Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 95011 April 22, 1991 M.Y. SAN BISCUITS, INC., petitioner, vs. ACTING SECRETARY BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA !" P#ILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND GENERAL $OR%ERS ORGANI&ATIONS, respondents. Ambrosio B. De Luna for petitioner. Pedro A. Lopez for private respondent.

GANCAYCO, J.:p
The issue presented b this petition is !hether or not the "ed#arbiter or the Secretar of $abor and %"plo "ent has the authorit to deter"ine the e&istence of an e"plo er#e"plo ee relationship bet!een the parties in a petition for certification election. On Ma '(, ')*), private respondent Philippine Transport and +eneral ,or-ers Or.ani/ation 01nion for short2 file a petition for certification election as a bar.ainin. a.ent for a .roup of e"plo ees of petitioner M.3. San 4iscuits, Inc. before the "ed#arbiter of the Depart"ent of $abor and %"plo "ent 0DO$%2. 5fter the parties sub"itted their position papers, on 5u.ust (6, ')*), the "ed#arbiter issued an order dis"issin. the petition for lac- of "erit as there is no e"plo er#e"plo ee relationship bet!een petitioner and the deliver drivers7helpers represented b respondent 1nion. 1 Mean!hile, respondent 1nion and several others filed before the N$R8 4ranch of Re.ion No. IV a co"plaint for underpa "ent of !a.es9 non#pa "ent of ':th "onth pa 9 service incentive pa and 8O$59 da"a.es and attorne ;s fees. On Februar ), '))<, the labor arbiter rendered a decision dis"issin. the said co"plaint on the .round that there is no e"plo er#e"plo ee relationship bet!een the parties. 2 On Februar (=, '))< private respondent appealed to the National $abor Relations 8o""ission 0N$R82. In the certification election case, private respondent appealed to the Secretar of DO$%. On Dece"ber '6, ')*), then DO$% Secretar Fran-lin Drilon pro"ul.ated a resolution reversin. the decision of the "ed#arbiter, thus findin. that there e&ists an e"plo er#e"plo ee relationship bet!een petitioner and private respondent. ' Petitioner filed a "otion for reconsideration of this resolution on >anuar ((, '))< and a "anifestation on Februar '(, '))< as-in. that action be held in abe ance pendin. consideration of the other case !here the labor arbiter rendered a decision declarin. the absence of an e"plo er#e"plo ee relationship bet!een the parties. ( On 5pril '=, '))<, public respondent issued an order den in. the relief sou.ht in the "anifestation of petitioner. 5 Petitioner filed a "otion for reconsideration therefro" ) but it !as denied on >une '*, '))<. * Thus, this petition for certiorari !ith pra er for the issuance of a !rit of preli"inar prohibitor in?unction and te"porar restrainin. order based on the follo!in. .rounds@ I. The 5ctin. Secretar 4ienvenido %. $a.ues"a abused his discretion in den in. the Manifestation filed b Petitioner on the .round of a Pre?udicial Auestion involvin. the issue of e"plo er#e"plo ee relationship pendin. before the National $abor Relations 8o""ission 0N$R82. II. The Bon. Secretar has no ?urisdiction to deter"ine the e&istence of CanD e"plo er#e"plo ee relationship bet!een petitioner and private respondent. + On Septe"ber '), '))<, the 8ourt, !ithout .ivin. due course to the petition, reAuired the respondents to co""ent thereon !ithin ten 0'<2 da s fro" notice and .ranted the pra er for the issuance of a te"porar restrainin. order en?oinin. the e&ecution of the Auestioned orders dated Dece"ber '6, ')*) and >une '*, '))<. The "ain thrust of the petition is that the public respondent Secretar has no ?urisdiction to deter"ine the e&istence of an e"plo er#e"plo ee relationship bet!een the parties and that its deter"ination is vested in the N$R8.

