Case # 1 BROTHERHOOD LABOR UNITY MOVEMENT V. HON.

ZAMORA (1991) Facts: Petitioners-members of Brotherhood Labor Unit Movement of the Philippines (BLUM), worked as cargadores or pahinante since 1961 at the SMC Plant. Sometime in January 1969, the petitioner workers numbering 140 organized themselves and engaged in union activities. Believing that they are entitled to overtime and holiday pay, the petitioners aired their gripes and grievances but it was not heeded by the respondents. One of the union member was dismissed from work. Hence, the petitioners filed a complaint of unfair labor practice against respondent SMC on the ground of illegal dismissal. On the other hand, SMC argued that the complainant are not or have never been their employees but they are the employees of the Guaranteed Labor Contractor, an independent labor contracting firm Labor Arbiter Nestor Lim rendered a decision in favor of the complainants which was affirmed by the NLRC On appeal, the Secretary set aside the NLRC ruling stressing the absence of an employer-employee relationship Issue: 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 engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer's power to control the employee with respect to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished. It is the called "control test" that is the most important element In the CAB, petitioners worked continuously and exclusively for an average of 7 years for the company. Considering the length of time that the petitioners have worked, there is justification to conclude that they were engaged to perform activities necessary or desirable in the usual business of trade of the respondent. Hence, petitioners are considered regular employees. Even assuming that there is a contract of employment executed between SMC and the said labor contractor, the court ruled that Guaranteed and Reliable Labor contractors have neither substantial capital nor investment to qualify as an independent contractor under the law. The premises, tools and equipments used by the petitioners in their jobs are all supplied by the respondent SMC. It is only the manpower or labor force which the alleged contractors supply, suggesting the existence of a "labor only" contracting scheme prohibited by law It is important to emphasize that that in a truly independent contractor-contractee relationship, the fees are paid directly to the manpower agency in lump sum without indicating or implying that the basis of such lump sum is the salary per worker multiplied by the number of workers assigned to the company. In the CAB, the alleged independent contractors were paid a lump sum representing only the salaries the workers were entitled to, arrived at by adding the salaries of each worker which depend on the volume of work they had accomplished individually. Therefore, there is no independent contractor-contractee relationship. WHEREFORE, PETITION IS GRANTED.

Case # 2 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 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.

Case # 3 HAWAIIAN-PHILIPPINE COMPANY V. GULMATICO Facts: Respondent-Union, the National Federation of Sugar Workers-Food and General Trades, filed an action against petitioner Hawaiian Phil Co. for claims under RA 809 (The Sugar Act of 1952). Respondent Union alleged that they have never availed of the benefits due them under the law. Under the said act: the proceeds of any increase in participation granted to planters under this Act and above their present share shall be divided between the planter and his laborers in the following proportions. 60% of the increase participation for the laborers and 40% for the planters. Petitioner argued that respondent Labor Arbiter Gulmatico has no jurisdiction over the case considering their case does not fall under those enumerated in Article 217 of the Labor Code which provides the jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the Commission. Further, petitioner contends that it has no ER-EE relationship with the respondent sugar workers and that respondent union has no cause of action because it is the planters-employers who is liable to pay the workers share under LOI No. 854. Issue1: Whether public respondent Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction to hear and decide the case against petitioner Held: NO. While jurisdiction over controversies involving agricultural workers has been transferred from the Court of Agrarian Relations to the Labor Arbiters under the Labor Code, said transferred jurisdiction is however, not without limitations. The controversy must fall under one of the cases enumerated under the Labor Code which arise out of or are in connection with an ER-EE relationship In the CAB, there is no ER-EE relationship between petitioner company and respondent union. Hence, respondent Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the case against petitioner. Issue2: Whether respondent union has a cause of action Held: NO.To have a cause of action, 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. In the instant case, it would show that the payment of the workers share is liability of the planters employers, and not of the petitioner milling company. It is disputed that petitioner milling company has already distributed to its planters their respective shares. Hence, it has fulfilled its part and has nothing more to do with the subsequent contribution by the planters of the workers share. WHEREFORE, PETITION IS GRANTED.

Case # 4 NATIONAL UNION OF BANK EMPLOYEES V. LAZARO Facts: The Commercial Bank and Trust Company entered into a collective bargaining agreement with Commercial Bank and Trust Company Union, representing the file and rank of the bank with a membership of over 1,000 employees In 1980, the union, together with the National Union of Bank EEs submitted to bank management proposals for the negotiation of a new collective bargaining agreement. The following day, however, the

bank suspended negotiations with the union. The bank entered into a merger with BPI which assumed all assets and liabilities. The Union went to the CFI Manila, presided over by respondent Judge Lazaro, and filed a complaint for specific performance, damages, and preliminary injunction against private respondents. Private Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court. Respondent Judge dismissed the case on the ground that the complaint partook of unfair labor practice dispute and jurisdiction over which is vested in the labor arbiter. Issue: Whether courts may take cognizance of claims for damages arising from labor controversy Held: NO. The SC sustained the dismissal of the case and held that the act complained of involves collecting bargaining which is categorized to be an unfair labor practice. Under the Labor Code, all cases involving unfair labor practices shall be under the jurisdiction of the labor arbiters. As correctly held by the respondent court, an unfair labor practice controversy is within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters and the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the NLRC. Jurisdiction is conferred by law and not necessarily by the nature of action. In the CAB, PD No. 442, as amended by Batas Blg. 70, has vested jurisdiction upon the Labor Arbiters, a jurisdiction the courts may not assume. WHEREFORE, PETITION DENIED