Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-30278. December 14, 1982.]

JOSE MANAPAT, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and PAULINO SYLIANGCO, doing business under the name of PAVA DEEP SEA FISHING ENTERPRISES, Respondents.

Gerardo S. Ongtengco for Petitioner.

Eulalio B. Garcia for Respondents.

SYNOPSIS


Petitioner Jose Manapat, a master carpenter worked in the repair and upkeep of the private respondent Paulino Syliangco’s many vessels from 1960 up to the incident on May 27, 1963, which led to the claim for Workmen’s Compensation benefits. While working with other carpenters in the repair of the M/V Don Paulino I, the petitioner suffered a cerebro-vascular accident which caused his disability. A joint physical and medical examination performed on the petitioner showed an official finding of temporary total disability for eight (8) months and permanent partial disability. On January 19, 1967, the Department of Labor’s Regional Office No. 4 awarded compensation to Mr. Manapat. On appeal to the respondent Commission, the decision of she regional office was affirmed with modification. However, acting on a motion for reconsideration, the commission reversed itself and absolved the private respondent from any compensation responsibility in connection with the claimant’s claim ruling that the petitioner was an independent contractor since not all the elements of an employer-employee relationship between the latter and respondent Syliangco are present.

The Supreme Court ruled that a worker who is given a great amount of discretion is not necessarily an independent contractor. The fact that the owner is interested in the result of an employee’s work does not make the latter an independent contractor. Also, the fact that the selection and discipline of other employees is given to the petitioner is not conclusive proof that the latter is an independent contractor. Moreover, the fact that petitioner received wages from employer and had no independent funds to pay employees under his supervision belies claim that the former is an independent contractor. Lastly, the Supreme Court ruled that an employee does not become an independent contractor simply because the employer delegates to that employee functions and responsibilities which the employer himself may discharge.

Questioned resolution reversed and set aside.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR LAWS; EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE; INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR; WORKER GIVEN A GREAT AMOUNT OF DISCRETION IS NOT NECESSARILY AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. — Not every worker who is given a great amount of discretion including supervision over his fellow workers should be declared an independent contractor. The fact that the owner is interested only in the result, in the carpenter doing a good job, does not make the latter an independent contractor. The petitioner’s work was continuing in nature, over many years and for different vessels. When there was no vessel calling for carpentry repairs, Manapat was put to work on the private respondent’s trucks.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; FACT THAT THE SELECTION AND DISCIPLINE OF OTHER EMPLOYEES IS GIVEN TO PETITIONER, NOT CONCLUSIVE PROOF THAT THE LATTER IS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. — The fact that Mr. Syliangco left the selection and discipline of the other carpenters and helpers to petitioner Manapat is likewise not conclusive proof that the latter was an independent contractor. Mr. Manapat was the master carpenter, the foreman and supervisor of carpentry work. He knew better than the owner how many carpenters would be needed to complete the repairs on a boat in the time that it was laid up prior to going out to sea again. Knowing the extent and nature of needed repairs. he knew who among his helpers was working well and who should be replaced..

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; FACT THAT PETITIONER RECEIVED WAGES FROM EMPLOYER AND HAD NO INDEPENDENT FUNDS TO PAY EMPLOYEES UNDER HIS SUPERVISION BELIES CLAIM THAT THE FORMER IS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. — More important is that the petitioner worked for Syliangco on daily wages from 1960 up to the time he suffered the disability in 1965. He had no office. Dependent as he was on daily wage, he had no independent funds to pay the carpenters under his supervision. He was a mere conduit of the ,employer, charged with handling out wages to workers at so many pesos a day according to their respective abilities. while the unpleasant job of dismissing inefficient workers was left to him, he always had to tell Mr. Syliangco who was the real employer of the company.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; AN EMPLOYEE DOES NOT BECOME AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR SIMPLY BECAUSE THE EMPLOYER DELEGATES TO THAT EMPLOYEE FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES WHICH THE EMPLOYER HIMSELF MAY DISCHARGE. — An employee who is given a more or less free hand in the technical details of one operation in an enterprise or firm and who is made a supervisor over skilled workers hired as the need arises does not become an independent contractor simply because the employer delegates to that employee many functions and responsibilities which the employer himself may discharge.


