MADRIGAL SHIPPING CO., INC., PETITIONER VS. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Appeal by Madrigal Shipping Company, Inc., from a decision of the
Workmen’s Compensation Commission requiring it to pay P3,694.00 to
Primitiva Menchavez, widow, and to her minor children, by way of
compensation for the death of Celso Lora, laborer accidentally killed
while performing stevedoring work for the appellant Company on board
the latter’s vessel “Susana”.

The claim for compensation had originally been filed with, and
investigated by, Regional Office No. 3 of the Department of Labor,
pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 20-A. Said office having rendered
an award in favor of the claimants as next of kin of the deceased, the
Company appealed to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission, urging that:

(a) The Regional Office had no authority to investigate the
claim, because Reorganization Plan No. 20-A was invalid and
unconstitutional, and

(b) There was no employer-employee relationship between the
Company and the deceased, because the company had contracted only with
the “Union” de Obreros Estivadores de Filipinos” (UOEF), which agreed
to furnish stevedores, and assigned the deceased to the task in the
course of which he met his end.

The Workmen’s Compensation Commission, en banc, overruled
both objections and affirmed the award. The Company then appealed to
this Court, insisting on the defenses already mentioned.

We find no merit in the appeal.

With respect to the issue of jurisdiction, this Court has already
ruled that Reorganization Plan 20-A can validly reapportion the
jurisdiction over compensation claims, formerly held by the Workmen’s
Compensation Commission alone, to the various regional offices created
under said plan (La Mallorca vs. Ramos, L-15476, Sept. 19, 1961; San Miguel Brewery vs. Sobremesana, L-18730, Sept. 16, 1961); and we see no reason to alter the doctrine.

On the existence of employer-employee relationship between the
appellant Company and the late stevedore Celso Lora, we agree with the
Commission that the contract between the Company and the Union, whereby
the latter engaged to furnish laborers and stevedores when required,
and the Company agreed to pay the stevedoring charges directly to the
Union for subsequent distribution to the individual laborers, does not
constitute the Union an independent contractor that would relieve the
Company from liability as employer of the deceased. In the first place,
the deceased was a member of the Union, and not its employee. The
Union, as pointed out by the Commission, merely acted as an agent of
the Company, relieving the latter of the necessity of dealing with
individual laborers. Besides, the Union does not appear to have been
required to file the contractor’s bond required by Act 3059, nor does
it appear to have capital of its own invested in the conduct of its
hiring activities, which are indicia characterizing independent
contractors under the Workmen’s Compensation laws (cf. Flores vs.
La Compania Maritima, 57 Phil. 905). Not only that, but the Company’s
representatives retained control of the operations, as may be seen from
the Union’s contract, paragraph 4, that provides:

“Unloading of vessels shall commence immediately upon arrival, unless the employer’s captain or representative directs otherwise; and the loading shall be started as soon as any hatch of the vessel is ready in the sound opinion of the employer’s representative, to receive cargo.”

Under the circumstances thus disclosed by the record, the Union can
not be held to be an independent contractor whose intervention will’
relieve the appellant Company from liability under the Workmen’s
Compensation Law; the latter includes among employers one who “is not
the direct employer of laborers employed” in the establishment or place
of work owned by him [sec. 39 (a)]. That indirect employment is no bar
to liability for workmen’s compensation has been repeatedly held
(Flores vs. Compania Maritima, 57 Phil. 905; Asia Steel vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission, 97 Phil., 97; Mansal vs. Gocheco Lumber Co., 96 Phil., 941; U.S. Lines vs. Associated Watchmen & Security Union, L-12208-11, May 21, 1958).

The decision appealed from is affirmed. Costs against appellant Madrigal Shipping Company, Inc.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, and Makalintal, J.J., concur.