Labor Assign.xlsnew | Independent Contractor | Law Of Agency

Marylou s.

Macapagal Labor Standards

LABOR PARTIES & CASE NUMBER GR No.162833, June 15, 2007 COMPLAINANTS: Lakas Sa Industriya Kapatirang Haligi ng Alyansa-Pinagbuklod ng Manggagawang Promo ng Burlingame, Petitioner PRINCIPAL: Burligame Respondent AGENCY: F. Garil Corporation, ng LABOR ONLY CONTRACTING ONLY CONTRACTING OR JOB CONTRACTING

REASON 1. F. Garil does not have substantial capitalization or investment in the form of tools, equipment, machineries, work, premises, and other materials, to qualify as an independent contractor. No proof was adduced to show F. Garil's capitalization. 2. The work of the promo-girls was directly ralated to the principal business or operation of Burlingame. Marketing and selling of products is an essential activity to the main bussiness of the principal. 3. F. Garil did not carry on an independent business or undertake the performance of its service contract according to its own manner and method, free from the control and supervision of its principal, Burlingame. 4. The four-fold test will show that respondent is the employer of petitioner's members. The existence of an employer-employee relationship is principally determined by the following by the following indicia: (1) selection and engagement of the employee; (2) payment of wages; (3) power of dismissal; and (4) employer’s power to control the employee with respect to the result to be done and to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished. 5. A contractual stipulations between Burlingame and F. Garil states that Burlingame would pay the workers thru F. Garil a certain sum per worker on the basis of eight-hour work every 15th and 30th of each calendar month. This evidences the fact that F.Garil merely served as conduit in the payment of wages to the deployed personnel. 6. The involvement of F. Garil in the hiring process was only with respect to the recruitment aspect. The actual hiring itself was done thru the deployment of personnel to establishments by Burlingame. 7. Burlingame has the power to control and supervision by Burlingame over workers supplied by F. Garil in order to establish the inefficient, troublesome , and uncooperative nature of undesirable personnel. 8. Also implied in the provision on replacement of personnel carried upon request by Burlingame is the power to fire personnel.

No. 2. 4. Benguet Management Corporation and Japan Airlines. STELLAR even had its own collective bargaining agreement with its employees. 1.R. 4. INC.payment of wages . Eveready. like San Miguel Corporation. That the said employees performed usual.the power of selection and engagement of employees . If it were true that Arabi was the employer of the individual employees. The complainants’ work/job activities were necessary to CTCI’s principal business.R. Hongkong. CTCI exercised the power of control over the employees. 7. including the individual employees. Thus. A contract of employment existed between STELLAR and the individual employeees. 124630. 6. 5. Macapagal Labor Standards LABOR PARTIES & CASE NUMBER ONLY CONTRACTING OR JOB CONTRACTING REASON G. STELLAR claims that it falls under the definition of an independent job contractor. 6. STELLAR has clients other than PAL. 1998 PRINCIPAL: JOB CONTRACTING PHILIPPINE Petitioner AGENCY: AIRLINES. Respondent COMPLAINANTS: Individual employees hired by STELLAR ( for PAL's janitorial services ) G. INC. 1999 COMPLAINANTS: JANG LIM. 125792. ET AL. 5.. Service agreement between Stellar and the individual workers indicates employeeemployer relation existed between the individual workers and Stellar. CTCI’s power to regulate and direct the means and methods to be utilized in employee's work. STELLAR EMPLOYEES ASSO. The payment of employees’ wages was coursed through Arabi. it has sufficient capital in the form of tools and equipment. proving that it was said corporation which hired them. 3.the power to control the employee’s conduct 3. like vacuum cleaners and polishers and substantial capitalization as proven by its financial statements. 2. November 9.Respondents RECRUITER/CONTRACTOR:TE DDY ARABI . Employees worked under STELLAR’s own supervisors. regular and necessary services for production of goods.the power of dismissal . then it does not COTABATO TIMBERLAND COMPANY.. No. February 19. Manager. but the funds therfor came from the coffers of CTCI. with MELCHOR BORBON as Admin. STELLAR possessed these earmarks of an employer: . The exercise of the power to select and engage the employees rested solely in CTCI. Petitioner PRINCIPAL: TIMEX SAWMILL and/or LABOR ONLY CONTRACTING 1.Marylou s. and Shanghai Bank.

