Broadway Vs. Nlrc Case Digest

Myla Ruth N. Sara

Broadway v NLRC FACTS: By virtue of a written contract, private respondent Apolinario worked as an auto painter in the premises of petitioner, wherein he signed as a contactor. He worked for a period of 18 years until he was barred from entering the premises of petitioner because of the alleged involvement in a fist fight with the shop superintendent of petitioner. Apolinario commenced an action for dismissal. ISSUE: W/N ER-EE relationship exists between petitioner and respondent HELD: The record shows that Apolinario was hired directly by petitioner to work in the latter’s auto repair shop as an auto painter and petitioner has power to dismiss which is evident from the fact that it unilaterally undertook to terminate Aplonario’s relationships with itself. Apolinario was also compensated for the jobs they performed in lump sum payments. Under the work contract, it provided that petitioner would negotiate only with Apolinario on any work order and would refrain from dealing with any member of Apolinario’s group of Contract Workers. With regards to the power to control Apolinario’s conduct, it appears that Apolinario was required to render overtime service and wear uniforms and ID worn in the premises of the petitioner. Thus, he is under the control and supervision of petitioner. Also, petitioner supplied all the tools necessary for Apolinario to carry out his jobs. Finally, Apolinario was engaged in the performance of a work directly related to the business operations of the petitioner. Therefore, the relationship between petitioner and respondent is characterized by an ER-EE relationship. Petition for Certiorari is dismissed.