266

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Rugavs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission
*

G.R.Nos.7265461.January22,1990.

ALIPIO R. RUGA, JOSE PARMA, ELADIO CALDERON,

LAURENTEBAUTU,JAIMEBARBIN,NICANORFRANCISCO,
PHILIPCERVANTESandELEUTERIOBARBIN,petitioners,vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and DE
GUZMAN FISHING ENTERPRISES and/or ARSENIO DE
GUZMAN,respondents.
Labor Law Remedial Law Appeal Doctrine that in labor cases
beforethisTribunal,nounduesympathyistobeaccordedtoanyclaimofa
proceduralmisstepwellsettled.Fundamentalconsiderationsofsubstantial
justice persuade Us to decide the instant case on the merits rather than to
dismiss it on a mere technicality. In so doing, we exercise the prerogative
accorded to this Court enunciated in Firestone Filipinas Employees
Association, et al. vs. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. of the Philippines,
Inc., 61 SCRA 340 (1974), thus the wellsettled doctrine is that in labor
casesbeforethisTribunal,nounduesympathyistobeaccordedtoanyclaim
ofaproceduralmisstep,theideabeingthatitspowerbeexercisedaccording
tojusticeandequityandsubstantialmeritsofthecontroversy.
Same Same Same Same Court adopts a more liberal attitude in
applyingtopetitionersthe10calendardayruleinthefilingofappealswith
theNLRCfromthedecisionofthelaborarbiter.Circumstancespeculiarto
some extent to fishermencrew members of a fishing vessel regularly
engagedintrawlfishing,asinthecaseofpetitionersherein,
_____________
*THIRDDIVISION.

267

VOL.181,JANUARY22,1990

267

Rugavs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission

whospendone(1)wholeweekormoreintheopenseaperformingtheirjob
toearnalivingtosupporttheirfamilies,convinceUstoadoptamoreliberal
attitude in applying to petitioners the 10calendar day rule in the filing of
appealswiththeNLRCfromthedecisionofthelaborarbiter.
Same Same Same Same Same Peculiar circumstance and the fact
that the representative of petitioners is a nonlawyer provided equitable
justification to conclude that there is substantial compliance with the ten
calendardayruleoffilingofappealswiththeNLRC.Recordsrevealthat
petitionerswereinformedofthelaborarbitersdecisionofMarch31,1984
onlyonJuly3,1984bytheirnonlawyerrepresentativeduringthearbitration
proceedings,JoseDialogo,whoreceivedthedecisioneight(8)daysearlier,
or on June 25, 1984. As adverted to earlier, the circumstances peculiar to
petitioners occupation as fishermencrew members, who during the
pendency of the case understandably have to earn a living by seeking
employment elsewhere, impress upon Us that in the ordinary course of
events, the information as to the adverse decision against them would not
reach them within such time frame as would allow them to faithfully abide
bythe10calendardayappealperiod.Thispeculiarcircumstanceandthefact
that their representative is a nonlawyer provide equitable justification to
conclude that there is substantial compliance with the tencalendar day rule
offilingofappealswiththeNLRCwhenpetitionersfiledonJuly10,1984,
or seven (7) days after receipt of the decision, their appeal with the NLRC
throughregisteredmail.
SameElementsindeterminingtheexistenceofanemployeremployee
relationship.We have consistently ruled that in determining the existence
of an employeremployee relationship, the elements that are generally
considered are the following (a) the selection and engagement of the
employee(b)thepaymentofwages(c)thepowerofdismissaland(d)the
employers power to control the employee with respect to the means and
methodsbywhichtheworkistobeaccomplished.Theemploymentrelation
arisesfromcontractofhire,expressorimplied.Intheabsenceofhiring,no
actualemployeremployeerelationcouldexist.
SameSameCourtreliedonthesocalledrightofcontroltest.From
the four (4) elements mentioned, We have generally relied on the socalled
rightofcontrol test where the person for whom the services are performed
reservesarighttocontrolnotonlytheendtobeachievedbutalsothemeans
tobeusedinreachingsuchend.Thetestcallsmerelyfortheexistenceofthe
righttocontrolthemannerof
268