tools. The reason CTCI paid the benefits is that it was. CABRERA( SECURITY GUARDS) AGENCY : VETERANS PHILIPPINE SCOUT SECURITY AGENCY. MAMON. piling. JOSE L. and/or ENGR> SERGIO JAMILA IV. machineries and materials and materials in undertaking sawing.. employer liable therefore as to individual employees. 1998 PRINCIPAL : ROSEWOOD PROCESSING. milling. Nos. 7. petitioner COMPLAINANTS: NAPOLEON C. as the equipment and tools utilized in Teddy Arabi's undertaking actually belonged to CTCI which allegedly “lent” the same to him.Security Services .Marylou s. VICTOR ALDEZA. respondents . May 21. CTCI who should have taken steps to inform the petitioners of their termination as Teddy Arabi has no capital of his own in the form of equipment. BALLON.R. by means of its checks. G. bundling and clearing work for CTCI.Statutory Minimum Wage . ARMANDO L. 116476-84. as such activities are necessary to CTCI's plywood manufacturing and woodprocessing business operations. indeed. Macapagal Labor Standards LABOR PARTIES & CASE NUMBER ONLY CONTRACTING OR JOB CONTRACTING REASON make sense for CTCI to pay the labor benefits of the complaining workers.Liability of an Indirect Employer JOB CONTRACTING . through the DOLE Regional Office. ARSENIO GAZZINGAN.ROMEO VELASCO. Teddy Arabi’s work premises are also the sawmill premises operated by CTCI. INC.

Inc. machineries. Inc. PHILIPPINE XEROX EMPLOYEES UNION-KILUSAN and PEDRO GARADO(COPIER OPERATOR). petitioner charged a fee for the copies not made. Letters reveal the role which Fuji Xerox played in the dismissal of Garado. The service being rendered by Garado was not a specific or special skill that Skillpower Inc." as. respondents 3. 111501.R. he had never been assigned to any other company so much so that by 1984. did not having copying machines of its own. 7.Marylou s. Inc. No. LABOR ONLY CONTRACTING 1. equipment. 5. contracted its service of operating copier machines and offering copying services to the public The fact is that Skillpower. 1996 PRINCIPAL: PHILIPPINE FUJI CORPORATION. equipment. March 5. 158255. Macapagal Labor Standards LABOR PARTIES & CASE NUMBER ONLY CONTRACTING OR JOB CONTRACTING REASON G.R. 2. Skillpower. (KILUSAN)-TUCP. from 1977 to 1984. ACGI has no office or work premises. 2004 PRINCIPAL: MANILA WATER petitioner COMPLAINANTS: COMPANY. July 8. 4.. No. work premises. From 1980 to 1984 he worked exclusively for Fuji Xerox. and other materials. 6. . It is noteworthy that while not operated for profit the copying service is not intended either to intended either to be "promotional. They dispel any doubt that Fuji Xerox exercised disciplinary authority over Garado and that Skillpower. issued the order of dismissal merely in obedience to the decision of Fuji Xerox. Typewriters and vehicles bear no direct relationship to the job for which Skillpower. ACGI does not have substantial capitalization or investment in the form of tools. to qualify as an independent contractor. Garado was first assigned to work at Fuji Xerox. 2. Garado was never assigned to any other client of Skillpower. COMPLAINANTS: XEROX 1. actually supplied Fuji Xerox the labor which the latter needed for its Xerox Copier Project for seven (7) years. G. he was already a member of the union which petitioned the company for his regularization. Inc. LABOR ONLY CONTRACTING PAMBANSANG KILUSAN NG PAGGAWA. of tools. Inc. What it did was simply to supply manpower to Fuji Xerox. was in the business of providing. indeed.

Thus. AL(COLLECTORS) CONTRATOR: Association Inc. by engaging their services. the collection of the charges therefore by collectors for the MWC can only be categorized as clearly related to. pursuant to Art. an employment relationship existed between them. subjecting them to its rules and imposing punishment in case of breach thereof. ACGI did not carry on an independent business or undertake the performance of its service contract according to its own manner and method.280 of the Labor Code. In dealing with the consumers. No doubt that ACGI was engaged in labor-only contracting. 6. they were regular employees of Manila water. free from the control and supervision of its principal. exercised control and supervision over the formers’ conduct. and controlling not only the end result but the manner of achieving the same as well. 9. an agent 7. regardless of whether the engagement was merely an accommodation of their request. and as such. The three stages of AGCIs’ services with the Manila water. and 5. Although MWC was not obliged to absorb the collectors. The collectors performed activities which were necessary or desirable to its principal trade or business. 4. .Marylou s. (ACGI) Collectors ET ONLY CONTRACTING OR JOB CONTRACTING REASON 3. PENA. paying paying their wages in the form of commission. Group. The work of the collectors was directly related to the principal business or operation of the MWC. is considered merely of the MWC. in the pursuit of the latter's business. 8. Being in the business of providing water to the consumers in the East Zone. collectors used the receipts and id issued by MWC. Macapagal Labor Standards LABOR PARTIES & CASE NUMBER HERMINIO D.

