Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement of the Phil. v.

Zamora
G.R. No. 48645
January 7, 1987
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

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.
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.