Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement of the Phil. v.

Zamora Facts: The petitioners are workers who have been employed at the San Miguel Parola Glass Factory as pahinantes or kargadors for almost seven years. They worked exclusively at the SMC plant, never having been assigned to other companies or departments of San Miguel Corp, even when the volume of work was at its minimum. Their work was neither regular nor continuous, depending on the volume of bottles to be loaded and unloaded, as well as the business activity of the company. However, work exceeded the eight-hour day and sometimes, necessitated work on Sundays and holidays. -for this, they were neither paid overtime nor compensation. Sometime in 1969, the workers organized and affiliated themselves with Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement (BLUM). They wanted to be paid to overtime and holiday pay. They pressed the SMC management to hear their grievances. BLUM filed a notice of strike with the Bureau of Labor Relations in connection with the dismissal of some of its members. San Miguel refused to bargain with the union alleging that the workers are not their employees but the employees of an independent labor contracting firm, Guaranteed Labor Contractor. The workers were then dismissed from their jobs and denied entrance to the glass factory despite their regularly reporting for work. A complaint was filed for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practices. Issue: Whether or not there was employer-employee (ER-EE)relationship between the workers and San Miguel Corp. Held: YES. In determining if there is an existence of the (ER-EE) relationship, the four-fold test was used by the Supreme Court. These are: The selection and engagement of the employee Payment of wages Power of dismissal

The power of dismissal by the employer was evident when the petitioners had already been refused entry to the premises. It is apparent that the closure of the warehouse was a ploy to get rid of the petitioners, who were then agitating the company for reforms and benefits. The inter-office memoranda submitted in evidence prove the companys control over the workers. That San Miguel has the power to recommend penalties or dismissal is the strongest indication of the companys right of control over the workers as direct employer. *SC ordered San Miguel to reinstate the petitioners with 3 years backwages. San Miguel Corp. Employees Union v. Bersamira Facts: Sometime in 1983 and 1984, SanMig entered into contracts for merchandising services with Lipercon and D'Rite. These companies are independent contractors duly licensed by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). The employees of these contractors sought to be regular employees of San Miguel saying that Lipercon and DRite are labor-only contractors. San Miguel sought injunction from the RTC to prevent the actions of the employees of the said employees of the contractors. Saying that RTC has jurisdiction because there is no employer-employee relationship between the employees of Lipercon and DRite. Issue: Whether or not RTC has jurisdiction because the present controversy is not a labor dispute due to the fact that there is no employer-employee relationship? Held: RTC has no jurisdiction. The present controversy is a labor dispute. A "labor dispute" as defined in Article 212 (1) of the Labor Code includes "any controversy or matter concerning terms and conditions of employment or the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or arranging the terms and conditions of employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee." While it is SanMig's submission that no employer-employee relationship exists between itself, on the one hand, and the contractual workers of Lipercon and D'Rite on the other, a labor dispute can nevertheless exist "regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relationship of employer and employee" (Article 212 [1], Labor Code, supra) provided the controversy concerns, among others, the terms and conditions of employment or a "change" or "arrangement" thereof (ibid). Put differently, and as defined by law, the existence of a labor dispute is not negatived by the fact that the plaintiffs and defendants do not stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee. That a labor dispute, as defined by the law, does exist herein is evident. At bottom, what the Union seeks is to regularize the status of the employees contracted by Lipercon and D'Rite and, in effect, that they be absorbed into the working unit of SanMig. This matter definitely dwells on the working relationship between said employees vis-a-vis SanMig. Terms, tenure and conditions of their employment and the arrangement of those terms are thus involved bringing the matter

Control Test- the employers power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which work is to be accomplished In the case, the records fail to show that San Miguel entered into mere oral agreements of employment with the workers. Considering the length of time that the petitioners have worked with the company, there is justification to conclude that they were engaged to perform activities necessary in the usual business or trade. Despite past shutdowns of the glass plant, the workers promptly returned to their jobs. The term of the petitioners employment appears indefinite and the continuity and habituality of the petitioners work bolsters the claim of an employee status. As for the payment of the workers wages, the contention that the independent contractors were paid a lump sum representing only the salaries the workers where entitled to have no merit. The amount paid by San Miguel to the contracting firm is no business expense or capital outlay of the latter. What the contractor receives is a percentage from the total earnings of all the workers plus an additional amount from the earnings of each individual worker.

within the purview of a labor dispute. Further, the Union also seeks to represent those workers, who have signed up for Union membership, for the purpose of collective bargaining. SanMig, for its part, resists that Union demand on the ground that there is no employer-employee relationship between it and those workers and because the demand violates the terms of their CBA. Obvious then is that representation and association, for the purpose of negotiating the conditions of employment are also involved. In fact, the injunction sought by SanMig was precisely also to prevent such representation. Again, the matter of representation falls within the scope of a labor dispute. Neither can it be denied that the controversy below is directly connected with the labor dispute already taken cognizance of by the National Conciliation and Mediation Board. Whether or not the Union demands are valid; whether or not SanMig's contracts with Lipercon and D'Rite constitute "labor-only" contracting and, therefore, a regular employer-employee relationship may, in fact, be said to exist; whether or not the Union can lawfully represent the workers of Lipercon and D'Rite in their demands against SanMig in the light of the existing CBA; whether or not the notice of strike was valid and the strike itself legal when it was allegedly instigated to compel the employer to hire strangers outside the working unit;-those are issues the resolution of which call for the application of labor laws, and SanMig's cause/s of action in the Court below are inextricably linked with those issues.

HELD: Yes. The subject of litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation, exclusively cognizable by the RTC. Being an ordinary civil action, the same is beyond the jurisdiction of labor tribunals. Not every controversy or money claim by an employee against the employer or vice-versa is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the labor arbiter. Actions between employees and employer where the employer-employee relationship is merely incidental and the cause of action precedes from a different source of obligation is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the regular court. Here, the employer-employee relationship between the parties is merely incidental and the cause of action ultimately arose from different sources of obligation, i.e., the Constitution and CEDAW.

HALAGUENA vs. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES INC. FACTS: Patricia Halaguea, et. al, (Halaguea) are flight attendants employed by Philippine Airlines Inc. (PAL) as well as members of Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP), the exclusive bargaining agent of flight attendants, flight stewards and pursers of PAL. Halaguea assails Sec. 144 of the CBA entered into by PAL-FASAP and FASAP, which provides for a younger retirement age for female cabin attendants than those of their male counterparts, to be unconstitutional. Due to Halagueas claim, Robert D. Anduiza, President of FASAP submitted their 2004-2005 CBA proposals and manifested their willingness to commence the collective bargaining negotiations between the management and the association, at the soonest possible time. Halaguea also filed before the RTC of Makati, Branch 147 a Special Civil Action for Declaratory Relief with Prayer for the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction against PAL for the invalidity of the assailed provision of the CBA. The RTC eventually granted such petition. Aggrieved, PAL, filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction with the Court of Appeals praying that the order of the RTC, which denied its objection to its jurisdiction, be annulled and set aside for having been issued without and/or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The CA granted PALs petition on the ground that the RTC has no jurisdiction over a labor dispute, hence the case at bar. ISSUES: Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the petitioners action challenging the legality or constitutionality of the provisions on the compulsory retirement age contained in the CBA between respondent PAL and FASAP.