Pldt vs. Bello

COURT OF APPEALS MANILA

TENTH (10th) DIVISION **** PLDT, PLDT, INC., INC. ,

CA(.R. SP N". -/0

Petitioner, Petitioner, M$%!s1

-versus-

HON. SECRET HON. SECRETAR ARY Y OF LABOR LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SILVESTRE H. BELLO III, in his capacity as th Sc! S c!t ta! a!y y "# th th Dpa Dpa!t !t$ $n ntt "# La%"! an& E$p'"y$nt, an& MAN((A(A)A SA OM+NIASYON N( PILIPINAS, Respondents.

VILLON, S.E., Chairperson, SORON(ON, E.D., and SIN(H, M.F.D., JJ. M.F.D., JJ. Promulgated: 0- 2+L 34-5

x--------- ------------------------------------x

DECISION

This This is a Peti Petiti tion on for for Cert Certio iora rari ri (wit (with h Urge Urgent nt Appl Applic icat atio ion n for for the the Issuan Issuance ce of a Tempora emporary ry Restra Restraini ining ng rder rder and!o and!orr "rit of Prelim Prelimina inary ry ) In#unction$ filed %y petitioner P&'T, Inc (P&'T$ which see*s to annul the foll follow owin ing g issu issuan ance cess of the the pu%l pu%lic ic respo respond nden entt +ecr +ecret etar ary y of &a%o &a%orr and and mployment mployment (pu%lic (pu%lic responden respondent$, t$, to wit 6a7 Resolution dated .anuary )/, 0/)10 in the the case case enti entitl tled ed 2 In Re: Special Assessment or Visit of the Establishment SAVE! SAVE! in Philippine "on# $istance %elephone Compan& P"$%!3, P"$%!3, and doc*eted as 'S-"S-()*(-(+(-*() 'S-"S-()*(-(+(-*() and and 6%7 Resolution dated 5 April 04, 0/)1 which which denied denied P&'T6s P&'T6s /otion for Reconsideration dated .anuary 00, 0/)1 The assailed issuances affirmed with modification, the .uly 5, 0/)7 Compliance Compliance rder, rder, issued %y the Regional 'irector 'irector (Regional (Regional ) 0 5

rollo, pp 5-)/8 Id., Id., pp ))9-5)4 Id., Id., pp 505-577

CA-G.R. SP No.155563 $ECISI'0 Pa#e *

'irector$ of the :ational Capital Regional ffice of the 'epartment of &a%or and mployment ('&$ The antecedent facts as alleged in the petition are as follows P&'T P&'T is enga engage ged d in the the tele teleco comm mmun unic icat atio ions ns %usi %usine ness ss ;or ;or its its operat operation ion,, it procure procured d the serisit of sta%lishment (+A>$ in P&'T 9 to assess the latter?s compliance with '& 'epartment rder :o )1-A 8 (' )1-A$ +e
9 8

@ased on the Compliance rder, the following contractors haP> Allied +er Report 7 Ther Therea eaft fter er,, mand mandat ator ory y conf confer eren ence cess were were call called ed %y the the '& '& Assessment Assessment Team ;orty-four ;orty-four (44$ (44$ contracto contractors rs were summoned summoned and and gi
Report on the +pecial Assessment Assessment and >isit >isit of sta%lishment sta%lishment at Philippine &ong 'istance Telephone Co, as Annex C to P&'T Bemorandum on Appeal

CA-G.R. SP No.155563 $ECISI'0 Pa#e 

moneta monetary ry %enefi %enefits ts in the aggreg aggregate ate amount amount of Php71, Php71,8FF 8FF,F1 ,F157 57)= )= and 6%7 P&'T6s contractors are engaged in la%or-only contracting, and thus, 1,7)F contractor wor*ers must %e regulariDed 'ispleased with the ruling of the Regional 'irector, P&'T and some of its contractors filed their respecti
I.