D E C I S I O N


GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:


This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the defunct Workmen’s Compensation Commission which denied a claim for compensation of petitioner Jose Manapat the ground that he was an independent contractor and not an employee of the private Respondent.

Private respondent Paulino Syliangco owns the PAVA Deep Sea Fishing Enterprises, a firm engaged, as its name implies, in deep sea fishing In the pursuit of his business, Mr. Syliangco owns launches and vessels and one of them, the M/V Don Paulino I was involved in this case.

Petitioner Jose Manapat is a master carpenter. The records show that he has worked in the repair and upkeep of the private respondent’s many vessels from 1960 up to the incident on May 27, 1965, which led to the claim for workmen’s compensation benefits. While working with other carpenters in the repair of the M/V Don Paulino I, the petitioner suffered a cerebro-vascular accident which caused his disability. A joint physical and medical examination performed on the petitioner on September 12, 1968 at the evaluation division of the respondent commission showed an official of temporary total disability for eight (8) months and permanent partial disability of 45% NSC (a.f.).

On January 19, 1967, the Department of Labor’s Regional Office No. 4 awarded compensation to Mr. Manapat on the basis of a P10.00 daily wage. On appeal to the respondent commission, the decision of the regional office was affirmed with modification. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from should be, as it is hereby, AFFIRMED with the foregoing modifications, and the respondent is ordered as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. To pay to claimant, thru this Commission, the amount of FOUR THOUSAND SIXTY EIGHT PESOS (P4,068.00) as disability benefits under Sec. 14 of the Act, as amended, from May 27, 1965 up to tins date, July 26, 1967, and weekly thereafter beginning July 27, 1967 at the rate of P36.00 per week, until he is pronounced cared;

"2. To provide the claimant with such services, appliances and supplies as the nature of his disability and the process of his recovery may require, and that which will promote the early restoration to the maximum level of ms physical capacity, pursuant to Sec. 13 of the same Act;

"3. To reimburse the claimant of the sum of P1,530.65 as medical expensed incurred by him;

"4. To pay claimant’s counsel of record, the sum of P406.80 as attorney’s fees; and

"5. To pay into the Workmen’s Compensation Fund, the sum of SIXTY SIX PESOS (P66.00) as partial payment of administration costs, including the postponement fees in the regional level and costs of this review, in accordance with Sec. 55 of the Act, as amended."cralaw virtua1aw library

However, acting on a motion for reconsideration, the commission reversed itself and absolved the private respondent from any compensation responsibility in connection with the claimant’s claim.

In arriving at its determination that the petitioner was an independent contractor, the respondent commission applied the elements of an employer-employee relationship enunciated in Viaña v. Al Lagadan, et al (99 Phil. 408) namely: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and, most important, (4) the power to control the employee’s conduct.

The petitioner had other carpenters and workers working under him. Among them were Fely, Ador, Lauro, Pedring. and a man whose name he forgot. Apart from the owner, the petitioner also had an "encargado" boss.

From the answers to the questions propounded to the petitioner, the respondent commission concluded that he was an independent contractor. When asked who hired the men helping repair the launch, Manapat stated that he hired them, contracting that some would be paid P7.00 a day and some P9.00 a day, but upon instructions of Mr. Syliangco. The petitioner stated that he would get money from respondent Paulino Syliangco and pay the workers their wages. However, there was a sheet of paper used as a payroll where the men signed. The payroll was then turned over to a "Mr. Eric" of the firm. If one worker was inefficient, Manapat would dismiss that worker and then tell Mr. Syliangco. After the dismissal, Manapat would tell Paulino Syliangco that he (the petitioner) would look for a substitute. The petitioner was given discretion in the repairs of the boats. He was not told to follow any plan or specification but an encargado named Mario would tell him to change his work if it was not satisfactory.

