Ruga vs.. National Labor Relations Commission

Ruga vs. National Labor Relations Commission

181 SCRA 266 (G.R. No. L- 72654-61)

January 22, 1990

FACTS:

Alipio R. Ruga et al, were fihermen-crew members of 7/N Sandyman II one of several fishing vessels owned and operated by De Guzman Fishing Enterprises. They render service aboard the fishing the vessel in various capacities and are being paid on percentage commission basis.

At one instance on September 11, 1983, upon arrival at the fishing port, Ruga et al were accused of selling their catch at midsea and were told to proceed to the police station. Ruga et al denied the charge and view it as a countermove to their having formed a labor union and being members of two major labor organizations.

The charge against them was dropped for no witnesses were presented. But inspite of this, they were not allowed to return to their vessel and resumed their work.

Ruga et al, then filed individual complaints of illegal dismissal and nonpayment of 13th month pay, emergency cost of living allowance, and service incentive pay, with the DOLE Regional Arbitration Branch No. V, Legaspi City, Albay.

De Guzman Fishing Enterprises, thru its operations manager, Mr. Conrado S. De Guzman, denied the employer-employee relationship between them on the theory that they were only engage in a joint venture.

Having failed to reach an amicable settlement, the labor arbiter scheduled the case for hearing. After two sessions, the labor arbiter dismissed the complaint affirming the joint venture theory.

Ruga et al, appealed the decision to the National Labor Relations Commission. NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.

Hence this instant petitions.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the fishermen-crew members of the trawl fishing vessel are employees of De Guzman Fishing Enterprises.

HELD:

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. In the absence of hiring, no actual employer-employee relation could exist.

From the four (4) elements mentioned, We have generally relied on the so-called right-of-control test where the person for whom the services are performed reserves a right to control not only the end to be achieved but also the means to be used in reaching such end. The test calls merely for the existence of the right to control the manner of doing the work, not the actual exercise of the right.

The case of Pajarillo vs. SSS, supra, invoked by the public respondent as authority for the ruling that a “joint fishing venture” existed between private respondent and petitioners is not applicable in the instant case. There is neither right of control nor actual exercise of such right on the part of the boat-owners in the Pajarillo case, where the Court found that the pilots therein are not under the orders of the boat-owners as regards their employment; that they go out to sea not upon directions of the boat-owners, but upon their own volition as to when, how long and where to go fishing; that the boat-owners do not in any way control the crew-members with whom the former have no relationship whatsoever; that they simply join every trip for which the pilots allow them, without any reference to the owners of the vessel; and that they only share in their own catch produced by their own efforts.

REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Private respondent is ordered to reinstate petitioners to their former positions or any equivalent positions with 3-year backwages and other monetary benefits under the law.