Caurdanetaan Piece Workers Union vs. Laguesma & Corfarm GrainsG.R No. 113542, February 24, 1998

Facts:Caurdanetaan Piece Workers Union members herein petitioners, worked for the respondent, Corfarms Grains,Inc., as cargadores. Among of their jobs was to load, unload and pile sacks of palay from the respondents warehouses to the cargo trucks and from the cargo trucks to the buyers. Their salary paid by the private respondent was on a piece rate basis. Some of the benefits being demanded by the petitioners where denied by Corfarm to these cargadores which led them to organize a union. Corfarm subsequently barred its members from working with them when it learned of the unions formation and replaced them with non-members of the union.Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.Corfarm contends that it had no the power of control, saying that the petitioner's members "were 'street-hired' workers and that here was no superintendent-in-charge to give orders directly to the employees. The respondent also alleged in its defense that there were no gate passes issued, nor tools, equipment and paraphernalia issued by Corfarm for the loading and unloading of the sacks of palay. They furthermore contend that employer-employee relationship is negated by the fact that they offer and actually perform loading and unloading work for various rice mills in Pangasinan .ISSUE:Whether or not an employer-employee relationship between the CPWU members and Respondent Corfarm exist.HELD.Yes. To determine the existence of an employer-employee relation, this Court has consistently applied the "four-fold" test which has the following elements: (1) the power to hire, (2) the payment of wages, (3) the power to dismiss, and (4) the power to control - the last being the most important element.Petitioners members performed work which is directly related, necessary and vital to the operations of Corfarm. Moreover, Corfarm did not even allege that petitioners members were independent contractors and did not contradict petitioner's allegation that it paid wages directly to these workers without the intervention of any third-party independent contractor. It also wielded the power of dismissal over petitioners; in fact, its exercise of this power was the progenitor of the illegal dismissal case