MALIGAYA SHIP WATCHMEN AGENCY, MARINE SECURITY AGENCY, AND CITY WATCHMEN AGENCY, PETITIONERS, VS. ASSOCIATED WATCHMEN AND SECURITY UNION (PTWO), RESPONDENT.

The above-entitled cases, are the appeals of the intervenors in Court of
Industrial Relations Certification Cases No. 328-MC entitled “Associated
Watchmen and Security Union (PTWO), Petitioner vs. United States Lines,
Employer, Maligaya Ships Watchmen Agency, Intervenor,” No. 329-MC entitled
“Associated Watchmen and Security Union (PTWO), Petitioner vs. American
President Lines, Employer, Marine Security Agency, Intervenor,” No. 332-MC
entitled “Associated Watchmen and Security Union (PTWO), Petitioner vs.
Macondray & Co., Employer, City Watchmen Security Agency, Intervenor,” and
of the respondents in case No. 10-IPA entitled “United States Lines, et al.,
Petitioner vs. Associated Watchmen and Security Union, Catalino Rosales and
Roberto S. Oca, respondents. The findings of fact of this Court in all the
above-entitled cases are as follows:

“The various steamship companies
which are either owners or agents of foreign vessels calling at the port of
Manila had for sometime contracted with watchmen agencies to furnish watchmen on
board their vessels in order to guard and protect the cargoes thereon and to
keep unauthorized persons away from the ships. The United States Lines Company
had a contract with the Maligaya Ships “Watchmen Agency which is owned by Tomas
Caraveo; the American President Lines had a contract with the Marine Security
Agency which is owned by Bernard Bradbury; and Macondray & Co., Inc. had
contract with three watchmen agencies, namely, Republic Ships Agency which is
owned by Fernando Derupe Tagle Ships Watchmen and Security Agency which is owned
by Claro Tagle.and the City Watchmen and Security Agency which is owned by
Villardo Purificacion and Eduardo Murillo. The Maligaya Ships Watchmen Agency is
merely a business name which was registered, with the Bureau of Commerce by its
owner Tomas Caraveo. As of October, 1945, the agency employed forty-two (42)
watchmen but later the number was reduced to thirty-nine (39). The Marine
Security Agency is also a business name registered with the Bureau of Commerce
which is operated by Bernard Bradbury and managed by Lawrence Hunt. As of March
19, 1956, this agency employed sixty-four (64) watchmen. The Republic Ships
Security Agency, Tagle Ships Watchmen and Security Agency and City Watchmen and
Security Agency are also business names registered with the Bureau of Commerce.
The first employed forty-six (46) watchmen, the second thirty-six (36) watchmen
and the third sixty-four (64) watchmen. The agencies are duly licensed by the
city treasurer of Manila to engage in the business of supplying watchmen to
steamship companies. They have secured permits from the Mayor of Manila to
engage in business under Ordinance No. 2162 of said city. They have also secured
annual permits to transact business from the Collector of Customs from 1951 up
to the present time.” (Decision in United States Lines, et al. vs. Associated
Watchmen and Security Union (PTWO), G. R. Nos. L-12208-11, promulgated May 21,
1958.)

The issues raised by the appellants in this Court are as follows: (1) that
the petitioners, are independent contractors; (2) that the watchmen or security
guards of the watchmen agencies-petitioners are not employees of the shipping-
firms or steamship agencies; and (3) that the procedure of certification by the
Court of Industrial Relations is not proper.

