Labor Relations
Case Digest Compilation
First, as to the element of selection and engagement of the ER, the
M.Y. SAN BISCUITS, INC. vs. LAGUESMA
personnel of MY San are the ones responsible for hiring the EEs.
G.R. 95011 | April 22, 1991
Second, as to the element of payment of wages, the fact that the he
FACTS:
drivers/helpers are not in the payroll of the company and, therefore,
Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization [Union] filed
not receiving salaries from it is but an administrative arrangement in
a petition for certification election [petition] as a bargaining unit for
order to save MY San from the burden of keeping the records.
the delivery drivers/helpers of M.Y. San Biscuits before med-arbiter,
BLR. The Union also file a complaint for unpaid wages [complaint]
Third, as to the element of the power of dismissal, MY San is the
against M.Y. San before the labor arbiter, NLRC.
authority that imposes disciplinary measures against erring drivers..
But both cases were dismissed because there is no employer-
Lastly, as to the element of control, the fact that the respondent
employee relationship. The Union appealed the complaint to the
gives daily instructions to the drivers on how to go about their work
NLRC.
is sufficient indication that it exercises control over the movements
of the drivers/helpers. The drivers are instructed as to what time they
M.Y. San appealed the petition to the Dole Secretary, who reversed
are supposed to report to the office and what time they are
the ruling of the med-arbiter. He ruled that there exists employer-
supposed to return.
employee relationship between the parties.
Hence, the drivers were the EEs of M.Y. San. It was nothing but an
M.Y. San filed a MR of the order of DOLE Secretary, asking for the
elaborate scheme to deprive drivers/helpers their right to self-
action to be held in abeyance pending consideration of the other
organization.
case as to the determination of the existence of ER-EE Relationship,
arguing that the BLR Med Arbiter had no jurisdiction to do so.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the BLR-med-arbiter has jurisdiction to determine the
existence of ER-EE Relationship – YES.
RULING:
The BLR has original and exclusive jurisdiction to inter alia, decide
over all disputes, grievances or problems arising from or affecting
labor- management relations in all work places whether agricultural
or non-agricultural, xxx. [Art. 226, LC]
Hence, med-arbiter has the authority to determine the existence
over ER-EE relationship in the exercise of its jurisdiction over labor-
management relations. This finding may be reviewed by the Sec. of
Labor [Art. 259, LC]
It is absurd to suggest that the med-arbiter and Secretary of Labor
cannot make their own independent finding as to the existence of
such relationship and must have to rely and wait for such a
determination by the labor arbiter or NLRC in a separate proceeding.
For then, given a situation where there is no separate complaint filed
with the labor arbiter, the med-arbiter and/or the Secretary of Labor
can never decide a certification election case or any labor-
management dispute properly brought before them as they have no
authority to determine the existence of an employer-employee
relationship. Such a proposition is, to say the least, anomalous.
ISSUE:
Whether or not an ER-EE relationship exists between the parties – YES.
RULING:
Elements of ER-EE Relationship: (a) selection and engagement of the
employees; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the process [sic] of dismissal;
and, (d) the employer’s power to control the employee with respect to
the means and methods [with] which the work is to be accomplished.
In the case at bar:
1
Based on the syllabus of Atty. Maria Christina S. Sagmit
Ateneo De Davao University S.Y. 2020-2021
3rd Yaer Sanchez Roman 2020-2021
Digested by: Ampatuan,Ampog,Banosan,Esmael,Frias,Mahusay,Malicay,Paclibar,Peῆamante,Picot,Sinsuat,Sosoban,Teng
