FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 202091. June, 7, 2017]

SUMIFRU (PHILIPPINES) CORP. (surviving entity of a merger with

Fresh Banana Agricultural Corporation and other corporations) ,
petitioner, vs. NAGKAHIUSANG MAMUMUO SA SUYAPA FARM 1
(NAMASUFA-NAFLU-KMU) , respondent.

DECISION

CAGUIOA , J : p

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 2 under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court led by petitioner Sumifru (Philippines) Corp. (Sumifru), assailing the Decision
3 dated February 8, 2012 and Resolution 4 dated May 18, 2012 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 03574. The CA a rmed the Resolution dated February 8, 2010 5
of the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) which, in turn,
a rmed the Order dated July 28, 2008 6 of DOLE Regional O ce No. XI Circuit
Mediator-Arbiter (Med-Arbiter), which ordered the conduct of certi cation election of
the rank-and- le employees of Sumifru in P-1 Upper Siocon, Compostela, Comval
Province.
Facts
Sumifru is a domestic corporation and is the surviving corporation after its
merger with Fresh Banana Agricultural Corporation (FBAC) in 2008. 7 FBAC was
engaged in the buying, marketing, and exportation of Cavendish bananas. 8
Respondent Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Suyapa Farm (NAMASUFA-NAFLU-
KMU) (NAMASUFA) is a labor organization a liated with the National Federation of
Labor Unions and Kilusang Mayo Uno. 9
The CA summarized the start of the proceedings with the Med-Arbiter as follows:
On March 14, 2008, the private respondent Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa
Suyapa Farm (NAMASUFA-NAFLU-KMU), a legitimate labor organization, led a
Petition for Certi cation Election before the Department of Labor and
Employment, Regional O ce No. XI in Davao City. NAMASUFA sought to
represent all rank-and- le employees, numbering around one hundred forty, of
packing plant 90 (PP 90) of Fresh Banana Agricultural Corporation (FBAC).
NAMASUFA claimed that there was no existing union in the aforementioned
establishment.
On May 9, 2008 FBAC led an Opposition to the Petition. It argued that
there exists no employer-employee relationship between it and the workers
involved. It alleged that members of NAMASUFA are actually employees of A2Y
Contracting Services (A2Y), a duly licensed independent contractor, as
evidenced by the payroll records of the latter.
NAMASUFA, in its Comment to Opposition countered, among others, that
its members were former workers of Stan lco before FBAC took over its
operations sometime in 2002. The said former employees were then required to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 join the Compostela Banana Packing Plant Workers' Cooperative (CBPPWC)
before they were hired and allowed to work at the Packing Plant of FBAC. It
further alleged that the members of NAMASUFA were working at PP 90 long
before A2Y came.
In June 20, 2008, pending resolution of the petition, FBAC was merged
with SUMIFRU, the latter being the surviving corporation. 1 0
On July 28, 2008, the DOLE Med-Arbiter issued an Order granting the Petition for
Certi cation Election of NAMASUFA and declared that Sumifru was the employer of the
workers concerned. The dispositive portion of the Order states:
WHEREFORE , premises considered, the petition for certi cation election
led by Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Suyapa Farm (NAMASUFA) — NAFLU —
KMU is hereby GRANTED . Let a certi cation election among the rank-and- le
workers of Fresh Banana Agricultural Corporation be conducted at the company
premises located at P-1 Upper Siocon, Compostela, Comval Province with the
following as choices:
1. Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Suyapa Farm (NAMASUFA) — NAFLU
— KMU; and
2. No Union
Let the entire records of this case be forwarded to Comval Field O ce,
this Department, for the usual pre-election conference.
The employer Fresh Banana Agricultural Corporation is hereby
DIRECTED to submit within ve (5) days from receipt of this Order, a certi ed
list of the rank-and- le employees in the establishment or the payrolls covering
the members of the bargaining unit for the last three (3) months prior to the
issuance of this Order.
SO ORDERED . 1 1
In ruling that an employer-employee relationship existed, the Med-Arbiter stated:
The "four-fold test" will show that respondent FBAC is the employer of
petitioner's members. The elements to determine the existence of an
employment relationship are: (a) the selection and engagement of the
employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the
employer's power to control the employee's conduct. The most important
element is the employer's control of the employee's conduct, not only as to the
result of the work to be done, but also as to the means and methods to
accomplish it.
On the rst factor, (selection and engagement of the employer), it is
apparent that the staff of respondent FBAC advised those who are interested to
be hired in the Packing Plant to become members rst of CBPPWC and get a
recommendation from it.
On the second factor (payment of wages), while the respondent tried to
impress upon us that workers are paid by A2Y Contracting Services, this at best
is but an administrative arrangement. We agree with petitioner that the payroll
summary submitted does not contain the relevant information such as the
employee's rate of pay, deductions made and the amount actually paid to the
employee.
On the third factor, (the power of dismissal), it is very clear that
respondent FBAC is the authority that imposes disciplinary measures against
erring workers. This alone proves that it wields disciplinary authority over them.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 Finally, on the fourth factor which is the control test, the fact that the
respondent FBAC gives instructions to the workers on how to go about their
work is su cient indication that it exercises control over their movements. The
workers are instructed as to what time they are supposed to report and what
time they are supposed to return. They were required to ll up monitoring sheets
as they go about their jobs and even the materials which they used in the
packing plant were supplied by FBAC.
Viewed from the above circumstances, it is clear that respondent FBAC is
the real employer of the workers of Packing Plant 90. They are in truth and in
fact the employees of the respondent and its attempt to seek refuge on A2Y
Contracting Services as the ostensible employer was nothing but an elaborate
scheme to deprive them their right to self-organization. 1 2
Sumifru appealed to the DOLE Secretary and in a Resolution dated February 8,
2010, the DOLE Secretary dismissed the appeal, the dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE , considering the foregoing, the appeal is hereby
DISMISSED for lack of merit and the assailed Order dated 28 July 2008 of
DOLE Regional O ce No. XI Circuit Mediator-Arbiter Gerardine A. Jamora is
AFFIRMED .
Let the entire records of this case be remanded to the Regional O ce of
origin for the immediate conduct of a certi cation election subject to the usual
pre-election conference.
SO RESOLVED . 1 3
The DOLE Secretary ruled that Sumifru is the true employer of the workers, as
follows:
In the present case, it is undisputed that CBPPWC is supplying workers to
FBAC (now Sumifru). In fact, FBAC required its applicants to become members
of the cooperative rst and seek recommendation from it before hiring them.
Appellant Sumifru failed to proffer evidence to prove that CBPPWC is duly
registered under Department Order No. 18-02. Also, it does not appear on record
that CBPPWC possesses substantial capital or investment in relation with the
work or services that are being performed by its members and that the
employees placed by CBPPWC in Sumifru are performing activities distinct and
independent from that of the main business of Sumifru. As such, this O ce is
inclined to believe that CBPPWC is engaged in labor-only contracting and the
true employer of the subject workers is Sumifru.
The alleged partnership agreement between CBPPWC and A2Y is of no
moment. It is well-settled that mere allegation without evidence to prove the
same is self-serving that should not be given weight in any proceedings.
Nonetheless, even if the alleged agreement indeed took place, the four-fold test
in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship still points to
Sumifru as the employer.
xxx xxx xxx
In this case, Sumifru's control over the subject employees is evident. The
fact that the subject workers are required by Sumifru to ll up monitoring sheets
as they go about their jobs and the imposition of disciplinary actions for non-
compliance with the "No Helmet — No Entry and No ID — No Entry" policies
prove that it is indeed Sumifru, and not A2Y Contracting Services, that exercises
control over the conduct of the subject workers. 1 4

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com

 Sumifru then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA raising the issue of whether
the DOLE Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring it as the employer
of the workers at PP 90. 1 5 But the CA dismissed the petition. The dispositive portion
of the CA Decision states:
WHEREFORE , nding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
public respondent, the petition is DENIED. The Resolution dated February 8,
2010 issued by the public respondent Honorable Secretary of the Department of
Labor and Employment is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED . 1 6
The CA ruled that the DOLE Secretary did not commit grave abuse of discretion
because the latter's ruling that Sumifru was the employer of the workers was anchored
on substantial evidence, thus:
SUMIFRU raises the same issue of non-existence of employer-employee
relationship, which had been squarely resolved in the negative by the Med-
Arbiter and the DOLE Secretary. We nd no traces of abuse in discretion in the
ruling of the DOLE Secretary anchored as it is on substantial evidence.
The Court has consistently applied the "four-fold test" to determine the
existence of an employer-employee relationship: the employer (a) selects and
engages the employee; (b) pays his wages; (c) has power to dismiss him; and
(d) has control over his work. Of these, the most crucial is the element of
control. Control refers to the right of the employer, whether actually exercised or
reserved, to control the work of the employee as well as the means and methods
by which he accomplishes the same.
In this case, the records are replete with evidence which would show that
SUMIFRU has control over the concerned workers, to wit:
1. FBAC memorandum on "Standardized Packing Plant Breaktime";
2. Material Requisition for PP 90;
3. Memorandum dated February 9, 2008 on "no helmet, no entry"
policy posted at the packing plant;
4. Memorandum dated October 15, 2007 on "no ID, no entry policy";
5. Attendance Sheet for General Assembly Meeting called by FBAC on
February 18[,] 2004;
6. Attendance Sheet for Packers ISO awareness seminar on February
11, 2004 called by FBAC;
7. FBAC Traypan Fruit Inspection Packer's Checklist issued by FBAC
for the use of workers in the Packing Plant;
8. FBAC KD Gluing Pattern Survey.
The above orders issued by SUMIFRU/FBAC would show that not only
does it have control over the results of the workers in PP 90 but also in the
manners and methods of its accomplishment. 1 7
The CA, after reviewing the records, accorded respect to the ndings of facts of
the DOLE Secretary, which a rmed the Med-Arbiter, as they have special knowledge
and expertise over matters under their jurisdiction. The CA ruled:
As stated beforehand, there is no cogent reason to set aside the ruling of
the DOLE Secretary which a rmed the ndings of the Med-Arbiter. By reason of
their special knowledge and expertise over matters falling under their
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 jurisdiction, they are in a better position to pass judgment thereon and their
ndings of fact in that regard are generally accorded respect and even nality
by the courts when supported by substantial evidence, as in this case. 1 8
Sumifru moved for reconsideration but the CA denied this in its Resolution dated
May 18, 2012.
Hence, this Petition.
Issues
As stated in its Petition, Sumifru raised the following:
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED PALPABLE MISTAKE AND RULED
CONTRARY TO LAW AND SETTLED JURISPRUDENCE WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE
FINDINGS OF THE DOLE SECRETARY AND CONCLUDED THAT HEREIN
PETITIONER, SUMIFRU, IS THE EMPLOYER OF THE WORKERS ENGAGED BY
THE COOPERATIVE AND/OR A2Y FOR THE UPPER SIOCON GROWERS'
PACKAGING OPERATIONS IN PACKING PLANT 90.
A. A2Y Contracting Services was engaged either by the Upper Siocon
Growers or the Cooperative for the packing operations at PP 90.
B. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Cooperative
and/or A2Y are not legitimate labor contractors, only the Upper
Siocon Growers, and not SUMIFRU, may be deemed the employer of
the workers at PP 90.
C. The Department of Labor and Employment committed grave and
palpable mistake when it grossly misapprehended the facts and
evidence on record, that if properly appreciated will clearly establish
that SUMIFRU is not the employer of the members of NAMASUFA
working at PP 90.
D. The reliance on the alleged inconsistencies in the pleadings
submitted by SUMIFRU is misplaced as there are no inconsistencies
at all. 1 9 (Emphasis omitted)
The Court's Ruling
The Petition is denied.
Sumifru's arguments raise questions of facts. Indeed, it even submitted to this
Court, as annexes to its Petition, the very same evidence it had presented before the
Med-Arbiter, the DOLE Secretary, and the CA in its attempt to try to convince the Court
that the members of NAMASUFA are not its employees.
It is fundamental that in a petition for review on certiorari, the Court is limited to
only questions of law. As speci cally applied in a labor case, the Court is limited to
reviewing only whether the CA was correct in determining the presence or absence of
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the DOLE Secretary. Thus, in Holy Child Catholic
School v. Sto. Tomas, 2 0 the Court ruled:
Our review is, therefore, limited to the determination of whether the CA
correctly resolved the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the