On the basis of the petitioner’s answers, the respondent commission granted the motion for reconsiderations and ruled that he used his own means, his own men, and his own methods in the performance of his job without the owner interfering and only when the repairs where completed would his work be checked. The commission declared Manapat an independent contractor.

A careful consideration of the same facts leads us to a different conclusion. Not every worker who is given a great amount of discretion including supervision over his fellow workers should be declared an independent contractor.

Petitioner Manapat was a daily wage worker earning ten pesos a day. By the very nature of his job, he had to be given discretion. A master carpenter hired to repair boats and launches in a deep sea fishing enterprise would not be guided every step of the way — on how he would drive a nail, cut a piece of lumber, apply melted pitch to form the caulking, and perform the many other unforeseen carpentry requirements of any major or even minor repair jobs. It is enough if a damaged launch or boat which requires carpentry work is shown to him and he is left to decide how best to repair it. The fact that the owner is interested only in the result, in the carpenter doing a good job, does not make the latter an independent contractor. The petitioner’s work was continuing in nature, over many years and for different vessels. When there was no vessel calling for carpentry repairs, Manapat was put to work on the private respondent’s trucks.

The fact that Mr. Syliangco left the selection and discipline of the other carpenters and helpers to petitioner Manapat is likewise not conclusive proof that the latter was an independent contractor. Mr. Manapat was the master carpenter, the foreman and supervisor of carpentry work. He knew better than the owner how many carpenters would be needed to complete the repairs on a boat in the time that it was laid up prior to going out to sea again. Knowing the extent and nature of needed repairs, he knew who among his helpers was working well and who should be replaced.

More important is that the petitioner worked for Syliangco on daily wages from 1960 up to the time he suffered the disability in 1965. He had no office. Dependent as he was on his P10.00 daily wage, he had no independent funds to pay the carpenters under his supervision. He was a mere conduit of the employer, charged with handing out wages to workers at so many pesos a day according to their respective abilities. While the unpleasant job of dismissing inefficient workers was left to him, he always had to tell Mr. Syliangco who was the real employer of everybody working in the PAVA Deep Sea Fishing Enterprise.

There was an overall encargado, Dominador Isla himself an employee, to whom the petitioner gave reports on the progress of carpentry repair jobs and from whom he receive instructions whenever Syliangco did not deal with him directly.

An employee who is given a more or less free hand in the technical details of one operation in an enterprise or firm and who is made a supervisor over skilled workers hired as the need arises does not become an independent contractor simply because the employer delegates to that employee many functions and responsibilities which the employer himself may discharge. This is especially true in family businesses, fishing and farming, and cottage industries where informal and unwritten relationships prevail and the clear cut distinctions governing labor-management relations may, at times be blurred.

The petitioner is an employee and must receive the compensation which the law provides.

Not only the statutory requirements found in the Workmen’s Compensation Act but the mandate expressed in Section 5, Article II of the 1935 Constitution, that "the promotion of social justice to insure the well being and economic security of all the people should be the concern of the State" call for such a conclusion.

WHEREFORE, the resolution of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission dated February 19, 1969 is hereby reversed and set aside. The private respondent is ordered:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. To pay petitioner Jose Manapat, through the Ministry of Labor and Employment, the sum of SIX THOUSAND (P6,000.00) PESOS as compensation for disability benefits.

2. To provide the petitioner with such medical service and supplies as the nature of his illness may require as of the time this decision is executed;

3. To reimburse the petitioner of the sum of P1,530.65 as medical expenses incurred by him;

4. To pay attorney’s fees for petitioner’s counsel the sum of Six Hundred P600.00) Pesos; and

5. To pay the successor of the defunct commission administrative fees.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee (Acting C.J.), Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Vasquez and Relova, JJ., concur.

Top of Page