THE

P+BLIC

R ESPONDENT ESPONDENT

(RAVELY

AB+SED

HIS

DISCRETION AND E8CEEDED HIS 2+RISDICTION )ITH AN IMPROPER AND OPPRESSIVE E8ERCISE OF THE VISITORIAL PO)ER THAT PO)ER THAT1 6 A7 RELIED ON LE(AL CONCL+SIONS RATHER THAN ADMINISTRATIVE FACTFINDIN( 9

6B7

IMPROPERLY

DELE(ATED AND DEVOLVED E8EC+TIVE DISCRETION 9 AND

6C7

FAILED TO RE:+IRE A :+ASI2+DICIAL APPRECIATION

OF EVIDENCE .

II.

THE

P+BLIC

R ESPONDENT ESPONDENT

(RAVELY

AB+SED

HIS

DISCRETION AND E8CEEDED HIS 2+RISDICTION IN ISS+IN( THE ASSAILED ORDERS, IN VIOLATION OF PLDT;S AND ITS CONTRACTORS ; D+E PROCESS RI(HTS, PARTIC+LARLY1

CA-G.R. SP No.155563 $ECISI'0 Pa#e 5

6A7

P+BLIC R ESPONDENT ESPONDENT RELIED ON ALLE(ED EVIDENCE )HICH1 6I7 )AS NEVER MADE AVAILABLE TO PLDT DESPITE PLDT
THE

REFERENCED BY AND DID NOT SEEM TO E8IST BEFORE THE COMPLIANCE ORDER ) RDER )AS ISS+ED9

6B7

P+BLIC R ESPONDENT ESPONDENT APPRECIATED THE ALLE(ED PIECES OF =EVIDENCE > IN A PLAINLY SELECTIVE, BIASED AND INCONSISTENT )AY9 AND

6C7

)HEN EVEN PRIOR TO THE ISS+ANCE OF THE ASSAILED ORDERS, THE P+BLIC R ESPONDENT ESPONDENT MADE

)HEN THE

P+BLIC

STATEMENTS

ORDERIN(

THE

R E(+LARI?ATON E(+LARI?ATON OF =CLOSE TO -4,444 )ORERS PLDT>. III.

THE P+BLIC R ESPONDENT ESPONDENT

(RAVELY

AB+SED

IN

HIS

DISCRETION AND E8CEEDED HIS 2+RISDICTION )HEN, CONTRARY TO LA) LA) AND 2+RISPR+DENCE , HE DECLARED LE(ITIMATE

CONTRACTIN( O+T

MEAS+RES

AND

PRACTICES , AS ILLE(AL.

P&'T also see*s a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary in#unction premised on the ground that the assailed issuances are
It di did not not pass pass th throu rough th the fact fact-f -fin indi din ng, e< e

%ased ad
C"nt!act"!

Ann !#!!& t" in MP Spp'$nt

F""tn"t citati"n in Assai'& Dcisi"n

.oe%ert ;rancisco

C

55

Ro%ert Tadong

C

54

@@+

+haron T Bolero

'

49

'igital +olutions

>irgilio A%apo

T

78

oodline

Rowe ll audan



F4

Tarsanilo riarte

AA

F4

.osephine @osGue

J

F8

.aycan Tampilic

J

F8

'eolitos @utlig

J

F8

Bichael @ustamante

J

F7

AA

F7

J

F7

UU

)07

Aremay

A##i&a@it Cit&

&iw Reyes Rey @arrameda

1

&@P

Baria Carina arcia

+er
Bary Ann +ioson

& &&&

)F7

Rachel Ru%iller

& &&&

)F7

Ricardo Paladan III

"""

)F7

Caitlin spayos

>>>

)F7

ian Carlo >icencio

& &&&

)F7

;ernando Pascua

KKKK

)F7

.e
::::

)F7

Remelyn Alipio

"""

0//

Id., Id., pp 5/-54 (Petition, at pp 01 to 50$

CA-G.R. SP No.155563 $ECISI'0 Pa#e 

Pu%lic respondent appreciated the alleged pieces of e
Rollo, Rollo, pp 54-41 (Petition, at pp 50 to 48$ To support this Position, P&'T asserted that

7/ ;or instance, the Pu%lic Respondent Respondent distur%ingly distur%ingly dismissed dismissed the su%missions, su%missions, including copies copies of wor*flow, organiDational organiDational structure, and sworn statements of the managers and authoriDed representati
In the the Assailed Assailed 'ecision, 'ecision, the Pu%lic Pu%lic Respon Respondent dent made the following following findings findings

