ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
May-1958 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-11219 May 7, 1958 - PACITA SALABARIA VDA. DE SUATARON v. HAWAIIAN-PHILIPPINE COMPANY

    103 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. L-11580 May 9, 1958 - MARCELINO GABRIEL v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

    103 Phil 651

  • G.R. No. L-11231 May 12, 1958 - ROSARIO CARBONNEL v. JOSE PONCIO

    103 Phil 655

  • G.R. No. L-9531 May 14, 1958 - WARNER BARNES & CO. v. GUILLERMO C. REYES

    103 Phil 662

  • G.R. No. L-11578 May 14, 1958 - GERONIMO AVECILLA v. HON. NICASIO YATCO

    103 Phil 666

  • G.R. No. L-11629 May 14, 1958 - CELEDONIO E. ESCUDERO v. ANTONIO G. LUCERO

    103 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. L-10559 May 16, 1958 - IN RE: YU NEAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 677

  • G.R. No. L-10657 May 16, 1958 - NUMERIANO L. VALERIANO, ET AL. v. CONCEPCION KERR, ET AL.

    103 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. L-11285 May 16, 1958 - VICENTE SAPTO v. APOLONIA FABIANA

    103 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. L-11924 May 16, 1958 - ISIDORO CEBRERO v. JOSE TALAMAN

    103 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. L-8776 May 19, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO CRUZ

    103 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. L-11539 May 19, 1958 - ARING BAGOBA v. ENRIQUE A. FERNANDEZ

    103 Phil 706

  • G.R. No. L-11305 May 21, 1958 - DOMINADOR P. CANLAS, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. L-12375 May 21, 1958 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO.

    103 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. L-8317 May 23, 1958 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JUAN ABAD, ET AL.

    103 Phil 725

  • G.R. No. L-10286 May 23, 1958 - LUIS E. ARRIOLA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. L-10704 May 23, 1958 - SIMEON TAN LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 736

  • G.R. No. L-11036 May 23, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO TOLENTINO

    103 Phil 741

  • G.R. No. L-11060 May 23, 1958 - A. U. VALENCIA & Co. v. HERMINIA C. LAYUG, ET AL.

    103 Phil 747

  • G.R. No. L-11152 May 23, 1958 - BENITO CO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. L-11442 May 23, 1958 - MANUELA T. VDA. DE SALVATIERRA v. LORENZO C. GARLITOS

    103 Phil 757

  • G.R. No. L-11504 May 23, 1958 - ELISEO SAULOG v. N. BAENS DEL ROSARIO

    103 Phil 765

  • G.R. No. L-7451 May 26, 1958 - HACIENDA LUISITA v. BOARD OF TAX APPEALS

    103 Phil 770

  • G.R. No. L-10610 May 26, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SILVELA

    103 Phil 773

  • G.R. No. L-11361 May 26, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX SEMAÑADA

    103 Phil 790

  • G.R. No. L-8190 May 28, 1958 - GONZALO GARCIA v. CONSOLACION MANZANO

    103 Phil 798

  • G.R. No. L-9328 May 28, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBROSIO PAUNIL, ET AL.

    103 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. L-10322 May 28, 1958 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JACINTA ALVAREZ

    103 Phil 816

  • G.R. No. L-10574 May 28, 1958 - PANAY ELECTRIC CO. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

    103 Phil 819

  • G.R. No. L-10931 May 28, 1958 - FLORENClA R. SORIANO v. ONG HOO

    103 Phil 829

  • G.R. No. L-10972 May 28, 1958 - IN RE: PERFECTO GOTAUCO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 834

  • G.R. No. L-10989 May 28, 1958 - PONCIANO GACHO v. SERGIO OSMEÑA

    103 Phil 837

  • G.R. No. L-11112 May 28, 1958 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. LUZON SURETY COMPANY

    103 Phil 853

  • G.R. No. L-11271 May 28, 1958 - PAZ TY SIN TEI v. JOSE LEE DY PIAO

    103 Phil 858

  • G.R. No. L-11311 May 28, 1958 - MARTA C. ORTEGA v. DANIEL LEONARDO

    103 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. L-11412 May 28, 1958 - MAURICIA VDA. DE VILLANUEVA v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ

    103 Phil 875

  • G.R. No. L-11427 May 28, 1958 - DIMAS REYES v. FIDEL D. DONES

    103 Phil 884

  • G.R. No. L-11491 May 28, 1958 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. BIENVENIDA JOCSON LAGNITON

    103 Phil 889

  • G.R. No. L-11538 May 28, 1958 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL. v. JEA COMMERCIAL, ET AL.

