1st Set Case #157Liberty Flour Mills Employees vs Liberty FlourG.

R - 58768 Decem
ber 29, 1989
Facts:
On February 6, 1974, respondent Philippine Labor Alliance Council (PLAC) and Lib
erty Flour entered intoa 3-year CBA effective January 1, 1974 providing for a da
ily wage increase of PhP2.00 for 1974, PhP1.00for 1975 and PhP1.00 for 1976. The
parties also agreed to establish a union shop by imposing
membership in good standing for the duration of CBA as a condition for continued e
mployment of workers. PLAC complained against the company for non-payment of E-C
OLA under P.D. 525. A similar complaint was filed on March 4, 1975, this time by
petitioners who apparently were veering away from PLAC. Evaristo and Biascan, a
fter organizing a union, filed for a certification election among rank-and-filee
mployees. PLAC then expelled the two for disloyalty and demanded their dismissal
by the respondentcompany, who complied on May 20, 1975. The claims for E-COLA w
as dismissed as it was alreadyabsorbed by the wage increase. The termination cas
e in relation to back wages was also dismissed.
Issue:
Whether or not E_COLA was also absorbed in the wage increases and won dismissal
of Evaristo andBiascan was illegal.
Held:
The company agreed to grant the emergency allowance even before the obligation w
as imposed bygovernment (P.D. 525). What the petitioners claim they are being ma
de to waive is the additionalallowance but the truth is they are not entitled to
because they are already enjoying the stipulatedincreases.As with the case of i
llegal dismissal, the CBA concluded in 1974 was certifiable and in fact certifie
d inApril 11, 1975 while the two were dismissed on may 20, 1975. Evidence show t
hat after the cancellationof the registration certificate of the Federation of D
emocratic Labor Unions, no other union contestedthe exclusive representation of
the PLAC, consequently there was no more legal impediment that stoodon the way o
f its validity and enforceability of the provisions of the collective bargaining
agreemententered into by and between respondent corporation and respondent unio
n. Once it was duly enteredinto and signed by the parties, a collective bargaini
ng agreement becomes effective as between theparties regardless of won the same
has been certified by the BLR.

Singer Sewing Machine vs. Drilon
FACTS:
The respondent union filed a petition for direct certification as the sole and
exclusive bargaining agent of allcollectors of petitioner company. The company o
pposed the petition on the ground that the union members areactually not employe
es but are independent contractor based on the collection agency agreement which
theysigned. The respondent asserted that they perform the most desirable and ne
cessary activities for the continuousand effective operations of the business of
the petitioner. They contended that the collectors are employeesbecause the age
nt shall utilize only receipt forms authorized and issued by the company. Monthl
y collection quotawas also required by the company.
ISSUE:
W/N ER-EE relationship exists between petitioner and respondent
HELD:
Applying the control test, there is no ER-EE relationship exists. Hence, if the
union members are not employees, no right for purposes of bargaining, nor to b
e certified as such bargaining agent can ever berecognized.Not all collecting ag
ents are employees and neither are all collecting agents independent contractors
. The requirement that collection agents utilize only receipt forms and report f
orms issued by the companyand reports shall be submitted at least once a week is
not necessarily an indication of control over the means bywhich the job of coll
ection is to be performed. The monthly collection quota is a normal requirement.
It is clear that the company and each collectingagent intended that the company
take control only over the amount of collection, which is the result of the job
performed.No such words as to hire and employ are present. Moreover, the agreeme
nt did not fix an amount for wagesnor the required working hours. Compensation i
s earned only on the basis of the tangible results produced such asthe total col
lections made. There is also nothing in the agreement which implies control by t
he company over themeans and methods in achieving the end.Since private responde
nts are not employees of the company, they are not entitled to the constitutiona
lright to join or form a labor organization for purposes of collective bargainin
g.Wherefore, the petition for certification election is dismissed.
SINGER SEWING MACHINE COMPANY vs. HON. FRANKLIN DRILON
[193 SCRA 271]
Facts:
Singer Machine Collectors Union-Baguio filed a petition for direct certification
as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of all collectors of Singer Sewing M
achine. The company opposed the petition mainly because the union members are no
t employees but independent contractors as evidenced by the collection agency ag
reement which they signed.
Med-Arbiter ruled that there exists an employee-employer relationship and grante
d the certification election which was affirmed by Sec. Drilon. The company file
s the present petition on the determination of the relationship. The union insis
t that the provisions of the Collection Agreement belie the companys position tha
t the union members are independent contractors.
Issue:
Whether or not there exists an employer-employee relationship between the partie
s.
SC Ruling:
The present case calls for the application of the control test, which if not sat
isfied, would lead to the conclusion that no employee-employer relationship exis
ts. If the union members are not employees, no right to organize for the purpose
of bargaining or as a bargaining agent cannot be recognized.
The following elements are generally considered in the determination of the rela
tionship: the selection and engagement of the employee, payment of wages, power
of dismissal and the power to control the employees conduct which is the most imp
ortant element.
The nature of the relationship between a company and its collecting agents depen
ds on the circumstances of each particular relationship. Not all collecting agen
ts are employees and neither are all collecting agents independent contractors.
The agreement confirms the status of the collecting agents as independent contra
ctor. The requirement that collection agents utilize only receipt forms and repo
rt forms issued by the company and that reports shall be submitted at least once
a week is not necessarily an indication of control over the means by which the
job collection is to be performed. Even if report requirements are to be called
control measures, any control is only with respect to the end result of the coll
ection since the requirements regulate the things to be done after the performan
ce of the collection job or the rendition of service.
The plain language of the agreement reveals that the designation as collection a
gent does not create an employment relationship and that the applicant is to be
considered at all times as an independent contractor.
The court finds that since private respondents are not employees of the company,
they are not entitled to the constitutional right to form or join a labor organ
ization for the purposes of collective bargaining. There is no constitutional an
d legal basis for their union to be granted their petition for direct certificat
ion.