C"nt!act"! C"nt!act"! R'in "n C"nt!act"!; C"nt!act"!;ss S%$issi"ns S%$issi"ns in th Assai'& Assai'& Dcisi"n Curo Te*ni*a2This ffice sustains the findings of the Regional 'irector Aside from its mere self-serillanue
7/0 7/0

In the Ass Assai aile led d Reso Resolu luti tion on,, the Pu%li Pu%licc Respon Responde dent nt also also made the the foll follow owin ing g

findings C"nt!a C"nt!act" ct"!! R'in R'in "n C"nt! C"nt!act act"!; "!;ss S% S%$is $issi" si"ns ns in th Assai' Assai'& & Rs"' Rs"'ti" ti"n n @est ptions2 ptions2n n contracti contracting, ng, the ffice ffice finds no compelli compelling ng reason reason to re
CA-G.R. SP No.155563 $ECISI'0 Pa#e +

The pu%lic respondent pre#udged the case constituting
The pu%lic respondent did not apply the law and #urisprudence when he declared certain legitimate contracting.

affida
In the the Assailed Assailed 'ecision, 'ecision, the Pu%lic Pu%lic Respon Respondent dent made the following following findings findings

C"nt!act"! C"nt!act"! R'in "n C"nt!act"!; C"nt!act"!;ss S%$issi"ns S%$issi"ns in th Assai'& Assai'& Dcisi"n A Research2&i*ewise, the deployed wor*ers who executed the Affidaictoria +ancheD or a certain Br Bagallanes of P&'T P &'T3 3 Curo Te*ni*a2In fact, it was re that a P&'T super

out measures and practices as illegal )) The e
M

CA-G.R. SP No.155563 $ECISI'0 Pa#e )(

the results intended to %e achie
In its Comment, )4 /2P asserted asserted that the Petition should %e dismissed for lac* of merit /2P argued argued that contrary to P&'T?s claim, the pu%lic respondent and the Regional 'irector had #urisdiction o
75 "orse, the Assailed Assailed rders are replete with instances where the Pu%lic Respondent completely ignored and made no mention of the su%missions of P&'T and its contractors, without citing any reason as to why such pieces of e
CA-G.R. SP No.155563 $ECISI'0 Pa#e ))

also insisted insisted that P&'T was not denied denied its right to due process, process, and that the assailed '& findings were supported %y su%stantial e& +&!>& con& payments payments 790 790 Intere Interesti stingl ngly y, the Pu%lic Pu%lic Respon Responden dentt found the simi similar lar su%mis su%missio sions, ns, with with regard regard to the monetary claims, of the following contractors as insufficient to pro
a a % a % c a % c d

administrati& con
a. +ic* lea
%

Payroll register

c. Proof of payment of )5th month pay &ea
paymen paymentt of ser
CA-G.R. SP No.155563 $ECISI'0 Pa#e )*

heard heard %y the '&, '&, which which is the the esse essenc ncee of due proce process ss P&'T P&'T was represented in the mandatory conferences called %y the '& Assessment Team and was in fact e Report /2P %elied %elied P&'T?s claim that the pu%lic respondent only reli relied ed on the the affi affida da
;or inst instanc ance, e, in the the Assai Assailed led 'eci 'ecisio sion, n, the the Pu%lic Pu%lic Resp Respond ondent ent held held H

Na$ "# C"nt!act"! R'in in th Assai'& Dcisi"n Trans%io Incorporated n la%or-only contracting, Trans%io does not exercise control and superalidating >alidating whether the contractor performed the #o% agreed upon is limited to the 2result3 of the wor* - an assessment which is a%solutely consistent with legitimate #o% contracting Put simply, 2output3 and 2result3
F1 F1 Ther Theree is no no fact factua uall find findin ing g H as the there re is is none none H tha thatt P&'T P&'T dir direc ecte ted d ho1 Trans%io, Upsight, 'iar, and certainly not their wor*ers, are to accomplish their responsi%ilities under their respecti
In the the Assailed Assailed 'ecision, 'ecision, the Pu%li Pu%licc Respond Respondent ent made made the the follow following ing 2findi 2findings3H ngs3H