petitioners have been charged with the merchandising and promotion of the products 2. INC. LABOR ONLY CONTRACTING:SAPS PROMM GEM REASON PROMM-GEM: 1. It is evident that SAPS does not carry on its own business because the termination of its contract with P&G automatically meant for it also the termination of its employees' services. Promm-Gem supplied its complainant-workers with the relevant materials. not merely contractual or project. 3. necessary for them to perform their work Promm-Gem also issued uniforms to them. 3. There is no other evidence presented to show how much its working capital and assets are. ALIVIADO. tapes. Considering that SAPS has no substantial capital or investment and the workers it recruited it recruited are performing activities which are directly related to the principal business of P&G.Marylou s. From all indications SAPS. liners and cutters. The of P&G. March 9.R. 160506. an activity that has already been considered by the Court as doubtlessly directly related to the manufacturing business which is the principal business of P&G. SAPS cannot be considered as an independent contractor.. AGENCY: and PROMM-GEM INC/SAPS. 2010 JOB CONTRACTING: COMPLAINANTS: JOEB M.The Articles of Incorporation of SAPS shows that it has a paid-in capital of only P31. Et Al. It is obvious from its act that SAPS had no other clients and had no intention of seeking other clients in order to further its merchandising business. Furthermore. existed to cater solely to the need of P&G for the supply of employees in the latter’s merchandising concerns only.. Promm-Gem already considered the complainants working under it as its regular. 5. SAPS: 1. Unlike Promm-Gem which dismissed its employees for grave misconduct and breach of trust due to disloyalty.00. such as markers.. . equipment or other assets. Petitioners PRINCIPAL: PROCTER & GAMBLE PHILS. Promm-Gem has substantial investment which relates to the work to be performed. 4. Respondents. employees. materials.250. No. 2. SAPS dismissed its employees upon the initiation of P&G. Under the circumstances prevailing in the instant case. Macapagal Labor Standards LABOR PARTIES & CASE NUMBER ONLY CONTRACTING OR JOB CONTRACTING G. such as markers. (Merchandisers). there is no showing of substantial investment in tools.

RFC. In labor-only contracting. to qualify as an independent contractor. 5. and in the pursuit of the latter’s business. No. PMCI acted merely as a labor-only contractor.Security Services G.00 is actually paid-in.Marylou s. Being in the business of food manufacturing and sales. While it has an authorized capital stock of P1.000. the work of petitioner as sales representative in RFC can only be categorized as clearly related to. LABOR ONLY CONTRACTING 4.Statutory Minimum Wage . No. it is necessary for RFC to hire a sales representative like petitioner to take charge of booking its sales orders and collecting payments for such. 126586. February 2. pursuant to Articles 106.00. . The evidence at hand shows that the workers assigned by PMCI to RFC were under the control and supervision of the latter. which. which is one of the strong indicators that an entity is an independent contractor as explained by the Court in the cases of Neri and Fuji. when petitioner was assigned by PMCI to RFC. 2000 ALEXANDER VINOYA(sale representative). PMCI was not engaged to perform a specific and special job or service. Logically.R. November 11. the work of petitioner as sales representative is directly related to the business of RFC. work premises.R. free from the control and supervision of its principal. 2. 107 and 109 of the Labor Code which provide as follows: . supplied or placed by the contractor perform activities which are directly related to the main business of its principal. 144134. 3. PMCI did not carry on an independent business nor did it undertake the performance of its contract according to its own manner and method.000. In this case. Thus. only P75. machineries. PMCI does not have substantial capitalization or investment in the form of tools.Liability of an Indirect Employer Petitioner’s liability is joint and several with that of Longest Force. to our mind. cannot be considered as substantial capitalization. among others. As stated in the Contract of Service. the employees recruited. equipment. the sole undertaking of PMCI was to provide RFC with a temporary workforce able to carry out whatever service may be required by it. JOB CONTRACTING .000. petitioner Principal: REGENT FOOD CORPORATION AND/OR SEE (PRESIDENT). RFC possesses the earmarks of being the employer of petitioner. respondents Agency: REASON 1. 2003 PRICIPAL: Mariveles Petitioner Shipyard Corp. Macapagal Labor Standards LABOR PARTIES & CASE NUMBER ONLY CONTRACTING OR JOB CONTRACTING G.