268

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Rugavs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission

doingthework,nottheactualexerciseoftheright.
Same Same Same Case of Pajarillo vs. SSS invoked by the public
respondentasauthorityfortherulingthatajointfishingventureexisted
between private respondent and petitioner is not applicable in the instant
case.The case of Pajarillo vs. SSS, supra, invoked by the public
respondent as authority for the ruling that a joint fishing venture existed
between private respondent and petitioners is not applicable in the instant
case.Thereisneitherrightofcontrolnoractualexerciseofsuchrightonthe
partoftheboatownersinthePajarillocase,wheretheCourtfoundthatthe
pilots therein are not under the orders of the boatowners as regards their
employmentthattheygoouttoseanotupondirectionsoftheboatowners,
but upon their own volition as to when, how long and where to go fishing
that the boatowners do not in any way control the crewmembers with
whom the former have no relationship whatsoever that they simply join
every trip for which the pilots allow them, without any reference to the
ownersofthevesselandthattheyonlyshareintheirowncatchproducedby
theirownefforts.

PETITIONtoreviewtheresolutionoftheNationalLaborRelations
Commission.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
J.C.Espinas&Associatesforpetitioners.
TomasA.Reyesforprivaterespondent.
FERNAN,C.J.:
The issue to be resolved in the instant case is whether or not the
fishermencrewmembersofthetrawlfishingvessel7/BSandyman
II are employees of its owneroperator, De Guzman Fishing
Enterprises,andifso,whetherornottheywereillegallydismissed
fromtheiremployment.
Records show that the petitioners were the fishermencrew
membersof7/BSandymanII,oneofseveralfishingvesselsowned
andoperatedbyprivaterespondentDeGuzmanFishingEnterprises
which is primarily engaged in the fishing business with port and
office at Camaligan, Camarines Sur. Petitioners rendered service
aboard said fishing vessel in various capacities, as follows: Alipio
RugaandJoseParma,patron/pilotEladioCalderon,chiefengineer
Laurente Bautu, second engineer Jaime Barbin, master fisherman

NicanorFrancisco,sec
269

VOL.181,JANUARY22,1990

269

Rugavs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission

ondfishermanPhilipCervantesandEleuterioBarbin,fishermen.
For services rendered in the conduct of private respondents
regular business of trawl fishing, petitioners were paid on
percentagecommissionbasisincashbyoneMrs.PilardeGuzman,
cashierofprivaterespondent.Asagreedupon,theyreceivedthirteen
percent(13%)oftheproceedsofthesaleofthefishcatchifthetotal
proceedsexceededthecostofcrudeoilconsumedduringthefishing
trip,otherwise,theyreceivedtenpercent(10%)ofthetotalproceeds
of the sale. The patron/pilot, chief engineer and master fisherman
receivedaminimumincomeofP350.00perweekwhiletheassistant
engineer, second fisherman, and fishermanwinchman
received a
1
minimumincomeofP260.00perweek.
On September 11, 1983 upon arrival at the fishing port,
petitioners were told by Jorge de Guzman, president of private
respondent,toproceedtothepolicestationatCamaligan,Camarines
Sur,forinvestigationonthereportthattheysoldsomeoftheirfish
catch at midsea to the prejudice of private respondent. Petitioners
deniedthechargeclaimingthatthesamewasacountermovetotheir
havingformedalaborunionandbecomingmembersofDefenderof
Industrial Agricultural Labor Organizations and General Workers
Union(DIALOGWU)onSeptember3,1983.
During the investigation, no witnesses were presented to prove
the charge against petitioners, and no criminal charges were
formally filed against them. Notwithstanding, private respondent
refusedtoallowpetitionerstoreturntothefishingvesseltoresume
theirworkonthesameday,September11,1983.
On September 22, 1983, petitioners individually filed their
complaintsforillegaldismissalandnonpaymentof13thmonthpay,
emergencycostoflivingallowanceandserviceincentivepay,with
the then Ministry (now Department) of Labor and Employment,
RegionalArbitrationBranchNo.V,LegaspiCity,Albay,docketed
2
asCasesNos.144983to145683. Theyuni
________________
1p.3,JointDecision,LaborArbiter,p.40,Rollo.
2pp.18,Records.