Na$ "# C"nt!act"! R'in in th Assai'& Dcisi"n BI+CR Also, for the O"or*s3 BI+CR has to underta*e for P&'T, the latter pro
xxx

xxx

xxx

The detailed procedures, the particularity of the materials to %e used such as the color and length of mouldings and e
CA-G.R. SP No.155563 $ECISI'0 Pa#e )4

su%sta su%stanti ntial al e proceedings In fine, /2P opin opined ed that that the the Comp Compli lian ance ce rde rderr issu issued ed %y the the Regional 'irector did not solely rely on the affidaP->P: >P->P: The Technical Technical Protocols, which are integral parts of their +er
CA-G.R. SP No.155563 $ECISI'0 Pa#e )

find findin ings gs upon upon a +A> inspec inspectio tion n was conduc conducted ted Also, /2P sign signif ific ican antl tly y note noted d that that the the said said orde orderr had had foun found d that that 54 cont contra ract ctor orss had had thei theirr cont contra ract ctua uall empl employ oyee eess depl deplo oyed yed with with regu regula larr employees employees of P&'T to perform perform also the latter?s latter?s #o%s These findings findings were were not only separate and distinct from the findings that P&'T had control and super
+PI-CRB, Inc ;urther, ;urther, the finding of la%or-only Na$ "# C"nt!act"! R'in in th Assai'& Rs"'ti"n +PI-CRB, contracting is %olstered %y the pronless other1ise a#reed b& the Parties, P"$% 1ill develop and conduct the trainin# pro#ram at least si? 6! 9usiness $a&s before before deplo&in# and
In the Assailed Assailed 'ecis 'ecision, ion, the the Pu%lic Pu%lic Responden Respondentt made the the following following 2findi 2findings3 ngs3 H

Na$ "# C"nt!act"! R'in in th Assai'& Dcisi"n B' Tam%ungui Also, the +corecard ;orm, where P&'T rates the contractor on relia%ility!responsi
xxx 2P->P: >P->P: Also, the Incident Incident Restoration Restoration Report (IRR$ (IRR$ ;orm, ;orm, where where P&'T P&'T rates rates the contractor contractor on relia%ility!responsi

different different contract contractors ors ;or another another,, these other other findings findings similarly similarly de%un* P&'T?s P&'T?s theory theory of a findin finding g of la%or la%or-on -only ly contra contracti cting ng %ased %ased on 2singl 2singlee template finding3 of its control of the deployed wor*ers in some affida

IPI Birof Resources, Upsight Construction, Construction, and "e "e +upport The contractor had repeat repeatedl edly y rehire rehired d the deploy deployed ed wor*er wor*erss for terms terms shorte shorterr than than the releP->P: Allied +erP->P: Allied +er
Rollo, Rollo, pp 75-79 (Petition, at pp 7) to 75$ Id., Id., pp 5814-57)7 Comment, 57//-57/5

CA-G.R. SP No.155563 $ECISI'0 Pa#e )

Boreo< Boreo
Id, pp 57/9-57/8 (Comment$ pposition to the TR E Preliminary In#unction Application of P&'T, P&'T, rollo, pp 574) to 5798 and Comment to the Petition, rollo, pp 45/8 to 4548 )1 ART ART )01 >isitorial >isitorial and nforcement Power Power (a$ The +ecretary of of &a%or and and mployment mployment or his duly authoriDed representati
CA-G.R. SP No.155563 $ECISI'0 Pa#e )+

&a%or &a%or and his repres represent entati ati +A> proceeding conducted %y the authoriDed &a%or &aws Compliance fficers ('& ('& Assess Assessmen mentt Team$, eam$, in coordi coordinat nation ion with with the @ureau @ureau of "or*ing or*ing Conditions As explained in the Compliance Compliance rder, rder, the +A> +A> was followed followed %y mandatory conferences where the la%or standard deficiencies were expl explai aine ned d to P&'T P&'T and its its relat related ed contra contract ctor ors s They They were were then then giP: Allied Allied +er

only contractors The + li*ewise theoriDed that the su%#ects of the exercise of the
0/