The petition "ust fail. 1nder 5rticle ((= of the $abor 8ode, as a"ended, the 4ureau of $abor Relations 04$R2, of !hich the "ed#arbiter is an officer, has the follo!in. ?urisdiction EE 5rt. ((=. Bureau of Labor Relations. EE The 4ureau of $abor Relations and the $abor Relations divisions in the re.ional offices of the Depart"ent of $abor shall have ori.inal and e&clusive authorit to act, at their o!n initiative or upon reAuest of either or both parties, on all inter#union and intra#union conflicts, and all disputes, grievances or problems arising from or affecting labormanagement relations in all work places w et er agricultural or non-agricultural , e&cept those arisin. fro" the i"ple"entation or interpretation of collective bar.ainin. a.ree"ents !hich shall be the sub?ect of .rievance procedure and7or voluntar arbitration. The 4ureau shall have fifteen 0'62 !or-in. da s to act on labor cases before it, sub?ect to e&tension b a.ree"ent of the parties. 0%"phasis supplied.2 Fro" the fore.oin., the 4$R has the ori.inal and e&clusive ?urisdiction to inter alia, decide all disputes, .rievances or proble"s arisin. fro" or affectin. labor#"ana.e"ent relations in all !or-places !hether a.ricultural or non#a.ricultural. Necessaril , in the e&ercise of this ?urisdiction over labor# "ana.e"ent relations, the "ed#arbiter has the authorit , ori.inal and e&clusive, to deter"ine the e&istence of an e"plo er#e"plo ee relationship bet!een the parties. 5propos to the present case, once there is a deter"ination as to the e&istence of such a relationship, the "ed#arbiter can then decide the certification election case. 9 5s the authorit to deter"ine the e"plo er#e"plo ee relationship is necessar and indispensable in the e&ercise of ?urisdiction b the "ed#arbiter, his findin. thereon "a onl be revie!ed and reversed b the Secretar of $abor !ho e&ercises appellate ?urisdiction under 5rticle (6) of the $abor 8ode, as a"ended, !hich provides EE 5rt. (6). Appeal from certification election orders. F 5n part to an election "a appeal the order or results of the election as deter"ined b the Med#5rbiter directl to the Secretar of $abor and %"plo "ent on the .round that the rules and re.ulations or parts thereof established b the Secretar of $abor and %"plo "ent for the conduct of the election have been violated. Such appeal shall be decided !ithin fifteen 0'62 calendar da s. ,hen as in this case Secretar Drilon of DO$% rendered a resolution dated Dece"ber '6, ')*) reversin. the order of the "ed#arbiter dated 5u.ust (6, ')*) b declarin. the e&istence of an e"plo er#e"plo ee relationship bet!een the parties, such findin. cannot be rendered nu.ator b a contrar findin. of the labor arbiter in a separate dispute for "one clai"s bet!een sa"e parties. It is absurd to su..est that the "ed#arbiter and Secretar of $abor cannot "a-e their o!n independent findin. as to the sentence of such relationship and "ust have to rel and !ait for such a deter"ination b the labor arbiter or N$R8 in a separate proceedin.. For then, .iven a situation !here there is no separate co"plaint filed !ith the labor arbiter, the "ed#arbiter and7or the Secretar of $abor can never decide a certification election case or an labor#"ana.e"ent dispute properl brou.ht before the" as the have no authorit to deter"ine the e&istence of an e"plo er#e"plo ee relationship. Such a proposition is, to sa the least, ano"alous. 8orrectl indeed, the Secretar of $abor denied the pra er in the "anifestation of petitioner to a!ait the resolution of the N$R8 as to the e&istence of such e"plo er#e"plo ee relationship. The 8ourt reproduces !ith approval the findin.s and conclusions of the Secretar in the said resolution dated Dece"ber '6, ')*). The sole issue to be resolved is !hether or not there e&ists an e"plo er#e"plo ee relationship bet!een "e"bers of petitionin. union and the co"pan . 5fter a careful revie! of the records of the case, !e find for the appellant. It has been !ell settled in ?urisprudence that the factors to be considered in deter"inin. the e&istence of e"plo er#e"plo ee relationship are as follo!s@ 0a2 selection and en.a.e"ent of the e"plo ees9 0b2 the pa "ent of !a.es9 0e2 the process C sicD of dis"issal9 and, 0d2 the e"plo er;s po!er to control the e"plo ee !ith respect to the "eans and "ethods C!ithD !hich the !or- is to be acco"plished. On the first factor, 0selection and en.a.e"ent of the e"plo er2, CsicD it is ver apparent fro" the records that the personnel of M.3. San 4iscuits are the one responsible for hirin. of e"plo ees. 5ssu"in., it is the sales"an that en.a.es his o!n driver, it could be inferred ho!ever that such authorit e"anates fro" the respondent. On the second factor 0pa "ent of !a.es2, !hile the respondent tried to i"press upon us that the drivers7helpers are not in the pa roll of the co"pan and, therefore, not receivin. salaries fro" it, this at best is but an ad"inistrative arran.e"ent in order to save the respondent fro" the burden of -eepin. records and other indirect cost. On the third factor, 0the po!er of dis"issal2, it is ver clear that herein respondent is the authorit that i"poses disciplinar "easures a.ainst errin. drivers. This alone proves that it !ields disciplinar authorit over the drivers7helpers. Finall , on the fourth factor !hich is the control test, the fact that the respondent .ives dail instructions to the drivers on ho! to .o about their !or- is sufficient indication that it e&ercises control over the "ove"ents of the drivers7helpers. The drivers are instructed as to !hat ti"e the are supposed to report to the office and !hat ti"e the are supposed to return.

