G.R. No. 202091 - Sumifru Corp. vs. Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Suyapa Farm

Petitioner Sumifru (Philippines) Corp. (Sumifru) is a domestic corporation and the surviving entity after merging with Fresh Banana Agricultural Corporation (FBAC) and other corporations in 2008. FBAC was engaged in buying, marketing, and exporting Cavendish bananas.
Respondent Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Suyapa Farm (NAMASUFA-NAFLU-KMU) is a labor organization affiliated with the National Federation of Labor Unions and Kilusang Mayo Uno.

On March 14, 2008, NAMASUFA filed a Petition for Certification Election before DOLE Regional Office No. XI to represent approximately 140 rank-and-file employees of packing plant 90 (PP 90) of FBAC. NAMASUFA claimed no existing union represented these workers.
FBAC opposed the petition on May 9, 2008, denying an employer-employee relationship with the workers, asserting the workers were employed by A2Y Contracting Services, an independent contractor, as evidenced by payroll records.
NAMASUFA countered that its members were former workers of Stanfilco, who joined the Compostela Banana Packing Plant Workers' Cooperative (CBPPWC) before working at FBAC's packing plant. They asserted members worked at PP 90 prior to A2Y’s involvement.
On June 20, 2008, FBAC merged with Sumifru, with Sumifru as the surviving corporation.

On July 28, 2008, the DOLE Regional Office No. XI Circuit Mediator-Arbiter (Med-Arbiter) granted the petition for certification election, declaring Sumifru as the employer of the workers concerned.
The Med-Arbiter applied the four-fold test to establish employer-employee relationship elements: selection and engagement, payment of wages, power of dismissal, and control over employee’s conduct.

FBAC advised applicants to become members of CBPPWC and obtain its recommendation before hiring.
Payroll records allegedly from contractor A2Y were inadequate; critical payroll data was missing.
Disciplinary actions were imposed by FBAC, demonstrating its authority.
FBAC controlled work conduct, work hours, required monitoring sheets, and supplied materials.

The Med-Arbiter held that FBAC’s claim of A2Y contract workers was an elaborate scheme to avoid recognition of employer-employee status and undermine the employees’ right to self-organization.

Sumifru appealed the Med-Arbiter’s order to the Secretary of Labor and Employment, who dismissed the appeal on February 8, 2010, affirming the Med-Arbiter’s ruling and ordering a certification election.
The DOLE Secretary ruled that CBPPWC was supplying workers to FBAC/Sumifru, but failed to prove that CBPPWC was a duly registered labor contractor under Department Order No. 18-02 or had substantial capital or independent activities distinct from Sumifru’s business, suggesting engagement in labor-only contracting.
The Secretary emphasized Sumifru’s control over the workers, including requiring monitoring sheets and enforcing policies such as “No Helmet No Entry” and “No ID No Entry.”
The alleged partnership between CBPPWC and A2Y was dismissed due to lack of evidence.

Sumifru filed a petition for certiorari before the CA, contending the DOLE committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that Sumifru was the employer.
The CA denied the petition on February 8, 2012, affirming that the DOLE Secretary’s resolution was supported by substantial evidence, applying the four-fold test, and recognizing Sumifru’s control over the workers.
The CA gave weight and finality to the findings of the Med-Arbiter and DOLE Secretary due to their special knowledge and expertise.
The CA denied reconsideration on May 18, 2012.

Sumifru filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court under Rule 45, raising the issue of employer-employee relationship and alleged grave abuse of discretion by DOLE Secretary and CA.

Whether the Court of Appeals committed palpable mistake and ruled contrary to law and settled jurisprudence in affirming the DOLE Secretary’s finding that petitioner Sumifru is the employer of the workers engaged by the Cooperative (CBPPWC) and/or contractor A2Y at packing plant 90 (PP 90).

Whether the Department of Labor and Employment committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring Sumifru as the employer of the NAMASUFA members working at PP 90.

Whether the employer-employee relationship exists between Sumifru and the subject workers in light of the four-fold test and the alleged arrangement involving CBPPWC and A2Y.