– The provisions of existing laws to the contrary notwithstanding.Marylou s. 107. the employees of the contractor and of the latter’s subcontractor. Inc. Respondent ONLY CONTRACTING REASON OR JOB CONTRACTING Petitioner’s liability is joint and several with that of Longest Force. the employer shall be jointly and severally liable with his contractor or subcontractor to such employees to the extent of the work performed under the contract. association or corporation which. ART. job or project. – The provisions of the immediately preceding Article shall likewise apply to any person. Macapagal Labor Standards LABOR PARTIES & CASE NUMBER AGENCY: Longest Force Investigation and Security Agency. including payment of statutory minimum wage. shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of this Code. pursuant to Articles 106. 109. The security agency is held liable by virtue of its status as direct employer. ART. 107 and 109 of the Labor Code which provide as follows: ART. the corporation as principal becomes jointly and severally liable for the guards’ wages. when the agency as contractor failed to pay the guards. For purposes of determining the extent of their civil liability under this Chapter. Following Article 106. INDIRECT EMPLOYER . if any. This statutory scheme gives the workers the ample protection consonant with labor and social justice provisions of the 1987 Constitution. task.2 In the event that the contractor or subcontractor fails to pay the wages of his employees in accordance with this Code. every employer or indirect employer shall be held responsible with his contractor or subcontractor for any violation of any provision of this Code. not being an employer. Et Al. In this case. contracts with an independent contractor for the performance of any work. COMPLAINANT: LUIS REGONDOLA. partnership. This is mandated by the Labor Code to ensure compliance with its provisions. . in the same manner and extent that he is liable to employees directly employed by him. CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR – Whenever an employer enters into a contract with another person for the performance of the former’s work. petitioner became an indirect employer of private respondents pursuant to Article 107 abovecited.(security guards). they shall be considered as direct employers. SOLIDARY LIABILITY . while the corporation is deemed the indirect employer of the guards for the purpose of paying their wages in the event of failure of the agency to pay them. 106.. when petitioner contracted for security services with Longest Force as the security agency that hired private respondents to work as guards for the shipyard corporation.

This statutory scheme gives the workers the ample protection consonant with labor and social justice provisions of the 1987 Constitution. when the agency as contractor failed to pay the guards. while the corporation is deemed the indirect employer of the guards for the purpose of paying their wages in the event of failure of the agency to pay them. including payment of REASON PARTIES & CASE NUMBER ONLY CONTRACTING OR JOB CONTRACTING statutory minimum wage. The security agency is held liable by virtue of its status as direct employer. Following Article 106. This is mandated by the Labor Code to ensure compliance with its provisions. LABOR the corporation as principal becomes jointly and severally liable for the guards’ wages.In this case. when petitioner contracted for security services with Longest Force as the security agency that hired private respondents to work as guards for the shipyard corporation. . Macapagal Labor Standards petitioner became an indirect employer of private respondents pursuant to Article 107 abovecited. Marylou s.

Garil was engaged in labor -only contracting . the workers supplied by F.Decision of the Court of Appeals and the Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. . and is considered merely an agent of Burlingame.F. Thus. . Garil should be considered as employees of Burlingame.RESOLUTION OF THE SUPREME COURT .The decision of the Secretary of Labor And Employment ordering the holding of a certification election among the rank-and-file promo employees of Burlingame is REINSTATED. .