Inc, +earchers and +taffers Corporation, Corporatio n, +er
CA-G.R. SP No.155563 $ECISI'0 Pa#e *(

contrary to P&'T?s assertion of wholesale and indiscriminate findings, the Comp Compli lian ance ce rde rderr show showed ed othe otherw rwis isee as may may %e disc disclo lose sed d %y the the lega legall conclu conclusio sions ns of '& '& Assess Assessmen mentt Team on the factua factuall matter matters, s, i.e i.e what tas*s and functions the related employees performed, whether the proper wages and %enefits were %eing paid the employees vis-a-vis the wor* they performed, whether the proper wages and %enefits were %eing paid, whether the the su%# su%#ec ectt cont contra ract ctor orss are are regi regist ster ered ed in acco accord rdan ance ce with with ' )1-A )1-A,, or whether the contractors were the ones who supplied the employees with their tools, uniforms, and eGuipment Anen Anentt the the dete determ rmin inat atio ion n of the the exis existe tenc ncee of empl employ oyee ee-em -empl ploy oyer er relationship %y the :&RC, the + has this to saySthat power is not exclusi
THE CO+RT;S R+LIN( I. Th Ri"na' Di!ct"! "! th Sc!ta!y "# La%"! can &t!$in th Eistnc "# E$p'"y!E$p'"y E$p'"y!E$p'"y R'ati"nship in th !cis "# his Visit"!ia' an& En#"!c$nt P"!

At the onset, it %ears noting that the .uly 5, 0/)7 Compliance Compliance 'rder 'rder of the Regional Regional 'irector 'irector and the assailed assailed .anuary .anuary )/, 0/)1 and April 04, 04, 0)

R :o F9/)), Apr 00, )FF)

CA-G.R. SP No.155563 $ECISI'0 Pa#e *)

0/)1 Resolutions 0/)1 Resolutions of the +ecretary of &a%or were issued pursuant to Article )01 of the &a%or Code, to wit ART )01 Visitorial and enforcement po1er. po1er. - (a$ The +ecretary of &a%o &a%orr and and mpl mploy oyme ment nt or his his duly duly auth author oriD iDed ed repr repres esen enta tati ti
Under the aforeGuoted pro
South Cotabato, et al. v. on. Secretar& of "abor , R :o 0)7979, .une )9, 0/)8 R :o )7F890, Bay 1, 0//F

CA-G.R. SP No.155563 $ECISI'0 Pa#e **

preliminary, preliminary, incidental and collateral to the '&?+ primary function of enforcing enforcing la%or standards pro
The The fore forego goin ing g ruli ruling ng was was furth further er reit reitera erate ted d and and clari clarifi fied ed in the the resolution of the reconsideration of the same case, wherein the #urisdiction of the '& was delineated vis-a-vis the vis-a-vis the :&RC where the employer-employee relationship %etween the parties is at issue :o limitation in the law was placed upon u pon the power p ower of the '& to determ determine ine the existe existence nce of an employ employerer-empl employe oyeee relati relations onship hip :o procedure was laid down where the '& would only ma*e a preliminary finding, that the power was primarily held %y the :&RC The law did not say that the '& would first see* the :&RC?s determination of the existence of an employer-employee relationship, or that should the existence of the employer-employee relationship %e disputed, the '& would refer the matter to the :&RC Th DOLE $st ha@ th p"! t" &t!$in hth! "! n"t an $p'"y!$p'"y !'ati"nship ists, an& #!"$ th! t" &ci& hth! "! n"t t" iss c"$p'ianc "!&!s in acc"!&anc ith A!t. -356%7 "# th La%"! C"&, as a$n&& %y RA 04. Th DOLE Th DOLE,, in &t &t! !$in $inin in th th ist istnc nc "# an $p' $p'"y "y!! $p'"y $p'"y !'ati" !'ati"nsh nship, ip, has a !a&y !a&y st "# i&'in i&'ins s t" #"''" #"''",, th sa$ i& th c"!ts th$s'@s s. Th '$nts t" &t!$in th istnc "# an $p'"y$nt !'ati"nship a!1 6-7 th s'cti"n an& na$nt na$nt "# th $p'"y9 $p'"y9 637 th pay$nt "# as9 607 th p"!

