Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement v. Zamora
Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement v. Zamora
Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement v. Zamora
JANUARY 7, 1987 49
Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement of the Philippines vs.
Zamora
*
No. L-48645. January 7, 1987.
_______________
50
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
“1. The records disclose that on July 11, 1969, BLUM filed a
complaint with the now defunct Court of Industrial Relations,
charging San Miguel Corporation, and the following officers:
Enrique Camahort, Federico Oñate, Feliciano Arceo, Melencio
Eugenio, Jr., Ernesto Villanueva, Antonio Bocaling and Godofredo
Cueto of unfair labor practice as set forth in Section 4 (a), sub-
sections (1) and (4) of Republic Act No. 875 and of illegal dismissal.
It was alleged that respondents ordered the individual complainants
to disaffiliate from the complainant union; and that management
dismissed the individual complainants when they insisted on their
union membership.
“On their part, respondents moved for the dismissal of the
complaint on the grounds that the complainants are not and have
never been employees of respondent company but employees of the
independent contractor; that respondent company has never had
control over the means and methods followed by the independent
contractor who enjoyed full authority to hire and control said
employees; and that the individual complainants are barred by
estoppel from asserting that they are employees of respondent
company.
“While pending with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR),
pleadings and testimonial and documentary evidences were duly
presented, although the actual hearing was delayed by several
postponements. The dispute was taken over by the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) with the decreed abolition of the CIR
and the hearing of the case intransferably commenced on
September 8, 1975.
“On February 9, 1976, Labor Arbiter Nestor C. Lim found for
complainants which was concurred in by the NLRC in a decision
dated June 28, 1976. The amount of backwages awarded, however,
was reduced by NLRC to the equivalent of one (1) year salary.
“On appeal, the Secretary in a decision dated June 1, 1977, set
aside the NLRC ruling, stressing the absence of an
employeremployee relationship as borne out by the records of the
case. x x x.”
57
58
59
Petition granted.
Note.—Where it appears that the questioned employees
were never separated from the service but their status is
that of regular seasonable employees who are called to work
from time to time mostly during summer season, and the
nature of their relationship with the hotel is such that
during off season they are temporarily laid off but during
summer season they are re-employed or when their services
are needed, and they are not strictly speaking separated
from the service but are merely considered as on leave of
absence without pay until they are reemployed, it is held
that their employment relationship is never severed but
only suspended, and, as such, they can be considered as in
regular employment of the hotel. (Manila Hotel Company vs.
Court of Industrial Relations, 9 SCRA 184.)
——o0o——
61