it is not Arabi but CTCI which is responsible to petitioners who must be deemed employed not by Arabi but by the company.The decision of the Labor Arbiter of the NLRC Regional Arbitration is hereby REINSTATED. Therefore. and there was no valid cause for their dismissal.No employer-employees relation between PAL and Complainants. Arabi is a mere agent of CTCI. . The court held that the service agreement was not a project because its duration was not determined or determinable. The following money claims were paid to the individual complainants: -Separation pay -Indemnity -Unpaid Wages . The separate undertakings of petitioner and STELLAR continued even after the expiration of the service contract and the 'dismissal of individual employees of STELLAR. His only job is to recruit and hire manpower as needed. Second Issue: -STELLAR Is Liable for Separation Pay. individual employees were janitors engaged to perform activities that were necessary and desirable to STELLAR’s enterprise.RESOLUTION OF THE SUPREME COURT First Issue: . Janitorial Service Agreement Is not Labor-Only Contracting but permissible Job Contracting. The main business of STELLAR is the supply of manpower to perform janitorial services for its clients. . Hence. Arabi is definitely not an independent contractor.Teddy Arabi is only a “labor-only” contractor. Supreme Court hold that the individual employees were STELLAR's regular employees. .Extension of Service Contract is not a Source of Employer-Employee Relation.

Legally untenable. but the petitioner is deemed liable . Similarly. . with the security agency. who were not privy to said contract. Petitioner is EXONERATED from the payment of back wages and separation pay. The principal is made liable to his indirect employees.The indirect employer’s liability to the contractor’s employees extends only to the period during which they were working for the petitioner. . is solidarily liable to PAY the complainants only wage differentials during the period that the complainants were actually under its employ.The temporary restraining order issued earlier is LIFTED. and stipulations in violation thereof are considered not written. as above detailed. is the contention that petitioner is not liable for any wage differential for the reason that it paid the employees in accordance with the contract for security services which it had entered into with the agency. and the fact that they were reassigned to another principal necessarily ends such responsibility. the former is still solidarily liable to the employees. pursuant to the aforecited provisions of the Labor standard legislations are enacted to alleviate the plight of workers whose wages barely meet the spiraling costs of their basic needs. Notwithstanding the service contract between the petitioner and the security agency. employers cannot hide behind their contracts in order to evade their or their contractors’ or subcontractors’ liability for noncompliance with the statutory minimum wage.That RWP.Night Shift Differentials -Service Incentive Leave Pay -13th Month pay -Cost of Litigation and Attorney's Fees . because it can protect itself from irresponsible contractors by withholding such sums and paying them directly to the employees or by requiring a bond from the contractor or subcontractor for this purpose. They are considered written in every contract.RESOLUTION OF THE SUPREME COURT -Wage Differentials . legislated wage increases are deemed amendments to the contract. however. Thus.

. private respondents are entitled to security of tenure which may not be circumvented by mere stipulation in a subsequent contract that their employment is one with a fixed period. Inc.No grave abuse of discretion can thus be imputed to the NLRC for declaring petitioner Fuji Xerox guilty of illegal dismissal of private respondent.RESOLUTION OF THE SUPREME COURT only for the aforementioned wage differentials which Respondent Commission is required to RECOMPUTE within fifteen days from the finality of this Decision. . a "labor-only" contractor and Garado is not its employee .Skillpower. Furthermore.The petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit .As such regular employees. Not all contracts of .With respect to the period. the individual contracts are valid. therefore.Article 106. an order to pay back wages and separation pay is invested with a punitive character. . is. . 107 & 109 provisions cannot apply to RWP. considering that the complainants were no longer working for or assigned to it when they were illegally dismissed. such that an indirect employer should not be made liable a without finding that it had committed or conspired in the illegal dismissal.

00 as moral damages and P5. . Petitioner failed to discharge this burden by substantial evidence as it maintained the defense that it was not the employer of private respondents. . or fraud. wounded feelings.000.250.The act of dismissal must be attended with bad faith.Whether private respondents were dismissed in accordance With law petitioner has the burden of proving that the dismissal was for a cause allowed under the law and that they were afforded procedural due process. -Exemplary damages are recoverable only when the dismissal was effected in a wanton. duress or improper pressure being brought upon the employee and absent any circumstances vitiating his consent. or where it satisfactorily appears that the employer and employee dealt with each other on more or less terms with no moral dominance whatever being exercised by the former over the latter. of course.Hold that an employment relationship exists between petitioner and private respondents. good customs or public policy and. The award 'by the Labor Arbiter of P22. Such an award Cannot be justified solely upon the premise that the employer dismissed his employee without just cause or due process. without any force. or was oppressive to labor or done in a manner contrary to morals.000.Awards of P10.00 as attorney’s fees to private respondents. . the dismissal of the collectors is tainted with illegality. Having established that the schemes employed by petitioner were devious attempts to defeat the tenurial rights of private respondents and that it failed to comply with the requirements of termination under the Labor Code. that social humiliation. or grave anxiety resulted therefrom. Those circumstances have not been adequately established. . oppresive or malevolent manner. is sustained. Under Article 280. for lack of .RESOLUTION OF THE SUPREME COURT employment fixing a period are invalid. .Cannot sustain the award of moral and exemplary damages in favor of private respondents. -Private respondents are entitled to attorney’s fees as they were compelled to litigate 'with petitioners and incur expenses to enforce and protect their interests. 'being reasonable.00 as exemplary damages are DELETED evidentiary basis. the evil sought to be prevented is singled out: agreements entered into precisely to circumvent security of tenure. It has no application where a fixed period of employment was agreed upon knowingly and voluntarily by the parties.