CA-G.R. SP No.155563 $ECISI'0 Pa#e *4

"# &is$ &is$iss issa'9 a'9 67 67 th th $p'"y $p'"y! !
&i*e the :&RC, the '& has the authority to rule on the existence of an employer-employee relationship %etween the parties, considering that the existence of an employer-employee relationship is a condition sine ;ua non for the exercise exercise of its nion-Association of enuine "abor 'r#aniDations 'r#aniDations 01 , it , it was held that it is procedurally feasi%le as well as practica%le that petitions for certiorari under certiorari under Rule 89 against the decisions of the +ecretary of &a%or rendered under the &a%or Code and its implementing and related rules %e filed initially in the Court of Appeals 0F Paramount consideration is strict o%ser
09 08 07

01 0F 5/ 5)

PeopleBs 9roadcastin# 9roadcastin# 9ombo 9ombo Rad&o, Phils., Phils., Inc.! v. v. %he Secretar& Secretar& of "abor "abor and Emplo&ment, Emplo&ment, et al. R :o )7F890, Barch 8, 0/)0 Id. South Cotabato, et al. v. on. Secretar& of "abor , R :o 0)7979, .une )9, 0/)8 PI$"%RA0C' PI$"%RA0C' Service Enterprises, Inc. v. PI"%RA0C' PI"%RA0C' =or3ers >nion-Association >nion-Association of enuine "abor 'r#aniDations 'r#aniDations,, R :o )1/F80, ;e%ruary 08, 0/)4 R :o )1/F80, ;e%ruary 08, 0/)4 Id. R :o )5/188, +eptem%er )8, )FF1 0ational ederation ederation of "abor "abor v. v. on. "a#uesma "a#uesma, R :o )05408, Barch )/, )FFF

CA-G.R. SP No.155563 $ECISI'0 Pa#e *

The The Cour Courtt affi affirm rmss with with modi modifi fica cati tion onss the the find findin ings gs of pu%l pu%lic ic respondent Pu%lic respondent is correct in prohi%iting P&'T from contracting out acti acti
;irst, "e "e lay down the rules on legitimate and la%or-only contracting The The pert pertin inen entt &a%o &a%orr Code Code pro< pro

p!p"ss "# this C"&, t" p!@nt any @i"'ati"n "! ci!c$@nti"n "# any p!"@isi"n "# this C"&.

There is 2la%or-only3 contracting where the person supplying wor*ers to an employer does not ha
+ection 9 of '/ )1-A which treats of legitimate contracting states +ect +ectio ion n 5 %rilateral Relationship in Contractin# Arran#ements Solidar& liabilit&. liabilit&. In legitimate contracting, there exists (a$ An employ employerer-empl employe oyeee relati relations onship hip %etwee %etween n the contrac contractor tor and the employees it engaged to perform the specific #o%, wor* or ser
+ection 1 of ' )74 added a list of reGuirements for a permissi%le contracting or su%contracting arrangement, thus +ection 1 Permissible Contractin# or Subcontractin# Arran#ements. :otwithsta :otwithstanding nding +ections 9 and 8 hereof, contracting contracting or su%contracting shall only %e allowed if all the following circumstances concur a$ The contractor or su%contractor is engaged in a distinct and independent %usiness and underta*es to perform the #o% or wor* on its own responsi%ility, responsi%ility, according to its manner and method=


%$ The contractor or su%contractor has su%stantial capital to carry out the the #o% #o% farm farmed ed out out %y the the prin princi cipal pal on his his acco accoun unt, t, mann manner er and method, method, in
n the other hand, +ection 9 of ' )74 enumerates the elements of la%or-only contracting, viD  +ect +ectio ion n 9 Absolute Prohibition Prohibition a#ainst "abor-onl& Contractin#  &a%o &a%orr-onl -only y cont contra ract ctin ing, g, whic which h is tota totall lly y proh prohi% i%it ited ed,, refe refers rs to an arrangement where ) i The contractor contractor or su%contract su%contractor or does not ha
;rom the aforeGuoted pro
Coca-Cola 9ottlers Phils., Inc. v. A#ito, et al., R :o )7F948, ;e%ruary )5, 0//F 9PI Emplo&ees >nion-$avao >nion-$avao Cit&->9> v. v. 9an3 of the Philippine Islands, R :o )74F)0, .uly 04,

