Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 39 views

    Ruga vs. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Atheena Marie Palomaria
    The petitioners were fishermen who worked on private respondent's fishing vessel and were paid on a commission basis. They formed a labor union and were later accused of selling fish without permission. They denied the accusations. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC found a joint venture relationship existed rather than an employer-employee one. However, the Supreme Court found the elements of an employer-employee relationship were present based on the selection of work, payment of wages, power of dismissal, and control. It ruled the fishermen were illegally dismissed without due process.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ruga vs. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Atheena Marie Palomaria
    39 views2 pages
    The petitioners were fishermen who worked on private respondent's fishing vessel and were paid on a commission basis. They formed a labor union and were later accused of selling fish without permission. They denied the accusations. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC found a joint venture relationship existed rather than an employer-employee one. However, the Supreme Court found the elements of an employer-employee relationship were present based on the selection of work, payment of wages, power of dismissal, and control. It ruled the fishermen were illegally dismissed without due process.

    Original Title

    3. Ruga vs. NLRC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioners were fishermen who worked on private respondent's fishing vessel and were paid on a commission basis. They formed a labor union and were later accused of selling fish without permission. They denied the accusations. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC found a joint venture relationship existed rather than an employer-employee one. However, the Supreme Court found the elements of an employer-employee relationship were present based on the selection of work, payment of wages, power of dismissal, and control. It ruled the fishermen were illegally dismissed without due process.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    39 views2 pages

    Ruga vs. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Atheena Marie Palomaria
    The petitioners were fishermen who worked on private respondent's fishing vessel and were paid on a commission basis. They formed a labor union and were later accused of selling fish without permission. They denied the accusations. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC found a joint venture relationship existed rather than an employer-employee one. However, the Supreme Court found the elements of an employer-employee relationship were present based on the selection of work, payment of wages, power of dismissal, and control. It ruled the fishermen were illegally dismissed without due process.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    ALIPIO R.

    RUGA, JOSE PARMA, ELADIO CALDERON, LAURENTE BAUTU, JAIME BARBIN, NICANOR FRANCISCO, PHILIP CERVANTES and
    ELEUTERIO BARBIN vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and DE GUZMAN FISHING ENTERPRISES and/or ARSENIO DE
    GUZMAN.
    G.R. No. L-72654-61, January 22, 1990
    Fernan, CJ.

    Facts of the Case


    For services rendered in the conduct of private respondent's regular business of "trawl" fishing, petitioners were paid on percentage commission basis in cash by one
    Mrs. Pilar de Guzman, cashier of private respondent. As agreed upon, they received thirteen percent (13%) of the proceeds of the sale of the fish-catch if the total
    proceeds exceeded the cost of crude oil consumed during the fishing trip, otherwise, they received ten percent (10%) of the total proceeds of the sale. The patron/pilot,
    chief engineer and master fisherman received a minimum income of P350.00 per week while the assistant engineer, second fisherman, and fisherman-winchman
    received a minimum income of P260.00 per week.

    September 11, 1983:


    • Petitioners were told by Jorge de Guzman, president of private respondent, to proceed to the police station at Camaligan, Camarines Sur, for investigation on
    the report that they sold some of their fish-catch at midsea to the prejudice of private respondent.
    • Petitioners denied the charge claiming that the same was a countermove to their having formed a labor union and becoming members of Defender of
    Industrial Agricultural Labor Organizations and General Workers Union (DIALOGWU) on September 3, 1983.
    • During the investigation, no witnesses were presented to prove the charge against petitioners, and no criminal charges were formally filed against them.
    • Private respondent refused to allow petitioners to return to the fishing vessel to resume their work on the same day.

    September 22, 1983:


    • Petitioners individually filed their complaints for illegal dismissal and non-payment of 13th month pay, emergency cost of living allowance and service
    incentive pay, with the then Ministry of Labor and Employment, Regional Arbitration Branch No. V, Legaspi City, Albay.
    • They uniformly contended that they were arbitrarily dismissed without being given ample time to look for a new job.

    October 24, 1983


    • Private respondent, thru its operations manager, Conrado S. de Guzman, submitted its position paper denying the employer-employee relationship between
    private respondent and petitioners on the theory that private respondent and petitioners were engaged in a joint venture.

    December 27, 1983


    • 2 joint hearings were postponed due to the absence of private respondent.
    • Alipio Ruga, the pilot/captain of the 7/B Sandyman II, testified on the manner the fishing operations were conducted, mode of payment of compensation for
    services rendered by the fishermen-crew members, and the circumstances leading to their dismissal.

    LA rendered a joint decision dismissing all the complaints of petitioners on a finding that a "joint fishing venture" and not one of employer-employee relationship
    existed between private respondent and petitioners. Petitioners appealed to the NLRC. NLRC affirmed the decision of the LA that a "joint fishing venture" relationship
    existed between private respondent and petitioners.

    Hence, this petition.


    Issues:
    WON the fishermen-crew members of the trawl fishing vessel 7/B Sandyman II are employees of De Guzman Fishing Enterprises
    WON they were illegally dismissed from their employment.

    SC Ruling

    We have consistently ruled that in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, the elements that are generally considered are the following (a) the
    selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer's power to control the employee with respect to
    the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished. The employment relation arises from contract of hire, express or implied. 9 In the absence of hiring,
    no actual employer-employee relation could exist.

    The conclusion of public respondent that there had been no change in the situation of the parties since 1968 when De Guzman Fishing Enterprises, private respondent
    herein, obtained a favorable judgment in Case No. 708 exempting it from compulsory coverage of the SSS law is not supported by evidence on record. It was erroneous
    for public respondent to apply the factual situation of the parties in the 1968 case to the instant case in the light of the changes in the conditions of employment agreed
    upon by the private respondent and petitioners as discussed earlier.

    While tenure or length of employment is not considered as the test of employment, nevertheless the hiring of petitioners to perform work which is necessary or
    desirable in the usual business or trade of private respondent for a period of 8-15 years since 1968 qualify them as regular employees within the meaning of Article 281
    of the Labor Code as they were indeed engaged to perform activities usually necessary or desirable in the usual fishing business or occupation of private respondent.

    Aside from performing activities usually necessary and desirable in the business of private respondent, it must be noted that petitioners received compensation on a
    percentage commission based on the gross sale of the fish-catch i.e. 13% of the proceeds of the sale if the total proceeds exceeded the cost of the crude oil consumed
    during the fishing trip, otherwise only 10% of the proceeds of the sale. Such compensation falls within the scope and meaning of the term "wage" as defined under
    Article 97(f) of the Labor Code.

    The claim of private respondent, which was given credence by public respondent that petitioners get paid in the form of share in the fish-catch which the patron/pilot as
    head of the team distributes to his crew members in accordance with their own understanding is not supported by recorded evidence. Except that such claim appears as
    an allegation in private respondent's position paper, there is nothing in the records showing such a sharing scheme as preferred by private respondent.

    Furthermore, the fact that on mere suspicion based on the reports that petitioners allegedly sold their fish-catch at midsea without the knowledge and consent of private
    respondent, petitioners were unjustifiably not allowed to board the fishing vessel on September 11, 1983 to resume their activities without giving them the opportunity
    to air their side on the accusation against them unmistakably reveals the disciplinary power exercised by private respondent over them and the corresponding sanction
    imposed in case of violation of any of its rules and regulations. The virtual dismissal of petitioners from their employment was characterized by undue haste when less
    extreme measures consistent with the requirements of due process should have been first exhausted. In that sense, the dismissal of petitioners was tainted with illegality.
    PETITION IS GRANTED. QUESTIONED RESOLUTION OF NLRC IS HEREBY RESERVED AND SET ASIDE.

    You might also like