decision of the [Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE)], not on the basis of
whether the latter's decision on the merits of the case was strictly correct.
Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion is not what is ruled upon
but whether it correctly determined the existence or want of grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the SOLE. 2 1
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 In this regard, as held in Telefunken Semiconductors Employees Union-FFW v.
Court of Appeals, 2 2 ndings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies are entitled to great
respect when they are supported by substantial evidence and, in the absence of any
showing of a whimsical or capricious exercise of judgment, the factual findings bind the
Court:
We take this occasion to emphasize that the o ce of a petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court requires that it shall raise
only questions of law. The factual ndings by quasi-judicial agencies,
such as the Department of Labor and Employment, when supported by
substantial evidence, are entitled to great respect in view of their
expertise in their respective elds . Judicial review of labor cases does not
go so far as to evaluate the su ciency of evidence on which the labor o cial's
ndings rest. It is not our function to assess and evaluate all over again the
evidence, testimonial and documentary, adduced by the parties to an appeal,
particularly where the ndings of both the trial court (here, the DOLE Secretary)
and the appellate court on the matter coincide, as in this case at bar. The Rule
limits that function of the Court to the review or revision of errors of law and not
to a second analysis of the evidence. Here, petitioners would have us re-
calibrate all over again the factual basis and the probative value of the pieces of
evidence submitted by the Company to the DOLE, contrary to the provisions of
Rule 45. Thus, absent any showing of whimsical or capricious exercise
of judgment, and unless lack of any basis for the conclusions made
by the appellate court be amply demonstrated, we may not disturb
such factual findings . 2 3 (Emphasis supplied.)
Here, the CA was correct in nding that the DOLE Secretary did not commit any
whimsical or capricious exercise of judgment when it found substantial evidence to
support the DOLE Secretary's ruling that Sumifru was the employer of the members of
NAMASUFA.
As de ned, substantial evidence is "that amount of relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other
minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise." 2 4 Here, the Med-Arbiter
found, based on documents submitted by the parties, that Sumifru gave instructions to
the workers on how to go about their work, what time they were supposed to report for
work, required monitoring sheets as they went about their jobs, and provided the
materials used in the packing plant. 2 5
In a rming the Med-Arbiter, the DOLE Secretary relied on the documents
submitted by the parties and ascertained that Sumifru indeed exercised control over
the workers in PP 90. The DOLE Secretary found that the element of control was
present because Sumifru required monitoring sheets and imposed disciplinary actions
for non-compliance with "No Helmet — No Entry" "No ID — No Entry" policies. 2 6
In turn, the CA, even as it recognized that the ndings of facts of the DOLE
Secretary and the Med-Arbiter were binding on it because they were supported by
substantial evidence, even went further and itself reviewed the records — to arrive, as it
did arrive, at the same conclusion reached by the DOLE Secretary and Med-Arbiter: that
is, that Sumifru exercised control over the workers in PP 90. 2 7
In light of the foregoing, the Court cannot re-calibrate the factual bases of the
Med-Arbiter, DOLE Secretary, and the CA, contrary to the provisions of Rule 45,
especially where, as here, the Petition fails to show any whimsicality or capriciousness
in the exercise of judgment of the Med-Arbiter or the DOLE Secretary in nding the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
 existence of an employer-employee relationship.
WHEREFORE , premises considered, the petition for review is hereby DENIED .
The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 8, 2012 and Resolution dated May
18, 2012 are hereby AFFIRMED .
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-de Castro, Del Castillo and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
Footnotes

1. Also referred to as Nagkakahiusang Namumuo sa Suyapa Farm in some parts of the

records.
2. Rollo, pp. 9-35.

3. Id. at 41-50. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo T. Lloren, with Associate Justices Melchor
Q.C. Sadang and Pedro B. Corales concurring.

4. Id. at 52-53.
5. Id. at 124-129.
6. Id. at 99-104. Penned by Circuit Med-Arbiter Gerardine A. Jamora.
7. Id. at 11.
8. Id. at 12.

9. Id. at 11.
10. Id. at 42-43.
11. Id. at 103-104.
12. Id. at 102-103.

13. Id. at 129.

14. Id. at 127-128.
15. Id. at 46.
16. Id. at 50.
17. Id. at 46-47.

18. Id. at 49.

19. Id. at 18-19.
20. 714 Phil. 427 (2013).
21. Id. at 456-457.
22. 401 Phil. 776 (2000).

23. Id. at 791-792.

24. T & H Shopfitters Corp./Gin Queen Corp. v. T & H Shopfitters Corp./Gin Queen Workers
Union, 728 Phil. 168, 180-181 (2014).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com

 25. Rollo, pp. 102-103.
26. Id. at 128.

27. Id. at 47.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com