Title
Diamond Farms, Inc. vs. Southern Philippines Federation of Labor-Workers Solidarity of DARBMUPCO/Diamond-SPFL
Case
G.R. No. 173254-55
Decision Date
Jan 13, 2016
DFI, a banana plantation owner, faced labor disputes after deferment cancellation under CARL. Contractors supplied workers, leading to claims of underpayment. SC ruled DFI as statutory employer due to control over workers, affirming CA's decision and allowing certification election. DFI held solidarily liable for workers' claims.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 173254-55)

Relevant Facts

DFI owns an 800-hectare banana plantation in Alejal, Carmen, Davao, which was initially covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988. DFI was granted a deferment to continue its operations until 1998. Subsequently, following complaints from laid-off employees, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) recalled DFI’s deferment privilege, leading to the automatic compulsory acquisition and distribution of the land under CARL. DFI then decided to voluntarily sell a portion of the plantation but retained about 200 hectares, referred to as the managed area. The awarded plantation was distributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries who later established DARBMUPCO.

Employment Agreements and Subsequent Disputes

DARBMUPCO entered a Banana Production and Purchase Agreement (BPPA) with DFI to cultivate high-grade bananas. Due to manpower shortages, DFI contracted individual contractors to recruit workers for the agricultural operations. Disputes arose regarding the employment status of the approximately 400 workers who were engaged by these contractors, with DFI and DARBMUPCO denying their status as employers.

Certification Election and NLRC Proceedings

In 1997, the SPFL filed a petition for certification election to determine the exclusive bargaining representative for the workers. The Med-Arbiter initially determined DARBMUPCO as the employer, but the Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE) later ruled that DFI was the statutory employer, stating that DFI supervised the contractors and directly directed the work. Both parties contested these decisions in subsequent appeals.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the SOLE’s ruling, concluding that DFI is the employer of the respondent-workers based on provided evidence, including that DFI engaged the contractors and supervised their work. The CA noted that the ownership of the land where work was performed did not determine employer status.

Labor Contracting Principles

The case revolves around the legal framework governing job contracting and labor-only contracting as delineated by the Labor Code of the Philippines. Labor-only contracting occurs when contractors have insufficient capital or investment, thus deeming them agents of the principal employer. DFI argued against the status of the contractors as labor-only, but the admissions made by the contractors, acknowledging their limited resources and labor supervision by DFI, were determinative.

Judicial Findings and Employer-Employee Relationship

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's conclusion that DFI is the primary employer of the respondent-workers. The ruling emphasized the con

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.