GR L 32245; (May, 1979) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-32245 May 25, 1979
DY KEH BENG, petitioner, vs. INTERNATIONAL LABOR AND MARINE UNION OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Dy Keh Beng, proprietor of a basket factory, was charged with unfair labor practice under Republic Act No. 875 for dismissing employees Carlos Solano and Ricardo Tudla due to their union activities. Dy Keh Beng contested the existence of an employer-employee relationship, arguing that Solano and Tudla were mere piece workers engaged on a “pakiaw” or contract basis. He asserted they were not regular employees because their work was intermittent, they were not under his control regarding work methods, and they only worked when specific orders were available. The Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) found otherwise, holding that an employer-employee relationship did exist and that the dismissals were unlawfully discriminatory.
ISSUE
The central issue is whether an employer-employee relationship existed between Dy Keh Beng and the complainants, Solano and Tudla, thereby making the dismissals a case of unfair labor practice.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the CIR’s finding of an employer-employee relationship and the commission of unfair labor practice. The Court applied the “control test,” which determines the relationship based on the employer’s right to control not only the result of the work but also the means and methods by which it is accomplished. The Court clarified that the test requires only the existence of the right to control, not its actual exercise. Given the nature of the basket manufacturing business, it was inherent that Dy Keh Beng would set requirements for the size, quality, and specifications of the products, thereby establishing his right to control the work of the complainants. The fact that they were paid on a piece-rate basis and their work was not continuous did not negate the employment relationship. The Court upheld the CIR’s factual findings as supported by substantial evidence. However, modifying the remedy, the Court limited the award of backwages to three years without qualification or deduction, applying the formula from prevailing jurisprudence to account for the protracted period since the dismissals. The order for reinstatement was sustained.