Alipio Ruga et al. vs.

NLRC and De Guzman Fishing Enterprises and/or

Arsenio de Guzman
G.R. No. L-72654-61, January 22, 1990

Facts:
Petitioners Alipio Ruga et al. were fishermen-crew members of the trawl fishing
vessel 7/B Sandayman II owned and operated by De Guzman Fishing
Enterprises. Petitioners were engaged in various capacities and were paid on
percentage commission basis in cash by the cashier of private respondent.
They received 13% of the proceeds of the sale of the fish-catch if the total
proceeds exceeded the cost of crude oil consumed during the fishing trip,
otherwise, they received 10%.

On September 11, 1983, petitioners were ordered by the president of private

respondent, to proceed to the police station in Camaligan, Camarines Sur for
investigation regarding reports that petitioners sold their catch in mid-sea.
Petitioners were then not allowed to return to work and they individually filed
complaints for illegal dismissal and non-payment of 13th month pay, emergency
cost of living allowance and service incentive pay.

Labor Arbiter claims that a joint fishing venture existed between the parties
and not employer-employee relationship.

Issue:
Whether or not there an employer-employee relationship between petitioners
and private respondent?

Held:
Yes, as outlined in Sera et al. vs. Agarrado et al. the four-fold test in
determining employer-employee relationship are the following: (1) selection and
engagement of employee; (2) payment of wages; (3) power of dismissal and (4)
power to control employees action with respect to the means and methods by
which the work is to be accomplished. The employment relation arises from
contract of hire, express or implied. In the absence of which no employer-
employee relationship exists. From the four-fold test, there is also the control
test, where the person for whom services are performed reserves a right to
control not only the end to be achieved but also the means to be used in
reaching such end. The test calls merely for the existence of the right to control
the manner of doing the work, not the actual exercise of the right. In the case
at bar, private respondents monitored the petitioners activities through a single
side band radio, directed them to report their activities, position and number of
tubes of fish-catch in one day. Petitioners were also hired by private
respondents, in fact.