270

270

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Rugavs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission

formlycontendedthattheywerearbitrarilydismissedwithoutbeing
givenampletimetolookforanewjob.
On October 24, 1983, private respondent, thru its operations
manager, Conrado S. de Guzman, submitted its position paper
denying the employeremployee relationship between private
respondentandpetitionersonthetheorythatprivaterespondentand
3
petitionerswereengagedinajointventure.
Afterthepartiesfailedtoreachanamicablesettlement,theLabor
Arbiter scheduled the case for joint hearing furnishing the parties
with notice and summons. On December 27, 1983, after two (2)
previously scheduled joint hearings were postponed due to the
absence of private respondent, one of the petitioners herein, Alipio
Ruga, the pilot/captain of the 7/B Sandyman II, testified, among
others,onthemannerthefishingoperationswereconducted,mode
ofpaymentofcompensationforservicesrenderedbythefishermen
4
crewmembers,andthecircumstancesleadingtotheirdismissal.
OnMarch31,1984,afterthecasewassubmittedforresolution,5
Labor Arbiter Asisclo S. Coralde rendered a joint decision
dismissingallthecomplaintsofpetitionersonafindingthatajoint
fishing venture and not one of employeremployee relationship
existedbetweenprivaterespondentandpetitioners.
From the adverse decision against them, petitioners appealed to
theNationalLaborRelationsCommission.
On May 30, 1985, the
National Labor Relations Commission
6
promulgateditsresolution affirmingthedecisionofthelaborarbiter
that a joint fishing venture relationship existed between private
respondentandpetitioners.
Hence,theinstantpetition.
PetitionersassailtherulingofthepublicrespondentNLRCthat
what exists between private respondent and petitioners is a joint
venturearrangementandnotanemployeremployeerelationship.To
stressthatthereisanemployeremployeerelationshipbetweenthem
andprivaterespondent,petitionersinviteattentiontothefollowing:
thattheyweredirectlyhired
_______________
3pp.2830,Ibid.
4pp.54101,Ibid.

5AnnexDPetition,pp.4046,Rollo.
6pp.6165,Rollo.

271

VOL.181,JANUARY22,1990

271

Rugavs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission

by private respondent through its general manager, Arsenio de

Guzman, and its operations manager, Conrado de Guzman that,
except for Laurente Bautu, they had been employed by private
respondent from 8 to 15 years in various capacities that private
respondent, through its operations manager, supervised and
controlledtheconductoftheirfishingoperationsastothefixingof
thescheduleofthefishingtrips,thedirectionofthefishingvessel,
thevolumeornumberoftubesofthefishcatch,thetimetoreturnto
the fishing port, which were communicated to the patron/pilot by
radio (single side band) that they were not allowed to join other
outfitseventheothervesselsownedbyprivaterespondentwithout
the permission of the operations manager that they were
compensated on percentage commission basis of the gross sales of
the fishcatch which were delivered to them in cash by private
respondents cashier, Mrs. Pilar de Guzman and that they have to
followcompanypolicies,rulesandregulationsimposedonthemby
privaterespondent.
Disputing the finding of public respondent that a joint fishing
venture exists between private respondent and petitioners,
petitioners claim that public respondent exceeded its jurisdiction
and/orabuseditsdiscretionwhenitaddedfactsnotcontainedinthe
records when it stated that the pilotcrew members do not receive
compensation from the boatowners except their share in the catch
produced by their own efforts that public respondent ignored the
evidenceofpetitionersthatprivaterespondentcontrolledthefishing
operations that public respondent did not take into account
established jurisprudence that the relationship between the fishing
boat operators and their crew is one of direct employer and
employee.
Aside from seeking the dismissal of the petition on the ground
thatthedecisionofthelaborarbiterisnowfinalandexecutoryfor
failure of petitioners to file their appeal with the NLRC within 10
calendardaysfromreceiptofsaiddecisionpursuanttothedoctrine
laiddowninVirJenShippingandMarineServices,Inc.vs.NLRC,
115SCRA347 (1982), the Solicitor General claims that the ruling
of public respondent that a joint fishing venture exists between
private respondent and petitioners rests on the resolution of the

