Bermiso vs. EscaÑo
Bermiso vs. EscaÑo
Bermiso vs. EscaÑo
L-11606
EUFROCIO BERMISO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HIJOS DE F. ESCAO, INC., ET AL., respondents.
FACTS: Petitioners instituted an action before the Court of Industrial Relations, praying for reinstatement with back wages, direct payment of wages to the laborers instead of through the union, payment of accrued overtime pay and wage differentials, prohibition from carrying load in excess of 50 kilos, minimum daily wage of P5.00, vacation and sick leave, free hospitalization, accident insurance, free choice of labor union and grievance committee. Of the original petitioners only five continued to take interest in the action, the other having desisted therefrom. After hearing the Court of Industrial Relations ordered the reinstatement of the said five laborers to their former work and positions in the Sabay group, but without back wages, but dismissed the other claims. Petitioners argue that the decision violates the law on direct payment of wages. ISSUE: Whether the payment of wages must be directly paid to the workers. HELD: Payment of wages to a leader of group is not in violation of direct payment since the contract to perform the services was made by the leader of the group, for and in behalf of the latter, not for each and every one of them individually. As the group undertook to render service for vessels other than those of the Escao, it was absolutely necessary that some sort of leadership be instituted in the group to determine which of the members will work for one vessel and which for another. Leadership is also essential to obtain work for the group as employers naturally prefer to deal with a leader of a group than with each member individually. Leadership was, therefore, essential not only to secure work for the group but to arrange the laborers who are to perform the service. The leadership must be paid for and it was not shown that the head of the groups got the lion's share of the cost of the service rendered. Under the circumstances that the provision of law on direct payment of wages has been violated.