Myla Sara

Phil Bank v NLRC FACTS:



Petitioner and CESI entered into a letter agreement wherein CESI will provide “Temporary Services” to petitioner. Attached to the letter was a list of messengers, assigned to work with the petitioner, including respondent Orpiada. Orpiada rendered services within the premises of the bank. On October 1976, petitioner requested CESI to withdraw Orpiada’s assignment because Orpiada’s services were no longer needed. Thus, Orpiada filed a complaint against petitioner for illegal dismissal and failure top ay the 13th month pay.

ISSUE: W/N an ER-EE relationship existed between the bank and respondent

HELD: Yes. In the case at bar, Orpiada is not previously selected by the bank but was assigned to work by CESI. The selection of Orpiada by CESI, was however subject to the acceptance of the bank. With respect to the payment of Orpiada’s wages, the bank remitted to CESI the daily rate or Orpiada and CESI pays the latter his wages. He was also listed in the payroll of CESI with SSS deduction. In respect of the power of dismissal, the bank requested CESI to withdraw Orpiada’s assignment, which resulted to the latter’s termination. With regards to power of control, Orpiada performed his functions within the bank’s premises and not in CESA/ Payment of wages and power of dismissal exist between CESI and Orpiada. However, selection and control exist between Orpiada and the bank. Thus, it is necessary to determine the relationship between the bank and CESI, whether the latter is a job (independent) contactor or a labor-only contracting. In the present case, the undertaking of CESI in favor of the bank was not the performance of a specific job, but to produce its client – the bank – with a certain number of persons to work as messengers. Thus, Orpiada utilized the premises and office equipment of the bank and not of CESI. Orpiada worked in the bank for a period of 16 months. Under the Labor Code, any employee who has rendered at least 1 year, whether continuous or not, shall be considered as a regular employee. Therefore, CESI was only engaged in a labor-only contracting with petitioner and Orpiada. As a result, petitioner is liable to Opiada as if Opiada had been directly employer by the bank. Wherefore, petition of certiorari is denied.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.