Vie!ed fro" the above circu"stances, it is ever clear that the herein respondent is the real e"plo er of the drivers7helpers. The are in truth and in fact the e"plo ees of the respondent and its atte"pt to see- refu.e on its sales"en as the ostensible e"plo er of the drivers7helpers !as nothin. but an elaborate sche"e to deprive drivers7helpers their ri.ht to self#or.ani/ation. ,B%R%FOR%, pre"ises considered, the appeal is hereb .ranted and the Med#5rbiter;s Order dated (6 5u.ust ')*) vacated, and in lieu thereof, a ne! one is entered callin. for the conduct of a certification election a"on. the drivers7helpers of M.3. San 4iscuits !ith the follo!in. as choices@ '. Philippine Transport and +eneral ,or-ers Or.ani/ation 0PT+,O29 and, (. No 1nion. SO ORD%R%D. 10 On Septe"ber '), '))<, the N$R8 pro"ul.ated its resolution reversin. the decision of the labor arbiter and findin. the e&istence of an e"plo er# e"plo ee relationship bet!een the parties. 11 5 "otion for reconsideration filed b petitioner !as denied in a resolution dated Nove"ber '=, '))<. all counts, the petition "ust be struc- do!n.

12

On

,B%R%FOR%, the petition is DISMISS%D. The te"porar restrainin. order !hich the 8ourt issued on Septe"ber '), '))< is hereb lifted, !ith costs a.ainst petitioner. SO ORD%R%D. !arvasa, "ruz, #ri$o-A%uino and &edialdea, ''., concur.

,oo-!o-./ ' 5nne& D to the Petition. ( 5nne& % to the Petition. : 5nne& F to the Petition. G 5nne& B to the Petition. 6 5nne& I to the Petition. = 5nne& > to the Petition. H 5nne& I to the Petition. * Pa.e =, Rollo. ) 4esa vs. Tra?ano, 'G= S8R5 6<' 0')*H2. '< 5nne& + to the Petition9 pa.es '=( to '=:, Rollo. '' Pa.es ':( to 'G:, Rollo. '( Pa.es 'G6 to 'GH, Rollo.