Social Security System (SSS) in a 1968 case, Case No. 708 (De
GuzmanFishingEnter
272

272

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Rugavs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission

prisesvs.SSS),exemptingDeGuzmanFishingEnterprises,private
respondent herein, from compulsory coverage of the SSS on the
ground that there is no employeremployee relations between the
boatownerandthefishermencrewmembersfollowingthedoctrine
laiddowninPajarillovs.SSS,17SCRA1014(1966).Inapplyingto
thecaseatbarthedoctrineinPajarillovs.SSS,supra,thatthereis
noemployeremployeerelationshipbetweentheboatownerandthe
pilotandcrewmemberswhentheboatownersuppliestheboatand
equipment while the pilot and crew members contribute the
corresponding labor and the parties get specific shares in the catch
fortheirrespectivecontributiontotheventure,theSolicitorGeneral
pointedoutthattheboatownersinthePajarillocase,asinthecase
atbar,didnotcontroltheconductofthefishingoperationsandthe
pilotandcrewmemberssharedinthecatch.
Weruleinfavorofpetitioners.
FundamentalconsiderationsofsubstantialjusticepersuadeUsto
decide the instant case on the merits rather than to dismiss it on a
meretechnicality.Insodoing,weexercisetheprerogativeaccorded
to this Court enunciated in Firestone Filipinas Employees
Association, et al. vs. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. of the
Philippines, Inc., 61 SCRA 340 (1974), thus the wellsettled
doctrine is that in labor cases before this Tribunal, no undue
sympathyistobeaccordedtoanyclaimofaproceduralmisstep,the
ideabeingthatitspowerbeexercisedaccordingtojusticeandequity
andsubstantialmeritsofthecontroversy.
Circumstances peculiar to some extent to fishermencrew
membersofafishingvesselregularlyengagedintrawlfishing,asin
the case
of petitioners herein, who spend one (1) whole week or
7
more intheopenseaperformingtheirjobtoearnalivingtosupport
their families, convince Us to adopt a more liberal attitude in
applying to petitioners the 10calendar day rule in the filing of
appealswiththeNLRCfromthedecisionofthelaborarbiter.
Records reveal that petitioners were informed of the labor
arbitersdecisionofMarch31,1984onlyonJuly3,1984bytheir
nonlawyerrepresentativeduringthearbitrationproceedings,

_______________
7p.23,T.S.N.,p.78,Records.

273

VOL.181,JANUARY22,1990

273

Rugavs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission

JoseDialogo,whoreceivedthedecisioneight(8)daysearlier,oron
June25,1984.Asadvertedtoearlier,thecircumstancespeculiarto
petitionersoccupationasfishermencrewmembers,whoduringthe
pendency of the case understandably have to earn a living by
seeking employment elsewhere, impress upon Us that in the
ordinarycourseofevents,theinformationastotheadversedecision
againstthemwouldnotreachthemwithinsuchtimeframeaswould
allowthemtofaithfullyabidebythe10calendardayappealperiod.
Thispeculiarcircumstanceandthefactthattheirrepresentativeisa
nonlawyer provide equitable justification to conclude that there is
substantial compliance with the tencalendar day rule of filing of
appealswiththeNLRCwhenpetitionersfiledonJuly10,1984,or
seven (7) days after receipt of the decision, their appeal with the
NLRCthroughregisteredmail.
We have consistently ruled that in determining the existence of
anemployeremployeerelationship,theelementsthataregenerally
consideredarethefollowing(a)theselectionandengagementofthe
employee(b)thepaymentofwages(c)thepowerofdismissaland
(d)theemployerspowertocontroltheemployeewithrespecttothe
8
meansandmethodsbywhichtheworkistobeaccomplished. The
employment
relation arises from contract of hire, express or
9
implied. In the absence of hiring, no actual employeremployee
relationcouldexist.
Fromthefour(4)elementsmentioned,Wehavegenerallyrelied
10
on the socalled rightofcontrol test where the person for whom
theservicesareperformedreservesarighttocontrol
_______________
8HydroResourcesContractorCorporationvs.LaborArbiterPagalilauan,G.R.No.