    103 Phil 894

  • G.R. No. L-11640 May 28, 1958 - CLAUDIO DEGOLLACION v. LI CHUI

    103 Phil 904

  • G.R. No. L-11744 May 28, 1958 - PILAR GIL VDA. DE MURCIANO v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    103 Phil 907

  • G.R. No. L-12196 May 28, 1958 - ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF BATAAN v. AMBROSIO T. DOLLETE

    103 Phil 914

  • G.R. Nos. L-12214-17 May 28, 1958 - MALIGAYA SHIP WATCHMEN AGENCY v. ASSOCIATED WATCHMEN AND SECURITY UNION (PTWO)

    103 Phil 920

  • G.R. No. L-12222 May 28, 1958 - UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    103 Phil 926

  • G.R. No. L-12289 May 28, 1958 - LIM SIOK HUEY v. ALFREDO LAPIZ

    103 Phil 930

  • G.R. No. L-12348 May 28, 1958 - MARIANO CORDOVA v. GREGORIO NARVASA

    103 Phil 935

  • G.R. No. L-13069 May 28, 1958 - JOVENCIO A. REYES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

    103 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. L-12287 May 29, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FORTUNATO ORTIZ, ET AL.

    103 Phil 944

  • G.R. No. L-7955 May 30, 1958 - JOAQUIN LOPEZ v. ENRIQUE P. OCHOA

    103 Phil 950

  • G.R. No. L-8439 May 30, 1958 - CO CHO CHIT v. HANSON, ORTH & STEVENSON, INC., ET AL.

    103 Phil 956

  • G.R. No. L-10642 May 30, 1958 - IN RE: ALFREDO ONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 964

  • G.R. Nos. L-10837-38 May 30, 1958 - ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY v. ISABEL IYA

    103 Phil 972

  • G.R. No. L-10952 May 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENIGNO V. LINGAD

    103 Phil 980

  • G.R. No. L-11073 May 30, 1958 - MELECIO ARCEO v. ANDRES E. VARELA

    103 Phil 990

  • G.R. No. L-11374 May 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOSCORO PINUILA

    103 Phil 992

  • G.R. No. L-11444 May 30, 1958 - VICENTE ROULLO v. MARGARITO LUMAYNO

    103 Phil 1004

  • G.R. No. L-11498 May 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN J. RODRIGUEZ

    103 Phil 1008

  • G.R. Nos. L-11531-33 May 30, 1958 - MARIA CONCEPCION v. PAYATAS ESTATE IMPROVEMENT CP. INC.

    103 Phil 1016

  • G.R. No. L-12053 May 30, 1958 - ROBERTA C. DIAZ v. JESUS Y. PEREZ

    103 Phil 1023

  • G.R. No. L-12081 May 30, 1958 - LORENZO LERMA v. VICTORIANO L. REYES, ET AL.

    103 Phil 1027

  • G.R. No. L-12530 May 30, 1958 - CONSOLIDATED LABOR ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HERMOGENES CALUAG

    103 Phil 1032

  • G.R. No. L-12567 May 30, 1958 - TAN GIN SAN v. ROSALIA A. TAN CARPIZO

    103 Phil 1042

  •  





     
     

    G.R. Nos. L-12214-17   May 28, 1958 - MALIGAYA SHIP WATCHMEN AGENCY v. ASSOCIATED WATCHMEN AND SECURITY UNION (PTWO)<br /><br />103 Phil 920

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. Nos. L-12214-17. May 28, 1958.]

    MALIGAYA SHIP WATCHMEN AGENCY, MARINE SECURITY AGENCY, and CITY WATCHMEN AGENCY, Petitioners, v. ASSOCIATED WATCHMEN AND SECURITY UNION (PTWO), Respondent.

    Aviado & Aranda, for Petitioners.

    Jose C. Espinas for the respondent Union.


    SYLLABUS


    1. EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE; WORDS AND PHRASES; INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. — An independent contractor is one who undertakes to do a piece of work for his own account, under his own responsibility, with minimum interference on the part of the other contracting party in which case persons employed by said independent contractor do not become laborers or employees of the other contracting party.

    2. ID.; CERTIFICATION ELECTIONS; WHO CAN PARTICIPATE IN ELECTIONS; CASE AT BAR. — As members of the watchmen agencies do not become laborers or employees of the shipping lines or their agents by mere membership in such watchmen agencies, it stands to reason that only those who were actually employed and paid for as watchmen or laborers or employees of the shipping lines and their agents should take part in the certification election and they alone should be certified and be considered as having the right to participate in the elections, there being no actual relation of employer and employee or laborer between the shipping lines and the members of the watchmen agencies by the mere fact of such membership.


    D E C I S I O N


    LABRADOR, J.:


    The above-entitled cases are the appeals of the intervenors in Court of Industrial Relations Certification Cases No. 328-MC entitled "Associated Watchmen and Security Union (PTWO), Petitioner v. United States Lines, Employer, Maligaya Ships Watchmen Agency, Intervenor," No. 329-MC entitled "Associated Watchmen and Security Union (PTWO), Petitioner v. American President Lines, Employer, Marine Security Agency, Intervenor," No. 332-MC entitled "Associated Watchmen and Security Union (PTWO), Petitioner v. Macondray & Co., Employer, City Watchmen Security Agency, Intervenor," and of the respondents in case No. 10-IPA entitled "United States Lines, Et Al., Petitioner v. Associated Watchmen and Security Union, Catalino Rosales and Roberto S. Oca, Respondents. The findings of fact of this Court in all the above-entitled cases are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The various steamship companies which are either owners or agents of foreign vessels calling at the port of Manila had for sometime contracted with watchmen agencies to furnish watchmen on board their vessels in order to guard and protect the cargoes thereon and to keep unauthorized persons away from the ships. The United States Lines Company had a contract with the Maligaya Ships Watchmen Agency which is owned by Tomas Caraveo; the American President Lines had a contract with the Marine Security Agency which is owned by Mernard Bradbury; and Macondray & Co., Inc. had contract with three watchmen agencies, namely, Republic Ships Agency which is owned by Fernando Derupe Tagle Ships Watchmen and Security Agency which is owned by Claro Tagle and the City Watchmen and Security Agency which is owned by Villardo Purificación and Eduardo Murillo. The Maligaya Ships Watchmen Agency is merely a business name which was registered, with the Bureau of Commerce by its owner Tomas Caraveo. As of October, 1945, the agency employed forty-two (42) watchman but later the number was reduced to thirty-nine (39). The Marine Security Agency is also a business name registered with the Bureau of Commerce which is operated by Bernard Bradbury and managed by Lawrence Hunt. As of March 19, 1956, this agency employed sixty-four (64) watchmen. The Republic Ships Security Agency, Tagle Ships Watchmen and Security Agency and City Watchmen and Security Agency are also business names registered with the Bureau of Commerce. The first employed forty-six (46) watchmen, the second thirty-six (36) watchmen and the third sixty-four (64) watchmen. The agencies are duly licensed by the city treasurer of Manila to engage in the business of supplying watchmen to steamship companies. They have secured permits from the Mayor of Manila to engage in business under Ordinance No. 2162 of said city. They have also secured annual permits to transact business from the Collector of Customs from 1951 up to the present time." (Decision in United States Lines, Et. Al. v. Associated Watchmen and Security Union (PTWO), G. R. Nos. L-12208-11, promulgated May 21, 1958.)

    The issues raised by the appellants in this Court are as follows: (1) that the petitioners are independent contractors; (2) that the watchmen or security guards of the watchmen agencies-petitioners are not employees of the shipping firms or steamship agencies; and (3) that the procedure of certification by the Court of Industrial Relations is not proper.

