Case Digest
Dy Keh Beng
-vs-
International Labor and Maritime Union of the Philippines, et al.
GR No. L-32245, 25 May 1979
FACTS A charge for ULP was filed against Dy Keh beng for discriminatory acts within the meaning of RA 875, Section 4(a.1) and 4(a.2) by dismissing Carlos N. Solano and Ricardo Tudla for their union activities. A case was filed in court and Dy Keh Beng contended that he did not know Tudla and that Solano was not his employee because the latter came to the establishment only when there was work which he did on pakiaw basis, each piece of work being done under a separate contract. The CIR held that an Er-Ee relationship existed between Dy Keh Beng and complainants Tudla and Solano, although Solano was admitted to have worked on piece basis. Petitioner anchors his contention of the non-existence of employee-employer relationship on the control test., arguing that there was no evidence to show that petitioner had the right to direct the manner and method of respondent’s work.
ISSUE Whether or not there existed an employee-employee relation between petitioner Dy Keh Beng and respondents Solano and Tudla.
HELD The Court held in the affirmative. According to the Hearing Examiner, the evidence tended to show that the two became employees of Dy Keh Beng from 1953 and 1955, respectively, and that except in the event of illness, their work with the establishment was continuous although their services were compensated on piece basis. It should be borne in mind that the control test calls merely for the existence of the right to control the manner of doing the work, not the actual exercise of the right. Considering that the establishment of Dy Keh Beng is “engaged in the manufacture of baskets known as kaing, it is natural to expect that those working under Dy Keh Beng would have to observe, among others, Dy’s requirements of size and quality of the kaing. Some control would necessarily be exercised by Dy as the making of the kaing would be subject to
-vs-
International Labor and Maritime Union of the Philippines, et al.
GR No. L-32245, 25 May 1979
FACTS A charge for ULP was filed against Dy Keh beng for discriminatory acts within the meaning of RA 875, Section 4(a.1) and 4(a.2) by dismissing Carlos N. Solano and Ricardo Tudla for their union activities. A case was filed in court and Dy Keh Beng contended that he did not know Tudla and that Solano was not his employee because the latter came to the establishment only when there was work which he did on pakiaw basis, each piece of work being done under a separate contract. The CIR held that an Er-Ee relationship existed between Dy Keh Beng and complainants Tudla and Solano, although Solano was admitted to have worked on piece basis. Petitioner anchors his contention of the non-existence of employee-employer relationship on the control test., arguing that there was no evidence to show that petitioner had the right to direct the manner and method of respondent’s work.
ISSUE Whether or not there existed an employee-employee relation between petitioner Dy Keh Beng and respondents Solano and Tudla.
HELD The Court held in the affirmative. According to the Hearing Examiner, the evidence tended to show that the two became employees of Dy Keh Beng from 1953 and 1955, respectively, and that except in the event of illness, their work with the establishment was continuous although their services were compensated on piece basis. It should be borne in mind that the control test calls merely for the existence of the right to control the manner of doing the work, not the actual exercise of the right. Considering that the establishment of Dy Keh Beng is “engaged in the manufacture of baskets known as kaing, it is natural to expect that those working under Dy Keh Beng would have to observe, among others, Dy’s requirements of size and quality of the kaing. Some control would necessarily be exercised by Dy as the making of the kaing would be subject to