62909, April 18, 1989 Tabas, et al. vs. California Mfg. Co. et. al.,G.R. No. 80680,
January 26, 1989 Continental Marble Corporation vs. NLRC, 161 SCRA 151
Bautista vs. Inciong,158 SCRA 665Broadway Motors, Inc. vs. NLRC, 156 SCRA
522Besavs.Trajano,146SCRA501RosarioBrothers,Inc.vs.Ople,131SCRA72
Shipside, Inc. vs. NLRC,118 SCRA 99 Mafinco Trading Corporation vs. Ople, 70
SCRA139.

9YuChuckvs.KongLiPo,46Phil.608(1924).
10 LVN Pictures, Inc. vs. Philippine Musicians Guild, 1 SCRA 132, 173 (1961),

citingAlabamaHighwayExpress,Co.vs.Local,612,108S.2d.350.
274

274

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Rugavs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission

not only the end to be achieved but also the means to be used in
reachingsuchend.Thetestcallsmerelyfortheexistenceoftheright
tocontrolthemannerofdoingthework,nottheactualexerciseof
11
theright.
The case of Pajarillo vs. SSS, supra, invoked by the public
respondent as authority for the ruling that a joint fishing venture
existedbetweenprivaterespondentandpetitionersisnotapplicable
in the instant case. There is neither right of control nor actual
exerciseofsuchrightonthepartoftheboatownersinthePajarillo
case,wheretheCourtfoundthatthepilotsthereinarenotunderthe
orderoftheboatownersasregardstheiremploymentthattheygo
out to sea not upon directions of the boatowners, but upon their
ownvolitionastowhen,howlongandwheretogofishingthatthe
boatowners do not in any way control the crewmembers with
whomtheformerhavenorelationshipwhatsoeverthattheysimply
join every trip for which the pilots allow them, without any
reference to the owners of the vessel and that they only share in
theirowncatchproducedbytheirownefforts.
TheaforementionedcircumstancesobtaininginPajarillocasedo
not exist in the instant case. The conduct of the fishing operations
was undisputably shown by the testimony of Alipio Ruga, the
patron/pilot of 7/B Sandyman II, to be under the control and
supervision of private respondents operations manager. Matters
dealingonthefixingofthescheduleofthefishingtripandthetime
to return to the fishing
port were shown to be the prerogative of
12
private respondent. While performing the fishing operations,
petitioners received instructions via a singleside band radio from
privaterespondentsoperationsmanagerwhocalledthepatron/pilot
inthemorning.Theyaretoldtoreporttheiractivities,theirposition,
13
andthenumberoftubesoffishcatchinoneday. Clearlythus,the
conduct of the fishing operations was monitored by private
respondent thru the patron/pilot of 7/B Sandyman II who is
responsiblefordisseminatingtheinstructionstothecrew
________________

11Dy Keh Beng vs. International Labor and Marine Union of the Philippines, 90

SCRA161(1979).
12pp.78,T.S.N.,pp.6162,Records.
13p.7,T.S.N.,p.61,Records.

275

VOL.181,JANUARY22,1990

275

Rugavs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission

members.
The conclusion of public respondent that there had been no
changeinthesituationofthepartiessince1968whenDeGuzman
FishingEnterprises,privaterespondentherein,obtainedafavorable
judgmentinCaseNo.708exemptingitfromcompulsorycoverage
of the SSS law is not supported by evidence on record. It was
erroneousforpublicrespondenttoapplythefactualsituationofthe
partiesinthe1968casetotheinstantcaseinthelightofthechanges
in the conditions of employment agreed upon by the private
respondentandpetitionersasdiscussedearlier.
Recordsshowthatintheinstantcase,asdistinguishedfromthe
Pajarillo case where the crew members are under no obligation to
remain in the outfit for any definite period as one can be the crew
memberofanoutfitforonedayandbethememberofthecrewof
anothervesselthenextday,thehereinpetitioners,ontheotherhand,
were directly hired by private respondent, through its general
manager,ArseniodeGuzman,anditsoperationsmanager,Conrado
de Guzman and have been under the employ of private respondent
foraperiodof815yearsinvariouscapacities,exceptforLaurente
Bautu who was hired on August 3, 1983 as assistant engineer.
Petitioner Alipio Ruga was hired on September 29, 1974 as
patron/captain of the fishing vessel Eladio Calderon started as a
mechaniconApril16,1968untilhewaspromotedaschiefengineer
of the fishing vessel Jose Parma was employed on September 29,
1974 as assistant engineer Jaime Barbin started as a pilot of the
motor boat until he was transferred as a master fisherman to the
fishing vessel 7/B Sandyman II Philip Cervantes was hired as
winchman on August 1, 1972 while Eleuterio Barbin was hired as
winchmanonApril15,1976.
While tenure or length of employment is not considered as the
testofemployment,neverthelessthehiringofpetitionerstoperform
workwhichisnecessaryordesirableintheusualbusinessortrade
ofprivaterespondentforaperiodof815yearssince1968qualify
themasregularemployeeswithinthemeaningofArticle281ofthe
Labor Code as they were indeed engaged to perform activities

