Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
On the grounds The complaint was later amended to include charges of illegal dismissal.
P presented to That they are employees of R. They claim that they were recruited by the
the court the salesmen of R and were engaged to undertake merchandising chores for R long
following before the existence of Promm-Gem and/or SAPS. They assert that Promm-Gem
proposition and SAPS are labor-only contractors providing services of manpower to their
client. They claim that the contractors have neither substantial capital nor tools
and equipment to undertake independent labor contracting. Petitioners insist that
since they had been engaged to perform activities which are necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade of P&G, then they are its regular
employees.
The MTC / LA Dismissed the complaint. There was no employer-employee relationship between
the Ps and R, as the former were employed by Promm-Gem and SAPS.
The RTC / NLRC Dismissed the appeal. Affirmed the LA. Motion for reconsideration was denied.
Whereas the CA Denied the petition and affirmed the NLRC with Modification. R is ordered to pay
service incentive leave pay to Ps. Motion for reconsideration was denied.
The SC J.Del 1. Find that it is a legitimate independent contractor.The records also show
Castillo that Promm-Gem supplied its complainant-workers with the relevant
materials, such as markers, tapes, liners and cutters, necessary for them
to perform their work. Promm-Gem also issued uniforms to them. It is
also relevant to mention that Promm-Gem already considered the Ps
working under it as its regular, not merely contractual or project,
employees.This circumstance negates the existence of element (ii) as
stated in Section 5 of DOLE Department Order No. 18-02, which speaks of
contractual employees.
2. Considering that SAPS has no substantial capital or investment and the
workers it recruited are performing activities which are directly related
to the principal business of R, this court find that the former is engaged
in "labor-only contracting”.
The FF. Laws are Section 5 (i) and (ii) of DOLE Department Order No. 18-02
the basis.
ii) The contractor does not exercise the right to control over the performance of
the work of the contractual employee.
Under this The Court held that "[w]ith the current economic atmosphere in the country, the
circumstance paid-in capitalization of PMCI amounting to P75,000.00 cannot be considered as
substantial capital and, as such, PMCI cannot qualify as an independent
contractor."
Conclusion +
Facts
therefore "Where labor-only contracting exists, the Labor Code itself establishes an
employer-employee relationship between the employer and the employees of the
labor-only contractor."
wherefore The petition is granted. R and Promm-Gem, Inc. are ORDERED to reinstate their
respective 30 and 50 employees immediately without loss of seniority rights and
with full backwages and other benefits from the time of their illegal dismissal up
to the time of their actual reinstatement. R is further ORDERED to pay each of
those 30 Ps considered as its employees