    On the first issue petitioners make the following contention:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The Maligaya Ship Watchmen’s Agency has a contract to supply guards for the ship represented by the United States Lines; the Marine Security Agency has a contract to supply guards for the ships represented by the American President Lines; and the City Watchmen & Security Agency is one of the three agencies which have contracts to supply guards for the ships represented by Macondray & Co., Inc. Under these contracts, the Maligaya Ship Watchmen’s Agency and the Marine Security Agency are required to post bonds as security for the faithful performance of their obligations thereunder. Out of these contracts with the shipping firms mentioned, the three petitioners in this case make profits, enough to make them remain in the business; and this is so in spite of the fact that they pay or reimburse the shipping firms concerned for looses of property on board vessels being guarded by their men while docked at the port of Manila." (Petition for Review. p.9)

    Assuming arguendo that contracts exist between the shipping lines or their agents and the watchmen agencies, said contracts refer to the recruitment of watchmen or laborers, as the Court of Industrial Relations found, which finding we hereby declare to be correct. The petitioners mistake these contracts, that they had entered into for the recruitment of watchmen, for a contract to perform the duty or obligation of watching the ships and their cargo. The watchmen agencies-petitioners did not contract for the guarding of the ships and their cargo, but only to furnish the watchmen.

    An independent contractor is one who undertakes to do a piece of work for his own account, under his own responsibility, with minimum interference on the part of the other contracting party, in which case persons employed by said independent contractor do not become laborers or employees of the other contracting party. Insofar as the contract to recruit watchmen is concerned, the watchmen agencies are independent contractors and the members of said agencies do not become, as such, laborers or employees of the shipping lines or their agents. But insofar as the guarding of the ships and their cargo is concerned, there never were contracts between the shipping lines and their agencies, on the one hand, and the watchmen agencies-petitioners, on the other. The guarding of each ship and its cargo was never the subject of contract between one and the other. The watchmen agencies never undertook for a specified sum the guarding of the vessels and their cargo, were never paid therefor a lump sum without reference to the number of watchmen performing the duties of guarding and the wages that each should receive for his work. Furthermore, We have found in our decision that (1) "Tomas Caraveo, operator of the Maligaya Ships Watchmen Agency, is the headwatchmen of the United States Lines and receives his pay as such from the company;" (2) "Bernard Bradbury, the operator of the Marine Security Agency, is the supervisor of the American President Lines and in that capacity he is paid by that company;" and (3) "Fernando Derupe, operator of the Republic Ships Agency, is the headchecker of the Macondray & Company and also receives his pay from that company." (Decision in U. S. Lines, Et. Al. v. Associated Watchmen and Security Union [PTWO], supra, p. 11.) , and that "although the operators of these agencies do the job of recruiting watchmen, however, the supervision over these watchmen while working on board the vessels are not only exercised by the ‘supervisors’ of the shipping companies but also by the ship officers, the port captains, and the managers of the same firms. And these shipping firms for a time deducted and withheld from the wages of the watchmen the income taxes they were to pay under the law." The operators are mere agents of the shippings companies in the recruitment of watchmen, in the computation and payment of their wages and in the supervision of their work. Even the application forms of these operators (watchmen agencies) and the identification cards given to the watchmen must have the approval of the superintendents of the shipping companies.

    The above facts and circumstances conclusively show that the watchmen agencies-petitioners are not and may not be considered independent contractors insofar as the guarding of the ships and their cargo is concerned, nor do the watchmen of the agencies by the mere fact of their membership in said agencies become laborers or employees of the shipping lines or their agents.

    The finding hereinbefore made concludes the answer to the third issue. As members of the watchmen agencies do not become laborers or employees of the shipping lines or their agents by mere membership in such watchmen agencies, and can only become laborers or employees paid by the shipping lines or agencies when actually working as watchmen thereof, it stands to reason that only those who were actually employed and paid for as watchmen are the laborers or employees of the shipping lines and their agents and should take part in the certification elections. The decision of the Court of Industrial Relations that they alone should be certified and be considered as having the right to participate in the elections, is therefore correct, there being no actual relation of employer and employee or laborer between the shipping lines and the members of the watchmen agencies by the mere fact of such membership. Members of the watchmen agencies who were not actually employed and paid for as watchmen must necessarily be excluded from participating in the elections.

    The petition for review in the above-entitled cases is hereby denied, and the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations affirmed in toto with costs against the petitioners.

    Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

    G.R. Nos. L-12214-17   May 28, 1958 - MALIGAYA SHIP WATCHMEN AGENCY v. ASSOCIATED WATCHMEN AND SECURITY UNION (PTWO)<br /><br />103 Phil 920


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED