LABREL DIGEST PRELIM

BAUTISTA VS INCIONG
[1988]

A-3

Art.

Case Title / Issue

211 217

Bautista vs.
Inciong (1988)

Facts

Illegal dismissal case

Bautista is a union organizer of
Associated Labor Union, the latter
WON a Union can pays his share of SSS contributions
be an employer He filed a sick leave of absence
When he reported back to work at
the end of his leave, the VP for
Luzon informed him that his
services is being terminated
He filed the case.
The Director ruled in his favor but
the decision was reversed on
appeal on the ground of No Er-Ee
relationship

Ruling/Ratio
Yes.
Ratio: The mere fact that the respondent is a labor union does
not mean that it cannot be considered an employer of the
persons who work for it.
Cited Brotherhood Labor Unity,
Existence of Er-Ee relationship, Rule (Control Test): (1) the
selection and engagement of the Ee; (2) the payment of wages;
(3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the Er's power to control the
employee with respect to the means and methods
- Case facts: (1) payroll, i.e., Union paid his wages; (2) share in SSS
remittances; (3) union's act of filing a clearance application with
the MOL to terminate the petitioner's services; (4) Union hired
him.
- Conclusion: there is an Er-Ee relationship b/n ALU and Bautista.
Ruling: Awarded severance pay (3 years backwages + separation
pay)