COCA COLA v NLRC

-april 7 1986, ptr entered into contract of janitorial svcs w/ bacolod janitorial
svcs
-engaged them as independent contractor, perform and provide for maintenance,
sanitation and cleaning svcs --> contract entered into every year w/ similar
terms/conditions until May 1994
-Canonicato hired in 1989 as casual employee, bottling crew substitute, terminated
but later hired again as painter in contractual projects.
-he was hired by BJS as janitor, assigned to Coca Cola since familiar, he would
paint the facilities as well.
-learned of Coca cola employing previous BJS employees who filed for regularization
pursuant to a compromise agreement so he filed for same complaint w/ LA then
stopped reporting to work. --> had sister Rowena collect his salary w/c was given
but was advised to report to work + said not to enter ptr premises.
-met w/ BJS proprietress, offered diff assignment but he refused, changed complaint
to illegal dismissal/underpay of wages --> included BJS
-BJS said report to work 3 days from receipt of notice or abandonment

LA: no E-E. BJS real employer. BJS/ptr jointly and severally liable for wage
differentials/13th month salary. dismiss claims against ptr
NLRC: E-E existed. svcs of Canonicato necessary and desirable + his work is the
same as what he did while still an employee, entitled to reinstatement and payment
--> denied MR

W/N E-E relations? NO

-Jurisprudence: janitorial svcs, while directly related to business, unnecessary in
condut of principal business(NLRC said it was necessary and desirable) ==>
assumption of independent contractor/legit job contractor --> in this case, E-E was
questioned so NLRC erred in applying Art 280 (Art 280 does not apply where
existence of employment relationship is disputed)
-an agreement may provide to render svcs for another even w/o being hired as
employee (ex. independent contractorship/agency
4fold test
1) BJS selected/engaged janitors for ptr --> app form and letter of priv respo
acknowledged BJS did the hiring
2) BJS paid the wages
3) BJS has power to dismiss, not ptr: can transfer them when it sees fit
4) BJS has control: ptr only has control w/ respect to result of work while BJS
oversees totality
-priv respo painting was sporadic, + do not detract from BJS exercising real
control
PTN GRANTED, NOT REG EMPLOYEE

POLYFOAM V CONCEPCION
-respo filed illegal dismissal, non pay of wages, premium pay for rest day, sep
pay, svc incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, damages/atty's fees against ptr and
Ms Cheng company mgr.
-hired by ptr as all around factory worker, almost 6 years.
-Jan 14 2000, discovered time card was not in the rack, informed by sec guard he
could no longer punch time card
-protested, supervisor said he was dismissed due to infraction of company rule +
cheng refused to face him
-respo counsel requested for respo to be readmitted, ignored so filed illegal
dismissal
-Apr 28 2000, Gramaje filed motion for intervention: real employer of respo. ptrs
motioned for dismissal: NLRC no jd coz no E-E + money claims already prescribed

GRAMAJE POS PAPER: legit job contractor (PA Gramaje Employment Svcs, hired respo as
packer, assigned to ptr, respo not dismissed but stopped reporting for work
LA Babiano: granted motion for intervention, denied motion to dismiss
Illegal dismissal, entitled to backwages, sep pay. ptr and Gramaje solidarily
liable: Gramaje not enrolled in registry of DOLE + work of respo directly related
to main business of ptr
NLRC: affirmed, modified NO ILLEGAL DISMISSAL: exonerated ptr from liability for
sep pay + deleted award for backwages, 13th month, dmgs/atty fees
-indep contractor: respo still under control/supervision of Gramaje + had own
office equip, tools, substantial capital --> supplied plastic containers/carton
boxes used by employees + paid wages/benefits and respo was SSS covered employee
-not dismissed/prevented form work BUT strained relations so sep pay, no backwages
CA:agreed w/ LA. ILLEGAL DISMISSAL + sep pay. Labor-only contractor: 1) failed to
present Audited Financial Statement - would show financial standing, ownership of
equip/machineries/tools 2) failed to present single copy of purported contract w/
Polyfoam 3) licenses supposedly issued by DOLE is spurious 4) not registed w/ DOLE
as priv recruitment agency 5) presented only 1 SSS quarterly collection list,
authenticity dubious
-ptrs also made it appear to have diff lawyers but only represented by 1
-ptr had supervision over work: guide to performance of duty, length of time respo
did activity for ptr, ptr directly firing respo

w/n labor-only contract? YES

Permissible job contracting: a) contractor carries distinct/indep business and

undertakes to perform job/work/svc on its own acct, under own responsibility and
own method/manner. free from control and direction of principal. b) has substantial
capital/investment. c) assures contractual employees to all labor/occupational
safety standards, right to self org/security of tenure/social and welfare benefits
Labor-only: merely recruits, supplies or places workers to perform job/work/svc +
no subsantial capital/investment to perform job,etc under own acct + activities
done are directly related to main business of principal
TEST of indep contractorship: independent business, nature/extent of work, skill
required, term and duration of relationship, right to assign performance of
specified work, control and supervision of work, employers power to hire/fire/pay
worker, control of premises, duty to supply
premises/tools/appliances/materials/labor, mode/manner/terms of pay ==> totality of
facts
-only statement of substantial capital, no evidence showing ownership of equipment
and machineries used in performance of job, w/c are found in premises of ptr. +
also failed to show clients other than ptr
-affidavit of ptr supervisor abadia claiming no supervision over respo is
insufficient. --> needed to show who person was that had supervision over respo and
other employees assigned, nothing to show Gramaje had supervision
-labor only contracing ==> means E-E between principal and employees of contractor
who is only agent --> solidarily liable (ptr and gramaje)
-Illegally dismissed: can't be abandonment since immediately inquired about missing
timecard. ptrs failed to show valid cause for termination + no notice of
termination given to him so no due process
REINSTATE OR SEP PAY

PETRON V CABERTE
owns/operates bulk plants for receiving/storing/distrubting its products
-respo hired 1979-1998 to work at Bacolod Bulk Plant, San Patrick Bacolod City,
Negros Occidental as LPG/Gasul fillers, maintenance crew, warehousemen,utility
workers and tanker receiving crew
-March 1 1996- Feb 28 1999 and Nov 1 1996- June 30 1999, ptr and ABC, labor
contracting business owned by Caberte sr. entered into contract for svcs and
contract for LPG assistance svcs. ABC to provide utility and maintenance svcs to
Bacolod Bulk Plant
-respo filed illegal dismissal, underpay of wages, non pay of allowance, 13th
month, OT, holiday, svc incentive leave, dmgs/atty fees, -->consolidated cases
-even before ABC engaged in 1996, they were already working in petron for years,
every time petron engages new contractor, designates that contractor as their
employer --> petron still had control/supervision tho, ABC labor-only contractor w/
no substantial capital/investment + no control
-July 1 1999 Petron didn't let them enter/work in premises, hence the illegal
dismissal
PETRON: ABC is indepep contractor, no control/supervision: (1) Contractor's Pre-
Qualification Statement (2) Petron's Conflict of Interest Policy signed by Caberte
Sr., as proprietor of ABC + ABC's BIR Certificate of Registration, VAT Return
1995, BIR Confirmation Receipt, TIN, Individual Income Tax Return 1992-1994,
Mayor's Permit and DTI Certificate of Registration.

LA Acosta: ABC is indep contractor, respo were its employees so ABC to pay
complaints
NLRC: affirmed LA: ABC has control over respo, Caberte Sr. supervised respo in
their work, Petron only intervened for safety precautions + had sufficient
capital/equipment proven by documents that Petron submitted + Caberte/ABC has power
to dismiss/hire
CA: ABC labor-only: no substantial capital/investment + work was directly related
to Petron's business. ILLEGAL DISMISSAL since employees of Petron --> denied dmgs
since no bad faith

w/n labor only contractor?

-"the totality of the facts and the surrounding circumstances of the case are to be
considered."
-law presumes contractor to be labor-only, employees not expected to prove negative
fact --> Petron has burden of proof
-Petron failed to overcome presumption that ABC is labor-only contractor -->
cant rely on contracts w/ ABC. contract is determined by criteria set by statute,
not dictated by parties
-docs submitted by Petron (BIR stuff) only show ABC engaged in business and
licensed while the financial statements only for 1992-1994 while the contracts were
1996-1999 and none presented for those years. (ABC obligated to submit every 2
years so Petron should have it)
-performance bond by ABC not shown to be enough to cover payrolls, rentals,
equipment, damages to equipment, etc.
-work respo performed was necessary and desirable + directly related to ptrs main
business --> respo doing same work over the years, even before 96
-ptr has control: petron supervision over LPG/tanker assistance + they supplied
needed materials/equipment
-no just cause for termination
ILLEGAL DISMISSAL except for Caberte Jr since work for Petron disputed from the
beginning (has to establish E-E first)

QUINTANAR V COCA COLA

EPARWA SECURITY V LICEO DE CAGAYAN

parties entered into Contract for Sec Svcs, Dec 1 1997
-dec 21 1998, 11 sec guards assigned from dec 1 1997-nov 30 1998 filed complaint at
NLRC against both for underpay of salary, legal holiday pay, 13th month, rest day,
svc incentive leave, night shift diff, OT and atty fees --> LDCU made cross claim,
said Eparwa should reimburse them for any pay to the guards

LA: LDCU and Eparwa solidarily liable for underpay, holiday and rest day. denied
13th month, svc incentive, night shift premium pay. Eparwa reimburse LDCU, Eparwa
pay dmgs.
NLRC:AFFIRMED, modified. sec guards entitlted to wage diff and premium for
holiday/rest day. Eparwa doesn't need to reimburse LDCU. recomputation of monetary
awards --> LDCU is ultimately liable so reimburse Eparwa
CA: reinstated LA, Eparwa reimburse LDCU

w/n LDCU alone is liable to sec guards for wage diff and premium for holiday/rest
day pay? NO. solidary liability
-For the security guards, the actual source of the payment of their wage
differentials and premium for holiday and rest day work does not matter as long as
they are paid. This is the import of Eparwa and LDCUs solidary liability.
Creditors, such as the security guards, may collect from anyone of the solidary
debtors. Solidary liability does not mean that, as between themselves, two solidary
debtors are liable for only half of the payment.
-Eparwa is already precluded from asking LDCU for an adjustment in the contract
price because of the expiration of the contract, but Eparwas liability to the
security guards remains because of their employer-employee relationship. In lieu of
an adjustment in the contract price, Eparwa may claim reimbursement from LDCU for
any payment it may make to the security guards. However, LDCU cannot claim any
reimbursement from Eparwa for any payment it may make to the security guards.
-Eparwa and sec guards = E-E relation. In case of failure to pay amts claimed,
contractor and principal are solidarily liable. Normal recourse is to ask pay from
the direct employer(Eparwa) and eparwa will amend the contract w/ LDCU to pay this.
since contract is expired, they'll just pay sec guards then have LDCU reimburse
them

VIGILLA ET AL V PH COLLEGE OF CRIMINOLOGY

ptrs, janitors,janitresses and supervisor in maintenance dept of PCCr, while respo
is non-stock educational institution. ptrs under supervision of Atty. Seril, PCCrs
Senior VP for Admin
-ptrs on application, made to understand they were under MBMSI, corp engaged in
janitorial svcs, Atty. Seril also president/GM of that.
-2008, PCCr discovered cert of incorp of MBMSI revoked July 2003, March 2009, PCCr
Presi Bautista terminated relationship w/ MBMSI = dismissal of employees or
maintenance personnel under it
-Sept 2009, Vigilla, supervisor, et al, filed for illegal dismissal, reinstatement,
backwages, sep pay(Bongot only coz retired), underpay of salaries, OT, holiday, svc
incentive leave, 13th month pay against MBMSI, Atty Seril, PCCr and Bautista
-said school was the real employer: (a) MBMSIs certification had been revoked; (b)
PCCr had direct control over MBMSIs operations; (c) there was no contract between
MBMSI and PCCr; and (d) the selection and hiring of employees were undertaken by
PCCr. --> denied by PCCr/Bautista
-Sept 2009, PCCr submitted releases/waivers/quitclaims notarized by Atty Gabao,
proving they were employees of MBMSI

LA: PCCr real employer, MBMSI alter ego/labor-only contractor, reg employees of
PCCr so dismissal was in bad faith: PCCr had control over means/methods of work
thru Atty Seril, acting as SVP of PCCr not GM of MBMSI --> respo should reinstate,
backwages, other pays, dmgs/atty fees
NLRC: affirmed LA but respo excused from liability coz of the
releases/waivers/quitclaims --> since labor-only, solidary liability. coz of
quitclaims in favor of MBMSI, redounds to benefit of PCCr --> MR, modified to
affirm for Ayento/Salonga. 17 other complaints went to CA
CA: affirmed NLRC

w/n quitclaims etc in favor of MBMSI settled the claims vs respo?