Caurdanetaan Piece Workers Union vs.

Laguesma & Corfarm Grains

G.R No. 113542, February 24, 1998
Facts:
Caurdanetaan Piece Workers Union members herein petitioners, worked for the
respondent, Corfarms Grains,Inc., as cargadores. Among of their jobs was to
load, unload and pile sacks of palay from the respondents warehouses to the
cargo trucks and from the cargo trucks to the buyers. Their salary paid by the
private respondent was on a piece rate basis. Some of the benefits being
demanded by the petitioners where denied by Corfarm to these cargadores
which led them to organize a union. Corfarm subsequently barred its members
from working with them when it learned of the unions formation and replaced
them with non-members of the union.
Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
Corfarm contends that it had no the power of control, saying that the
petitioner's members "were 'street-hired' workers and that here was no
superintendent-in-charge to give orders directly to the employees. The
respondent also alleged in its defense that there were no gate passes issued,
nor tools, equipment and paraphernalia issued by Corfarm for the loading and
unloading of the sacks of palay. They furthermore contend that employeremployee relationship is negated by the fact that they offer and actually
perform loading and unloading work for various rice mills in Pangasinan .
ISSUE:
Whether or not an employer-employee relationship between the CPWU members
and Respondent Corfarm exist.
HELD.
Yes. To determine the existence of an employer-employee relation, this Court
has consistently applied the "four-fold" test which has the following elements:
(1) the power to hire, (2) the payment of wages, (3) the power to dismiss, and (4)
the power to control - the last being the most important element.
Petitioners members performed work which is directly related, necessary and
vital to the operations of Corfarm. Moreover, Corfarm did not even allege that
petitioners members were independent contractors and did not contradict
petitioner's allegation that it paid wages directly to these workers without the

intervention of any third-party independent contractor. It also wielded the

power of dismissal over petitioners; in fact, its exercise of this power was the
progenitor of the illegal dismissal case