Labor Relations Cases Reviewer

Art. A-8 217 Case Title / Issue Hawaiian-Phil Company vs Gulmatico, et al. (1994) (WON Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction to hear and decide the case against petitioner) (WON respondent union and/or the farm workers represented by it have a cause of action against petitioner) Facts Laborers claim: compensation benefits, a 60:40 sharing b/n Er and Ee as provided in Sugar Act of 1952 Petitioner is a sugar milling company not planter It has paid the price as per their agreement Jurisdiction over agricultural workers has been transferred from Court of Agrarian Relations to the Labor Arbiter but with limitation, i.e., presence of Er-Ee relationship Ruling/Ratio No and No. Ratio: The jurisdictional requisite of an employeremployee relationship between petitioner and private respondent, the inevitable conclusion is that public respondent is without jurisdiction to hear and decide the case with respect to petitioner - All the enumerated cases and disputes arise out of or are in connection with an employer-employee relationship, or some aspect or incident of such relationship Three parties: Er-planter, Ee-agri worker, Sugar Mill - Case Fact: No Er-Ee relationship with respect to petitioner sugar milling company - Conclusion: Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction As to cause of action, Rule: the claimant must show that he has a legal right and the respondent a correlative duty in respect thereof, which the latter violated by some wrongful act or omission - Case Fact: Sugar mill has paid workers share; Erplanter has not; No showing that milling company has exerted conspicuous display of concerted conspiracy - Conclusion: petitioner cannot be deemed as a party in interest since there is no privity or legal obligation linking it to respondent union and/or its membersworker.