Sumifru (Philippines) Corp. vs.

Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Suyapa

Farm (Namasufa-Na u-Kmu) G.R. No. 202091, June 7, 2017

Facts

Sumifru is a domestic corporation and is the surviving corporation after its merger with Fresh
Banana Agricultural Corporation (FBAC). FBAC was engaged in the buying, marketing, and
exportation of Cavendish bananas. Respondent Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Suyapa Farm
(NAMASUF A-NAFLU-KMU) (NAMASUF A) is a labor organization a liated with the National
Federation of Labor Unions and Kilusang Mayo Uno.

The private respondent Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Suyapa Farm (NAMASUF A-NAFLU-

KMU), a legitimate labor organization, led a Petition for Certi cation Election before the
Department of Labor and Employment, Regional O ce No. XI in Davao City. NAMASUFA sought
to represent all rank-and- le employees, numbering around one hundred forty, of packing plant
90 (PP 90) of Fresh Banana Agricultural Corporation (FBAC). NAMASUF A claimed that there
was no existing union in the aforementioned establishment.

The private respondent Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Suyapa Farm (NAMASUF A-NAFLU-

KMU) led a Petition for Certi cation Election before the Department of Labor and
Employment. NAMASUFA sought to represent all rank-and- le employees, numbering around
one hundred forty, of packing plant 90 (PP 90) of Fresh Banana Agricultural Corporation
(FBAC). NAMASUFA claimed that there was no existing union in the aforementioned
establishment.

FBAC led an Opposition to the Petition. It argued that there exists no employer-employee
relationship between it and the workers involved. It alleged that members of NAMASUFA are
actually employees of A2Y Contracting Services (A2Y), a duly licensed independent contractor,
as evidenced by the payroll records of the latter.

NAMASUF A, in its Comment to Opposition countered, among others, that its members were
former workers of Stan lco before FBAC took over its operations sometime in 2002. The said
former employees were then required to join the Compostela Banana Packing Plant Workers’
Cooperative (CBPPWC) before they were hired and allowed to work at the Packing Plant of
FBAC. It further alleged that the members of NAMASUF A were working at PP 90 long before
A2Y came. Pending resolution of the petition, FBAC was merged with SUMIFRU, the latter
being the surviving corporation.

Whether or not there is employer-employee relationship when the company required monitoring sheets
and imposed disciplinary actions for non-compliance with “No Helmet -No Entry” “No ID -No Entry”
policies.

SC Ruling:
Sumifru gave instructions to the workers on how to go about their work, what time they were supposed to
report for work, required monitoring sheets as they went about their jobs, and provided the materials used
in the packing plant.

In a rming the Med-Arbiter, the DOLE Secretary relied on the documents submitted by the parties and
ascertained that Sumifru indeed exercised control over the workers in PP 90. The DOLE Secretary found
that the element of control was present because Sumifru required monitoring sheets and imposed
disciplinary actions for non-compliance with “No Helmet -No Entry” “No ID -No Entry” policies.

R. Valenzuela vs. Alexandra Mining and Oil Ventures, Inc. and Cesar E. De Tera, G.R. No.
222419, October 5, 2016).

PETITIONER Ramil R. Valenzuela filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims against
respondents Alexandra Mining and Oil Ventures, Inc. (AMOVI) and its owner and president, Cesar E.
Detera.

He alleged that he was hired as a company driver of AMOVI on Jan. 12, 2008, with an eight-hour work
shift from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and with a monthly salary of P12,000.

On June 15, 2013, he was told that he can no longer continue to work, as there were no forthcoming funds
to pay for his salary.

Upon the other hand, respondents avered that petitioner was actually hired as a family driver of the
Deteras. They denied having dismissed petitioner from the service.

The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed respondents’ claim that petitioner was a family driver. She found him
illegally dismissed and awarded him full backwages, separation pay and attorney’s fees. The National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the decision of the LA.

The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision of the NLRC with modification deleting the award of
backwages.

In justification, the CA ruled that there was no clear evidence that petitioner was dismissed and, on the
other hand, there was an equal lack of proof of abandonment of work on his part. Did the CA err in
deleting the award of backwages?

Ruling: Yes.

The CA, however, erred in holding that there was no evidence of dismissal, as it is clear from Cesar’s
own admission that Valenzuela was unceremoniously dismissed from service. In all his pleadings, while
claiming to be the real employer of Valenzuela, Cesar impliedly admitted dismissing him from
employment by repeatedly invoking Article 150 of the Labor Code to justify his action. The provision
reads as follows:

Art. 150. Service of termination notice. If the duration of the household service is not determined either in
stipulation or by nature of the service, the employer or the househelper may give notice to put an end to
the relationship five (5) days before the intended termination of the service.

On the basis of the foregoing provision, Cesar asseverated that as a family driver, Valenzuela’s service
may be terminated at will by his employer. Thus, there is implied admission that he indeed terminated
Valenzuela out of his own volition, without sufficient ground and notice.

Unfortunately for Cesar, the labor tribunals and the CA all agreed that Valenzuela was a company
employee and his admission on the fact of the latter’s dismissal only established that it was done without
regard to substantive and procedural due process.

xxx

Consistent with the finding that Valenzuela had been illegally dismissed, he is, therefore, entitled to
reinstatement and full backwages. In view, however, of the strained relations between the parties, the
award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement is a more feasible alternative. (Reyes, J; SC 3rd Division,
Ramil R. Valenzuela vs. Alexandra Mining and Oil Ventures, Inc. and Cesar E. De Tera, G.R. No.
222419, October 5, 2016).

G.R. No. 219569 August 17, 2016

HSY MARKETING LTD. CO., V VIRGILIO 0. VILLASTIQUE

Labor Law; Employment-Employee Relationship. It is worth noting that respondent claimed in his Position Paper
before the LA that he was hired by petitioner and was required to report for work at its store in Cagayan de Oro
City. This was confirmed by petitioner in its own Position Paper, declaring respondent to be "a field driver for the
Cagayan de Oro Branch of HSY MARKETING LTD., CO. Clearly, petitioner should be bound by such
admission and must not be allowed to continue to deny any employer-employee relationship with respondent. The Court
had already exposed the practice of setting up "distributors" or "dealers" which are, in reality, dummy companies that
allow the mother company to avoid employer-employee relations and, consequently, shield the latter from liability from
employee claims in case of illegal dismissal, closure, unfair labor practices, and the like.

Same; Same;Separation Pay.Properly speaking, liability for the payment of separation pay is but a legal consequence of
illegal dismissal where reinstatement is no longer viable or feasible. As a relief granted in lieu of reinstatement, it goes
without saying that an award of separation pay is inconsistent with a finding that there was no illegal dismissal. This
is because an employee who had not been dismissed, much less illegally dismissed, cannot be reinstated. Moreover, as
there is no reinstatement to speak of, respondent cannot invoke the doctrine of strained relations68 to support his
prayer for the award of separation pay.

Same; same; Service Incentive Leave Pay.Service incentive leave is a right which accrues to every employee who has
served 'within 12 months, whether continuous or broken reckoned from the date the employee started working,
including authorized absences and paid regular holidays unless the working days in the establishment as a matter of
practice or policy, or that provided in the employment contracts, is less than 12 months, in which case said period shall
be considered as one (1) year.

PERLAS-BERNABE, J,;

FACTS: On 'January 3, 2003, petitioner hired respondent as a field driver for Fabulous Jeans &
Shirt & General Merchandise which is tasked to deliver ready-to-wear items and/or general
merchandise for a daily compensation of P370.00. On January 10, 2011, respondent figured in an
accident when the service vehicle he was driving in Iligan City bumped a pedestrian. Fabulous Jeans
shouldered the hospitalization and medical expenses of the pedestrian in the amount of P64,157.15,
which respondent was asked to reimburse, but to no avail. On February 24, 2011, respondent was
allegedly required to sign a resignation letter, which he refused to do. A couple of days later, he tried
to collect his salary for that week but was told that it was withheld because of his refusal to resign.
Convinced that he was already terminated on February 26, 2011,he lost no time in filing a complaint
for illegal dismissal with money claims against petitioner, Fabulous Jeans, and its owner before the
NLRC.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the charge of illegal dismissal. Thus, Aggrived, petitioner
appealed to the NLRC which affirm the finding of the LA. The petitioner moved for
reconsideration but denied. Thus elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. But likewise sustain the
decision of the lower court. Hence this petition.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not an employment relationship existed between the parties in this case?
2. 1. POSITIVE. Fabulous Jeans joined petitioner as respondent-appellant, it was argued that
the LA should have dismissed the charges against petitioner instead, considering that
respondent was employed as a field driver for Fabulous Jeans, and that there was no
employer-employee relationship between him and petitioner. In fact, it is even worth noting
that respondent claimed in his Position Paper before the LA that he was hired by petitioner
and was required to report for work at its store in Cagayan de Oro City. This was confirmed
by petitioner in its own Position Paper, declaring respondent to be "a field driver for the
Cagayan de Oro Branch of (petitioner) HSY MARKETING LTD., CO., (NOVO JEANS &
SHIRT)."Clearly, petitioner should be bound by such admission and must not be allowed to
continue to deny any employer-employee relationship with respondent. The Court had
already exposed the practice of setting up "distributors" or "dealers" which are, in reality,
dummy companies that allow the mother company to avoid employer-employee relations
and, consequently, shield the latter from liability from employee claims in case of illegal
dismissal, closure, unfair labor practices, and the like.
CHEVRON (PHILS.), INC., petitioner, vs. VITALIANO C GALIT, SJS AND SONS CONSTRUCTION
CORPORATION AND MR. REYNALDO SALOMON, respondents.
FACTS: The complainant Galit filed an illegal dismissal suit against Chevron and SJS Construction Corp.
for illegal dismissal and for payment of other labor standard benefits.

He alleged that he is a regular and permanent employee of Chevron, having been assigned at the
company's Pandacan depot; he is an "all-around employee" whose job consists of cleaning the premises
of the depot, changing malfunctioning oil gaskets, transferring oil from containers and other tasks that
management would assign to him; in the performance of his duties, he was directly under the control and
supervision of Chevron supervisors.

Subsequently, he was verbally informed that his employment is terminated but was promised that he will
be reinstated soon; for several months, he followed up his reinstatement, bit to no avail.

SJS claimed that Galit was hired by SJS as a project employee and was assigned to Chevron, as a
janitor, based on a contract between the two companies; that the manpower contract between SJS and
Chevron eventually ended which resulted in the severance of Galit's employment; SJS finally closed its
business operations; that Galit was paid separation pay.

Chevron argued that it availed of the manpower services of SJS for the maintenance of its oil depot in its
Pandacan site; Galit, who was employed by SJS, was assigned to the depot as a janitor; his wages and
all employment benefits were paid by SJS; he was subject to the supervision, discipline and control of
SJS; that Galit is not its employee but that of SJS.

The LA ruled to dismiss the complaint of Galit, holding that SJS is a legitimate contractor and that it was
Galit's employer and that the termination of his services was lawful on account that the project for which
he was employed has already been accomplished; that the LA doesn’t have jurisdiction over the
complaint against Chevron as there existed no employer – employee relationship between the company
and the complainant.

Upon appeal with the NLRC, the commission affirmed the LA decision with modification. It held that Galit
is a regular employee of SJS, and not just a mere project employee of the company whose action
dismissing Galit was with lawful due to its closure.

The CA, upon appeal of Chevron, ruled to affirm the NLRC decision, hence the recourse of the latter with
the SC.

ISSUE: WON there exists an employer – employee relationship between Galit and SJS

RULING: (1.) Galit is a regular employee of SJS. Upon cursory reading of the employment contract
between SJS and Galit, it is readily seen that SJS has the power of dismissal and control. Galit admitted
in his complaint that it was SJS which detailed him in the Pandacan oil depot. Galit also did not present
any evidence to prove that it was Chevron which pays his wages and that SJS is a mere conduit of the
latter. He was dismissed therefrom because Chevron no longer renewed its contract with SJS and that
the latter subsequently ceased to operate.

(2.) The work performed by Galit, which is the "scooping of slop of oil water separator," has no direct
relation to Chevron’s business, which is the importation, refining and manufacture of petroleum products.
The job performed by Galit, which essentially consists of janitorial services, may be incidental or desirable
to petitioner's main activity but it is not necessary and directly related to it.