having worked under.The petitioners. and for no valid cause bellows oppression and utter disregard of the right to due process of the concerned petitioners. Inc. .P&G failed to discharge the burden of proving the legality and validity of the dismissals of those petitioners who are considered its employees. Hence.the petitioners. Hence. As for P&G. we find no support for the award of damages. of petitioners’ backwages and other benefits.. fraud or any oppressive act on the part of the latter. . the dismissals necessarily were not justified and are therefore illegal.Procter & Gamble Phils.00 each of those petitioners considered as its employees as moral damages plus ten percent of the total sum as and for attorney’s fees. .Promm-Gem cannot be considered as a labor-only contractor.. is further ORDERED to pay p25.000. and been dismissed by Promm-Gem. an award of moral damages is called for. Inc. and ten percent of the total sum .RESOLUTION OF THE SUPREME COURT PROMM-GEM: . -Case REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for the computation. Held that it is a legitimate independent contractor. SAPS: . there being no evidence of bad faith.No valid cause for the dismissal of petitioners-employees of Promm-Gem . and Promm-Gem. having been recruited and supplied by SAPS are considered as the employees of P&G which engaged in labor-only contracting.Procter & Gamble Phils. Inc. are ORDERED to reinstate their respective immediately without loss of seniority rights and with full backwages and other employees benefits from the time of their illegal dismissal up to the time of their actual reinstatement. within 30 days from receipt of this Decision. after just a one-day verbal notice. the records show that it dismissed its employees through SAPS in a manner oppressive to labor.With regard to the employees of Promm-Gem.Held that the former is engaged in "labor-only contracting" . Money claims: . not of P&G . The sudden and peremptory barring of the concerned petitioners from work. and from admission to the work place. are considered the employees of Promm-Gem.

The petition is GRANTED.Petitioner and Longest Force are held liable jointly and severally for underpayment of wages and overtime pay of the security guards. .PMCI can only be classified as a labor-only contractor and. . . as well as its resolution.This case. for lack of merit. The claim for 13th month pay is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. as such. (3) RFC actually paid for the wages of petitioner although coursed through PMCI. dated 21 June 1996. cannot be considered as the employer of petitioner.RESOLUTION OF THE SUPREME COURT as and for attorney’s fees. The amounts payable to . The decision of the NLRC. (2) RFC had direct control and supervision over petitioner. (4) Petitioner was terminated per instruction of RFC. insofar as respondent PMCI [is concerned] is DISMISSED. is hereby REINSTATED and AFFIRMED. are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.Therefore. hold that an employer-employee relationship exists between petitioner and RFC. The decision of the Labor promulgated Arbiter rendered on 15 June 1994. without prejudice to petitioner’s right of reimbursement from Longest Force Investigation and Security Agency. on 20 August 1996. and. * The Labor Arbiter concluded that RFC was the true employer of petitioner for the following reasons: (1) Petitioner was originally with RFC and was merely transferred to PMCI to be deployed as an agency worker and then subsequently reassigned to RFC as sales representative. Inc.

Petitioner and Longest Force are held liable jointly and severally for underpayment of wages RESOLUTION OF THE SUPREME COURT and overtime pay of the security guards..Employers cannot hide behind their contracts in order to evade their (or their contractors’ or subcontractors’) liability for noncompliance with the statutory minimum wage . herein private respondents. .926. respectively.610. Inc.100. by way of total backwages and attorney’s fees are hereby set at P3. The amounts payable to complaining security guards.40 and P392.04. without prejudice to petitioner’s right of reimbursement from Longest Force Investigation and Security Agency.

RESOLUTION OF THE SUPREME COURT .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful