35 EXPEDITION CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, SIMON LEE PAZ, and JORDAN JIMENEZ,*

vs. ALEXANDER M. AFRICA, MARDY MALAPIT, JESUSESER, JACOB RONGCALES, JONAMEL CARO, ALFREDO
RILES,* REYNALDO GARCIA, FREDDIE DEI.JA CRUZ, JUNIE AQUIBAN, CRISINCIO GARCIA,* DINO AQUJBAN,
SAMUEL PILLOS, JEFFREY A. VALENZUELA, ERWIN VELASQUEZ HALLARE and WILLIAM RAMOS DAGDAG

FACTS:

Petitioner Expedition, with petitioners Simon Lee Paz and Jordan Jimenez as its Chief Executive Officer and Operations
Manager, respectively, is a domestic corporation engaged in garbage collection/hauling. It engaged the services of respondents as
garbage truck drivers to collect garbage from different cities and transport the same to the designated dumping site. Respondents filed
separate cases against Expedition for illegal dismissal; underpayment and non-payment of salaries/wages, holiday pay, holiday
premium, etc. They claimed that they were illegally terminated from employment when they were prevented from entering the
premises of Expedition without cause or due process. They claimed that they were regular employees of Expedition; were required to
work a minimum of 12 hours a day, seven days a week, even on holidays, without rest or vacation; and, were not paid the minimum
wage, holiday or premium pay, overtime pay, service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay. They also averred that the costs of
repair and maintenance of the garbage trucks were illegally deducted from their salaries.

Expedition countered that respondents were not illegally dismissed and denied that respondents were its employees. It
claimed that respondents were not part of the company's payroll but were being paid on a per trip basis and that respondents were not
under Expedition's direct control and supervision as they worked on their own, were not subjected to company rules nor were required
to observe regular/fixed working hours, and that respondents hired/paid their respective garbage collectors. As such, respondents'
money claims had no legal basis.

ISSUE:

W/N there was an employer-employee relationship between petitioner corporation and respondents.

RULING:

Yes. All the elements of employer-employee relationship are present. First, respondents were engaged/hired by Expedition as garbage
truck drivers. Second, it is undeniable that respondents received compensation from Expedition for the services that they rendered to
the latter. The fact that respondents were paid on a per trip basis is irrelevant in determining the existence of an employer-employee
relationship because this was merely the method of computing the proper compensation due to respondents. Third, Expedition's power
to dismiss was apparent when work was withheld from respondents as a result of the termination of the contracts with Quezon City
and Caloocan City. Finally, Expedition has the power of control over respondents in the performance of their work. It was held that
"the power of control refers merely to the existence of the power and not to the actual exercise thereof.'' Respondents needed the
instruction and supervision of Expedition to effectively perform their work in accordance with the stipulations of the agreements.
Expedition determined how, where, and when respondents would perform their tasks. Furthermore, the fact that respondents were
performing activities which were directly related to the business of Expedition confirms the conclusion that respondents were indeed
regular employees.

36. VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and NATIONAL
FEDERATION OF SUGAR WORKERS-FOOD AND GENERAL TRADES (NFSW-FGT)

FACTS:

Private respondent National Federation of Sugar Workers-Food and General Trades (NFSW-FGT), on behalf of "all workers of farm
owners," instituted a suit against petitioner Victorias Milling Co., Inc., a sugar central in Victorias, Negros Oriental, planter Hacienda
Estrella II/Ferraris and all other haciendas within petitioner’s milling district before Regional Arbitration Branch No. VI, National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Department of Labor and Employment. Pursuant to Republic Act No. 809, private respondent
sought to recover the share of the workers in the increased deliveries enjoyed by the planter of unrefined sugar and by-products
produced in petitioner’s refinery from 1952 to crop year 1983-1984. Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction
on the ground that there was no employer-employee relationship between it and private Respondent. The labor arbiter denied the
motion. Respondent Commission, affirmed the orders of the labor arbiter. Hence this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether an employer-employee relationship exists between the petitioner sugar central and private respondent farm workers.

RULING:

No. As early as 1981 in the case of Federation of Free Farmers v. Court of Appeals, the Court had ruled that a sugar central does not
have any privity of any kind with the sugar farm workers, to wit:

". . . From the very beginning of the sugar industry, the centrals have never had any privity of any kind with the plantation laborers,
since they had their own laborers to take care of. In other words, both the centrals and the planters have always been the one dealing
with their respective laborers regarding the terms and conditions of their employment, particularly as to wages. . . .."

Sugar farm workers/laborers were the direct responsibility of their respective planters and the central did not deal with the planter’s
workers but only with the planter. R.A. 809 did not create any employer-employee relationship between the planters’ workers and the
sugar centrals. In fact, the law affirmed the old practice of the central dealing only with the planter by directly issuing to it the
planter’s share of the unrefined sugar per their milling contracts. Section 1 of R.A. 809 apportions the proceeds of the sugar between
the sugar central and the planter. There is no privity between the sugar centrals and the sugar farm workers. The workers are not
employees of the sugar central but of the planter. And R.A. 809 expressly recognizes the planter, not the central, as the employer of
the farm workers by imposing on it the duty of paying its respective workers their share of the proceeds from the milled sugar.

As held by the Court, the only obligation of the centrals, like VICTORIAS, is to give to the respective planters, like the PLANTERS
herein, the planters’ share of the proceeds of the milled sugar in the promotion stipulated in the milling contract which would
necessarily include the portion of 60% pertaining to the laborers. Once this has been done, the central is already out of the picture, and
thereafter, the matter of paying the plantation laborers of the respective planters becomes exclusively the concern of the planters, the
laborers and the Department of Labor. Under no principle of law or equity can the Court impose on the central — here VICTORIAS
— any liability to the plantation laborers, should any of their respective planters-employers fail to pay their legal share.