Case Digest (G.R. No. L-23729)
Facts:
In Dy Keh Beng vs. International Labor and Marine Union of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-32245, decided May 25, 1979, petitioner Dy Keh Beng, proprietor of a basket (kaing) factory, was sued for unfair labor practice under Section 4(a)(1) and (4) of Republic Act No. 875 (Industrial Peace Act). The complainants, Carlos N. Solano and Ricardo Tudla, members of the Union, alleged they were dismissed on September 28 and 29, 1960, respectively, due to their union activities. After a preliminary investigation, the case was filed before the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) as Case No. 3019-ULP. In his answer, petitioner denied an employer-employee relationship, contending Solano worked only on a pakiaw (piece-work) basis and Tudla was not even known to him; he also accused the union’s head of extortion. The Hearing Examiner, whose findings were adopted by the CIR en banc on March 23 and June 10, 1970, concluded that Solano and Tudla became employees on May 2, 1953, and July 15, 1955, rCase Digest (G.R. No. L-23729)
Facts:
- Background
- Petitioner Dy Keh Beng is proprietor of a basket (“kaing”) factory.
- On September 28 and 29, 1960, he dismissed employees Carlos N. Solano and Ricardo Tudla allegedly for their union activities, prompting a charge of unfair labor practice under Section 4(a)(1) & (4) of R.A. 875.
- Procedural History
- The International Labor and Marine Union of the Philippines filed ULP Case No. 3019-ULP before the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) on behalf of Solano and Tudla.
- The Hearing Examiner found an employer-employee relationship despite piece-rate work, ruled petitioner guilty of unfair labor practices, and ordered reinstatement with backwages. The CIR, en banc, affirmed on June 10, 1970.
- Petitioner sought certiorari review in the Supreme Court, assigning five errors.
- Contentions of the Parties
- Petitioner contended there was no employer-employee relationship: Solano and Tudla worked intermittently on a “pakiaw” (piece-work) basis, under separate contracts, with no control over method or hours. He also raised a defense of extortion by union officials.
- Complainants and the CIR maintained that Solano and Tudla had continuous service since May 2, 1953 and July 15, 1955, respectively; piece-rate compensation did not negate employer control over quality, size, and site of basket production.
Issues:
- Whether Solano and Tudla were employees of petitioner.
- Whether Solano and Tudla were dismissed by petitioner.
- Whether complainants’ testimony disclosed discriminatory motive and pattern.
- Whether petitioner committed unfair labor practices as alleged.
- Whether reinstatement with backwages was proper.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)