On the first issue
petitioners make the following contention:

“The Maligaya Ship Watchmen’s Agency has a contract to supply guards for the
ship represented by the United States Lines; the Marine Security Agency has a
contract to supply guards for the ships represented by the American President
Lines; and the City Watchmen & Security Agency is one of the three agencies
which have contracts to supply guards for the ships represented by Macondray
& Co., Inc. Under these contracts, the Maligaya Ship Watchmen’s Agency and
the Marine Security Agency are required to post bonds as security for the
faithful performance of their obligations thereunder. Out of these contracts
with the shipping firms mentioned, the three petitioners in this case make
profits, enough to make them remain in the business; and this is so in spite of
the fact that they pay or reimburse the shipping firms concerned for losses of
property on board vessels being guarded by their men while docked at the port of
Manila.” (Petition for Review, p.9)

Assuming arguendo that contracts exist between the shipping lines or their
agents and the watchmen agencies, said contracts refer to the recruitment of
watchmen or laborers, as the Court of Industrial Relations found, which finding
we hereby declare to be correct. The petitioners mistake these contracts, that
they had entered into for the recruitment of watchmen, for a contract to perform
the duty or obligation of watching the ships and their cargo. The watchmen
agencies-petitioners did not contract for the guarding of the ships and their
cargo, but only to furnish the watchmen.

An independent contractor is one who undertakes to do a piece of work for his
own account, under his own responsibility, with minimum interference on the part
of the other contracting party, in which case persons employed by said
independent contractor do not become laborers or employees of the other
contracting party. Insofar as the contract to recruit watchmen is concerned, the
watchmen agencies are independent contractors and the members of said agencies
do not become, as such, laborers or employees of the shipping lines or their
agents. But insofar as the guarding of the ships and their cargo is concerned,
there never were contracts between the shipping lines and their agencies, on the
one hand, and the watchmen agencies-petitioners, on the other. The guarding of
each ship and its cargo was never the subject of contract between one and the
other. The watchmen agencies never undertook for a specified sum the guarding of
the vessels and their cargo, were never paid therefor a lump sum without
reference to the number of watchmen performing the duties of guarding and the
wages that each should receive for his work. Furthermore, We have found in our
decision that (1) “Tomas Caraveo, operator of the Maligaya Ships Watchmen
Agency, is the headwatchmen of the United States Lines and receives his, pay as
such from the company;” (2) “Bernard Bradbury, the operator of the Marine
Security Agency, is the supervisor of the American President Lines and in that
capacity he is paid by that company;” and (3) “Fernando Derupe, operator of the
Republic Ships Agency, is the headchecker of the Macondray & Company and
also receives his pay from that company.” (Decision in U. S. Lines, et al. vs.
Associated Watchmen and Security Union [PTWO], supra, p. 11.), and that
“although the operators of these agencies do the job of recruiting watchmen,
however, the supervision over these watchmen while working on board the vessels
are not only exercised by the ‘supervisors’ of the shipping companies but also
by the ship officers, the port captains, and the managers of the same firms. And
these shipping firms for a time deducted and withheld from the wages of the
watchmen the income taxes they were to pay under the law.” The operators are
mere agents of the shippings companies in the recruitment of watchmen, in the
computation and payment of their wages and in the supervision of their work.
Even the application forms of these operators (watchmen agencies) and the
identification cards given to the watchmen must have the approval of the
superintendents of the shipping companies.

The above facts and
circumstances conclusively show that the watchmen agencies-petitioners are not
and may not be considered independent contractors insofar as the guarding of the
ships and their cargo is concerned, nor do the watchmen of the agencies by the
mere fact of their membership in said agencies become laborers or employees of
the shipping lines or their agents.

The finding hereinbefore made concludes the answer to the third issue. As
members of the watchmen agencies do not become laborers or employees of the
shipping lines or their agents by mere membership in such watchmen agencies, and
can only become laborers or employees paid by the shipping lines or agencies
when actually working as watchmen thereof, it stands to reason that only those
who were actually employed and paid for as watchmen are the laborers or
employees of the shipping lines and their agents and should take part in the
certification elections. The decision of the Court of Industrial Relations that
they alone should be certified and be considered as having the right to
participate in the elections, is therefore correct, there being no actual
relation of employer and employee or laborer between the shipping lines and the
members of the watchmen agencies by the mere fact of such membership. Members of
the watchmen agencies who were not actually employed and paid for as watchmen
must necessarily be excluded from participating in the elections.

The petition for review in the above-entitled cases is hereby denied, and the
decision of the Court of Industrial Relations affirmed in toto with costs
against the petitioners.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia, and Felix, JJ,, concur.