ecretar) set aside the 2L3% r(lin stressin the absence of an emplo)eremplo)ee relationship

Iss,': Whether an employer-employee relationship exists between petitioners and respondent San Miguel Corporation HELD: YES In determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, the elements that are generally considered are the following: (a) the selection and en a ement of the emplo)ee4 (b) the pa)ment of wa es4 (c) the power of dismissal4 and (d) the emplo)er5s power to control the emplo)ee with respect to the means and methods b) which the work is to be accomplished& 6t is the called 7control test7 that is the most important element 6n the %1B, petitioners worked contin(o(sl) and e8cl(sivel) for an avera e of 9 )ears for the compan)& %onsiderin the len th of time that the petitioners have worked, there is :(stification to concl(de that the) were en a ed to perform activities necessar) or desirable in the (s(al b(siness of trade of the respondent& /ence, petitioners are considered re (lar emplo)ees& ;ven ass(min that there is a contract of emplo)ment e8ec(ted between $M% and the said labor contractor, the co(rt r(led that Guaranteed and eliable !abor contractors have neither s(bstantial capital nor investment to <(alif) as an independent contractor (nder the law& =he premises, tools and e<(ipments (sed b) the petitioners in their :obs are all s(pplied b) the respondent $M%& 6t is onl) the manpower or labor force which the alle ed contractors s(ppl), s( estin the e8istence of a 7labor onl)7 contractin scheme prohibited b) law 6t is important to emphasi-e that that in a tr(l) independent contractor-contractee relationship, the fees are paid directl) to the manpower a enc) in l(mp s(m witho(t indicatin or impl)in that the basis of s(ch l(mp s(m is the salar) per worker m(ltiplied b) the n(mber of workers assi ned to the compan)& 6n the %1B, the alle ed independent contractors were paid a l(mp s(m representin onl) the salaries the workers were entitled to, arrived at b) addin the salaries of each worker which depend on the vol(me of work the) had accomplished individ(all)& T&'$'!#$'- %&'$' is # i .'*' .' % (# %$"(%#$/(# %$"(%'' $'+"%i# s&i*. 0HEREFORE- 1ETITION IS 2RANTED.