usually necessary or desirable in the usual fishing business or

occupationofprivaterespon
276

276

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Rugavs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission
14

dent.
Asidefromperformingactivitiesusuallynecessaryanddesirable
in the business of private respondent, it must be noted that
petitioners received compensation on a percentage commission
basedonthegrosssaleofthefishcatch,i.e.13%oftheproceedsof
the sale if the total proceeds exceeded the cost of the crude oil
consumed during the fishing trip, otherwise only 10% of the
proceedsofthesale.Suchcompensationfallswithinthescopeand
meaning of the term wage as defined under Article 97(f) of the
LaborCode,thus:
(f) Wage paid to any employee shall mean the remuneration or earnings,
howeverdesignated,capableofbeingexpressedintermsofmoney,whether
fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece or commission basis, or other
method of calculating the same, which is payable by an employer to an
employeeunderawrittenorunwrittencontractofemploymentforworkdone
or to be done, or for services rendered or to be rendered, and included the
fairandreasonablevalue,asdeterminedbytheSecretaryofLabor,ofboard,
lodging, or other facilities customarily furnished by the employer to the
employee.xxx

The claim of private respondent, which was given credence by

public respondent, that petitioners get paid in the form of share in
thefishcatchwhichthepatron/pilotasheadoftheteamdistributes
15
tohiscrewmembersinaccordancewiththeirownunderstanding is
notsupportedbyrecordedevidence.Exceptthatsuchclaimappears
as an allegation in private respondents position paper, there is
nothingintherecordsshowingsuchasharingschemeasproferred
byprivaterespondent.
Furthermore,thefactthatonmeresuspicionbasedonthereports
thatpetitionersallegedlysoldtheirfishcatchatmidseawithoutthe
knowledge and consent of private respondent, petitioners were
unjustifiably not allowed to board the fishing vessel on September
11, 1983 to resume their activities without giving them the
opportunity to air their side on the accusation against them
unmistakablyrevealsthedisciplinarypowerex

_______________
14Ochocovs.NLRC.,120SCRA774(1983)Mansolvs.P.P.GochecoLumberCo.,

96Phil.941(1955).
15p.2,PrivateRespondentsPositionPaper,p.22,Recordsp.2,Memorandumfor

