G.R. Nos. L-63550-51. January 31, 1984.
RJL MARTINEZ FISHING CORPORATION and/or PENINSULA FISHING CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ANTONIO BOTICARIO, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner corporations are engaged in deep-sea fishing. Since 1978, private respondents were employed as stevedores at the Navotas Fish Port, tasked with unloading tuna from petitioners’ vessels and loading them onto refrigerated vans. On March 27, 1981, the workers filed a complaint for non-payment of various statutory benefits. They alleged that on March 29, 1981, they were illegally dismissed in retaliation for filing the complaint, leading to a second complaint for illegal dismissal.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaints, ruling that no employer-employee relationship existed. He found the workers were “extra workers” hired on a per-job contractual basis, their work being intermittent and dependent on vessel arrivals. He noted they were free to work for other operators when petitioners had no work and that their relationship with petitioners ended upon completion of each unloading task. Private respondents appealed to the NLRC.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether an employer-employee relationship existed between the petitioners and private respondents, making the latter regular employees entitled to reinstatement, backwages, and statutory benefits.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC’s decision, finding the existence of an employer-employee relationship and declaring the workers as regular employees. The Court applied the four-fold test, emphasizing control. Petitioners determined the work schedule (upon vessel arrival), supplied the tools (cargo nets, hooks), and the work of unloading and loading was directly necessary and desirable to petitioners’ deep-sea fishing business. The fact that the workers had no work during periods of no vessel arrivals and could seek employment elsewhere did not negate the relationship; such temporary layoffs are inherent in the industry and do not deprive workers of regular status.
The Court rejected the argument that Antonio Boticario was an independent labor contractor. The “employment contract” designating him as such was a mere formality, as wages were paid directly and uniformly by petitioners, and labor-only contracting was prohibited. The length of service since 1978 further solidified their status as regular employees under Article 281 of the Labor Code, as they were engaged in activities usually necessary or desirable in the petitioners’ usual business or trade. Consequently, they were entitled to reinstatement, backwages, legal holiday pay, emergency living allowance, 13th month pay, and service incentive leave pay as awarded by the NLRC. The petition was dismissed.