Case Digest (G.R. No. L-12208-11)
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-12208-11)
Facts:
United States Lines, et al. v. Associated Watchmen and Security Union (PTWO), G.R. No. L-12208-11. May 21, 1958, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bautista Angelo, J., writing for the Court.On February 21, 1956, the Associated Watchmen and Security Union (PTWO) filed nineteen petitions for certification with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) naming various shipping companies as respondents. Among these were petitions against United States Lines Company, American President Lines, and Macondray & Co., Inc. (Cases Nos. 328-MC, 329-MC and 33E-MC respectively). While those certification petitions were pending, members of PTWO and members of the Associated Workers Union picketed the ships on March 13, 1956 to compel recognition as collective bargaining representative; the picket paralyzed loading and unloading at Manila South Harbor.
Because the stoppage affected operations considered to be of national interest, the President certified the dispute to the CIR as Case No. 10-IPA (shipping companies as petitioners; PTWO as respondent). The CIR consolidated and tried Case No. 10-IPA together with the nineteen certification petitions; several watchmen agencies intervened (e.g., Maligaya Ships Watchmen Agency, Marine Security Agency, City Watchmen and Security Agency). On March 16, 1956 the shipping companies moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and other grounds; the CIR deferred action until after trial and the shipping companies filed answers asserting, among other defenses, that the watchmen were employees of the intervenor agencies, not of the shipping companies, and that the proposed bargaining unit was inappropriate.
During the proceedings PTWO withdrew sixteen of the nineteen certification petitions as to certain shipping companies; on May 23, 1956 only the three petitions involving United States Lines, American President Lines and Macondray & Co., Inc., and the related portion of Case No. 10-IPA, remained. After trial the CIR rendered decision on December 30, 1956, holding it had jurisdiction, finding an employer-employee relationship between the shipping companies and the watchmen supplied by the intervenor agencies, and ordering a certification election.
The shipping companies moved for reconsideration; the CIR en banc denied relief (Judge Lanting took no part; Judge Martinez concurred in result). The shipping companies filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court challenging the CIR's factual findings and legal conclusions. The case reaches the Court by petition for review of the CIR decision; the Court had earlier entertained related proceedings in G.R. No. L-10333, where it issued a preliminary mandatory injunction (Feb. 28, 1956) that briefly countermanded a CFI injunction and allowed the pickets to resume pending resolution.
The shipping companies argued (inter alia) that (1) the watchmen were employees of independent watchmen agencies, not the shipping companies; (2) the CIR's "certain degree of control" test for employer-employee relationship was erroneous; (3) the CIR erred under Republic Act No. 875, Sec. 6 in not determining the appropriate bargaining unit; and (4) the intervenor watchmen agencies—mere business names registered with the Bureau of Commerce and not duly organized labor organizations—were not qualified representatives for collective bargaining.
Issues:
- Are the CIR’s findings that the watchmen were employees of the shipping companies supported by substantial evidence?
- Is the CIR’s use of a "certain degree of control" as the test for employer-employee relationship legally correct?
- Was the CIR required by Republic Act No. 875 to make a separate determination of the appropriate bargaining unit in these certification petitions?
- Do business-name watchmen agencies that are not properly organized labor organizations qualify to represent employees for collective bargaining purposes?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)