G.R. No. 202091 , June 7, 2017
SUMIFRU (PHILIPPINES) CORP. (surviving entity of a merger with Fresh Banana Agricultural Corporation and other corporations), Petitioner vs. NAGKAHIUSANG MAMUMUO SA SUYAPA FARM (NAMASUFA-NAFLU-KMU), Respondent

FACTS

Respondent NAMASUFA, a legitimate labor organization, filed a Petition for Certification Election to represent the rank-and-file employees of Packing Plant 90 (PP 90) of Fresh Banana Agricultural Corporation (FBAC). FBAC opposed, alleging no employer-employee relationship existed as the workers were employees of an independent contractor, A2Y Contracting Services. NAMASUFA countered that its members were former workers of a prior operator, were required to join a cooperative to be hired, and had been working at PP 90 long before A2Y’s involvement. Pending resolution, FBAC merged with petitioner Sumifru, the surviving corporation.
The DOLE Med-Arbiter granted the petition, ordering a certification election and ruling that an employer-employee relationship existed between FBAC/Sumifru and the workers. This decision was affirmed by the DOLE Secretary and subsequently by the Court of Appeals. The Med-Arbiter and the DOLE Secretary applied the four-fold test, finding that Sumifru exercised control over the workers by giving work instructions, setting report times, requiring monitoring sheets, supplying materials, and imposing disciplinary measures.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the findings of the DOLE Med-Arbiter and Secretary that an employer-employee relationship exists between Sumifru and the workers of PP 90, thereby justifying the order for a certification election.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed CA Decision and Resolution. The Court emphasized that in a Rule 45 petition, it is not a trier of facts and generally defers to the factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the DOLE, especially when supported by substantial evidence and affirmed by the CA. The core issue of the existence of an employer-employee relationship is factual.
The Court found no reason to disturb the consistent factual conclusions of the Med-Arbiter, the DOLE Secretary, and the CA. These agencies correctly applied the control test, the most determinative factor in the four-fold test for employment. The evidence substantiated that Sumifru exercised control over the workers’ conduct: it gave specific work instructions, dictated their report and return times, required them to fill out monitoring sheets, supplied their work materials, and wielded disciplinary authority, such as enforcing “No Helmet-No Entry” policies. The payroll arrangement with A2Y was deemed a mere administrative scheme that did not negate the reality of Sumifru’s control. Consequently, the order for a certification election was proper, as the workers constituted an appropriate bargaining unit. The petition failed to demonstrate any capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment by the lower tribunals.