law, obligations, oblicon, case digestFull description
case digest if alih vs castroFull description
law
Oblicon Case Digest
Classroom use; EvidenceFull description
G.R. No. L-51369, July 29, 1987Full description
case digest
succession case digestFull description
1US vs Valdez (Case Digest)Full description
Lee vs Tambago AC No. 5281Full description
Case Digest Negotiable Instruments ClassFull description
CRIM
Pol Law
Myla Sara
Ruth
N.
American Pres Lines vs. Clave
FACTS:
The Maritime Security Union through private respondent filed a complaint against petitioner for unfair labor practice under RA 875. They contended that the petitioner had refused to negotiate an agreement with them and discriminated discriminated them regarding regarding their tenure of employment by dismissing them. Petitioner entered into a contract with the Maritime Security Agency for the latter to guard the petitioner’s vessel. The term of the contract is one year and may be terminated by either party upon 30 days notice. The relationship between petitioner and Maritime Security Agency is that it was the latter who hired the guards and the guards were not known to petitioner. A lump sum would be paid by the petitioner to the agency wherein wherein the latter pays the compensation compensation to the guards. However, However, petitione petitionerr termina terminated ted the contract on its termina termination tion period period with prior prior notice. notice. After After its terminati termination, on, petitione petitionerr execute executed d a contact contact with another another agency agency.. Respondents Respondents protested on this.
ISSUE: W/N an employer-employee relationship exists between petitioner and watchmen
HELD:
No. It is the agency that hires the work of its watchmen. Hence, a watchman cannot perform any security service unless the agency first accepts him. It is also the agency that pays the wages to a watchman. Neither does the petitioner have any power of dismissal, because such power lies in the hands of the agency. agency. Since the petitioner has to deal with the agency, petitioner does not exercise any power over watchmen’s conduct. Thus, it is the agency that is answerable to the petitioner for the conduct of its guards. It follows that petitioner cannot be guilty of unfair labor practice because under RA 875 Sec. 13, an unfair labor practice may be committed only within the context of an employer-employee relationship.
