You are on page 1of 2

BROTHERHOOD LABOR UNITY MOVEMENT vs.

ZAMORA
(147 SCRA 49)
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 relationship between the workers
and San Miguel Corp?

HELD:
YES. In determining if there is an existence of the (ER-EE) relationship, the fourfold 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.

You might also like