GR L 53590; (July, 1984) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-53590 July 31, 1984
ROSARIO BROTHERS INC. (MANILA COD DEPARTMENT STORE), petitioner, vs. HON. BLAS F. OPLE, THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, and LEONARDO LOVERIA, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents worked as tailors, pressers, and stitchers in petitioner’s tailoring department, some since 1969. They were paid weekly wages on a piece-work basis, with deductions for SSS premiums and withholding taxes. They were registered with the SSS as employees, were members of the company labor union with a CBA, and were required to report from Monday to Saturday, recording their attendance via a bundy clock and staying at least eight hours daily unless no work was available after a wait. A master cutter distributed and supervised job orders. The respondents filed a complaint for non-payment of 13th-month pay and emergency living allowance. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC initially dismissed the claims, finding no employer-employee relationship. However, the Minister of Labor reversed this, ruling that such a relationship did exist. Subsequently, the respondents were dismissed, prompting an illegal dismissal case.
ISSUE
Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner and private respondents.
RULING
Yes, an employer-employee relationship existed. The Supreme Court affirmed the Minister of Labor’s finding, applying the four-fold test focusing on the employer’s right of control. The Court emphasized that the control test is paramount. The facts demonstrated petitioner’s control: respondents were required to observe specific working days and hours, their attendance was time-recorded, they followed company rules and a code of discipline, their work was subject to quality control and deadlines supervised by a master cutter, and they could be dismissed for violations. The method of payment (piece-rate) is still considered wages under the Labor Code and does not negate employment. Their registration with the SSS and tax deductions further indicated an employment relationship. The Court upheld the administrative agency’s expertise, finding no grave abuse of discretion in the Minister’s decision, which was supported by substantial evidence of control. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.