AURO, IAN DEO A.

LABOR LAW 1 BLOCK A

PHILIPPINE FISHING BOAT OFFICERS AND ENGINEERS UNION, SAMAHAN NG

MANGDARAGAT SA FILIPINAS, FRANCISCO VISAYAS AND AMBROCIO
BERGADO, petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, SAN DIEGO FISHERY ENTERPRISES, INC.,
BARTOLOME A. SAN DIEGO AND ANATOLIO LLIDO, respondents.
G.R. No. L-30592

February 25, 1982

FACTS:
Francisco Visaya (Visaya) and Ambrosio Bergado (Bergado) were president and
treasurer, respectively, of Philippine Fishing Boat Officers and Engineers Union (Officers
Union) composed of officers and engineers while Samahan ng Mangdaragat sa Filipinas
(Samahan) is another registered union composed of crew members. Both unions are in the
employ of San Diego Fishery Enterprises (Company) where Bartolome A. San Diego (San
Diego) is a stockholder and Anatolio Llido is an employee. Petitioners are seasonal employees of
the company who seize to work with the latter when the latters boats are on dry dock and they
seek other employment during such time. The petitioners filed before the CIR a complaint for
unfair labor practices by the respondents when the latter failed to act on the demand letters, sent
by the petitioners, within the reglamentary period provided by Sec. 14 of R.A. 875 and for the
illegal termination of the individual petitioners because of the union activities and their refusal to
resign from the petitioner unions when asked by San Diego to resign and join the union being
established by the latter. The CIR dismissed the case of the petitioners giving merit to the
contention of the respondents that the unions were not legitimate representative groups entitled
to a collective bargaining agreement with the company and that Visaya and Bergado were not
employees of the company at the time of their dismissal hence were not illegally terminated from
work.
ISSUE:
Is employment is severed when the workers stop to work for the company and seek other
employment when the operation of the company temporarily seizes during lean season or when
company machineries and equipment are under maintenance?
RULING:
No, the contention of the respondents that at the moment the crew members disembark,
they are no longer considered employees of the company, is not correct. Likewise, the ruling of
the CIR which states that since the record indicated that individual petitioners were not on
board any of the company's fishing vessels at the time of their dismissal, there existed no
employer-employee relationship between the parties and therefore respondents could not be held
liable for unfair labor practices, is equally erroneous. It is settled that tenure of employment is
not considered as the test of employment. All that is required is hiring. For it not the continuity of
employment that renders the employer responsible, but whether the work of the laborer is part of
the regular business or occupation of the employer. In the case at bar, the employer-employee
relationship is merely suspended during the time the vessels are dry docked or undergoing
repairs or being loaded with the necessary provisions for the next fishing trip. All these activities
form part of the regular operation of the company's fishing business. Hence, the individual
petitioners are employees of the company and the fact that on the date of the individuals
petitioners dismissal, they were not on board any of the company's fishing vessels does not
exonerate respondents from the charge of unjust dismissal. In view of the foregoing thereof, the
decision of the CIR is set aside and the respondent company is ordered to pay the individual
petitioners their entitled backwages.