PrivateRespondent,p.131,Rollo.
277

VOL.181,JANUARY22,1990

277

Rugavs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission

ercised by private respondent over them and the corresponding

sanction imposed in case of violation of any of its rules and
regulations. The virtual dismissal of petitioners from their
employment was characterized by undue haste when less extreme
measures consistent with the requirements of due process should
havebeenfirstexhausted.Inthatsense,thedismissalofpetitioners
wastaintedwithillegality.
Evenontheassumptionthatpetitionersindeedsoldthefishcatch
at midsea, the act of private respondent virtually resulting in their
dismissalevidentlycontradictsprivaterespondentstheoryofjoint
fishing venture between the parties herein. A joint venture,
including partnership, presupposes generally a parity of standing
betweenthejointcoventurersorpartners,inwhicheachpartyhas16
an equal proprietary interest in the capital or property contributed
and where
each party exercises equal rights in the conduct of the
17
business. It would be inconsistent with the principle of parity of
standing between the joint coventurers as regards the conduct of
business,ifprivaterespondentwouldoutrightlyexcludepetitioners
from the conduct of the business without first resorting to other
measures consistent with the nature of a joint venture undertaking.
Insteadofarbitraryunilateralaction,privaterespondentshouldhave
discussed with an open mind the advantages and disadvantages of
petitioners action with its joint coventurers if indeed there is a
jointfishingventurebetweentheparties.Butthiswasnotdonein
the instant case. Petitioners were arbitrarily dismissed
notwithstandingthatnocriminalcomplaintswerefiledagainstthem.
The lame excuse of private respondent that the nonfiling of the
criminalcomplaintsagainstpetitionerswasforhumanitarianreasons
willnothelpitscauseeither.
Wehaveexaminedthejurisprudenceonthematterandfindthe
sametobesupportiveofpetitionersstand.InNegrevs.WCC,135
SCRA653(1985),weheldthatfishermencrewmemberswhowere
recruited by one master fisherman locally known as maestro in

chargeofrecruitingotherstocomplete
________________
16Sevillavs.CourtofAppeals,160SCRA171(1988),citingBautista,Treatiseon

PhilippinePartnershipLaw,p.34.
17Ibid.,p.37.

278

278

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Rugavs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission

thecrewmembersareconsideredemployees,notindustrialpartners,
oftheboatowners.InanearliercaseofAbongvs.WCC,54SCRA
379 (1973) where petitioner therein, Dr. Agustin Abong, owner of
the fishing boat, claimed that he was not the employer of the
fishermen crew members because of an alleged partnership
agreementbetweenhim,asfinancier,andSimplicioPanganiban,as
his teamleader in charge of recruiting said fishermen to work for
him, we affirmed the finding of the WCC that there existed an
employeremployee relationship between the boatowner and the
fishermen crew members not only because they worked for and in
theinterestofthebusinessoftheboatownerbutalsobecausethey
were subject to the control, supervision and dismissal of the boat
owner,thruitsagent,SimplicioPanganiban,theallegedpartnerof
Dr.Abongthatwhilethesefishermencrewmemberswerepaidin
kind,orbypakiaobasisstillthatfactdidnotalterthecharacterof
theirrelationshipwithDr.Abongasemployeesofthelatter.
In Philippine Fishing Boat Officers and Engineers Union vs.
Court of Industrial Relations,112 SCRA 159 (1982), we held that
theemployeremployeerelationshipbetweenthecrewmembersand
the owners of the fishing vessels engaged in deepsea fishing is
merely suspended during the time the vessels are drydocked or
undergoingrepairsorbeingloadedwiththenecessaryprovisionsfor
thenextfishingtrip.Thesaidrulingispremisedontheprinciplethat
all these activities i.e., drydock, repairs, loading of necessary
provisions,formpartoftheregularoperationofthecompanyfishing
business.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is
GRANTED. The questioned resolution of the National Labor
Relations Commission dated May 30, 1985 is hereby REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. Private respondent is ordered to reinstate
petitionerstotheirformerpositionsoranyequivalentpositionswith
3year backwages and other monetary benefits under the law. No

pronouncementastocosts.
SOORDERED.
Gutierrez,Jr.,BidinandCorts,JJ.,concur.
Feliciano,J.,Intheresult.
Petitiongrantedresolutionreversedandsetaside.
279

VOL.181,JANUARY22,1990

279

Peoplevs.Tripoli

Notes.Fishermen crew member who are recruited by one

masterfishermanlocallyknownasmaestroinchargeofrecruiting
otherstocompletethecrewmembersareconsideredemployeesnot
industrialpartnersofthe boatowners(Negrevs.WCC, 135 SCRA
653[1985]).
Theemployeremployeerelationshipbetweenthecrewmembers
andtheownersofthefishingvesselsengagedindeepseafishingis
merely suspended during the time the vessels are drydocked or
undergoingrepairsorbeingloadedwiththenecessaryprovisionsfor
thenextfishingtrip(PhilippineFishingBoatOfficersandEngineers
Unionvs.CourtofIndustrialRelations,112SCRA159[1982]).
o0o

Copyright2015CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.