CA-G.R. SP No.155563 $ECISI'0 Pa#e *

contra contracti cting ng arrange arrangemen ments ts for the perform performanc ancee of specif specific ic #o%s, #o%s, wor*s wor*s or ser
xxx

xxx

(d$ )"!Gs "! s!@ics n"t &i!ct'y !'at& "! n"t int!a' t" th $ain %sinss "! "p!ati"n "# th p!incipa', inc'&in casa' "!G, anit"!ia', anit"!ia', sc!ity, sc!ity, 'an&scapin, 'an&scapin, an& $ssn!ia' $ssn!ia' s!@ics , and wor* not related to manufacturing processes in manufacturing esta%lishments= (mphasis supplied$ xxx 54 59 58 57 51

xxx

xxx

0/)5 /anila Electric Electric Compan& v. v. Secretar& Secretar& Fuisumbin#, 515 Phil 47, 8/ (0///$ Aliviado v. v. Procter Procter G amble Phils., Inc., Inc., R :o )8/9/8, Barch F, 0/)/ /anila Electric Electric Compan& v. v. Secretar& Secretar& Fuisumbin#, 515 Phil 47, 8/ (0///$ +asan, +r
CA-G.R. SP No.155563 $ECISI'0 Pa#e *+

The aforementioned functions appear to %e not in any way directly related to the core acti
As regards medical and dental ser

ser
At any rate, the reGuirement of the law that e
The term 2full-time3 in Article )97 of the &a%or Code cannot %e construed as referring to the type of employment of the person engaged to pro
R :o )970)4, .une 7, 0//9 Art 01/ The pro
An employment shall %e deemed to %e casual if it is not co
CA-G.R. SP No.155563 $ECISI'0 Pa#e 4(

not directly related to P&'T6s principal %usiness of telecommunications ence, P&'T is not reGuired to hire doctors, nurses and dentists as its regular employees and these are ser sh"'& n"t % !'a!iJ&

.urisprudence has recogniDed another *ind of independent contractor indi (:on (:on-Applica%ility of ' )74, +eries of 0/)7, to ther Contractual Relationships$ of '& 'epartment Circular :o //)-)7, which %ecame effecti
uHi %elevision %elevision 0et1or3, 0et1or3, Inc. v. v. Espiritu, R :os 0/4F44-49, 'ecem%er 5, 0/)4 Id. SonDa v. A9S-C90 9roadcastin# Corporation, R Corporation, R :o )51/9), )/ .une 0//4

CA-G.R. SP No.155563 $ECISI'0 Pa#e 4)

commission regularized

basis

should

not

be

Perhaps through o
Clarifying the Applica%ility Applica%ility of ' :o )74, +eries of 0/)7 +ection 5 (m$, ' :o )1-A Kyna Kyna C Pasa Pasam% m%a, a, %he %he appl appliicabi cabillit& of $epa $eparrtme tment 'rder der 0o. ), ), Seri Seriees of *() *() http!!www http!!www%worldonlinecom!contentphpsec %worldonlinecom!contentphpsectionVpinionEti tionVpinionEtitleVthe-applica tleVthe-applica%ility-of-depar %ility-of-departmenttmentorder-no-)74-series-of-0/)7E order-no-)74-series-of-0/)7EidV)47)00W idV)47)00W (last accessed .uly )F, 0/)1$

CA-G.R. SP No.155563 $ECISI'0 Pa#e 4*

that the employees of contractors rendering Information Technology (IT$ -ena%led and -related ser
In regard to the contracted sales force which is comprised of sales agents who are paid on commission %asis, "e cite the first paragraph of item > (:on-A (:on-Appl pplica ica%il %ility ity of ' )74, )74, +eries +eries of 0/)7, 0/)7, to ther ther Contra Contractu ctual al Relationships$ of '& 'epartment Circular :o //)-)7, +eries of 0/)7, which states that ' )74 2xxx does not contemplate to co
The plain language of the agreement re
R :o F)5/7, .anuary 04, )FF)


) a! c"n@inc& #!"$ th #acts that th "!G "# ptiti"n!
xxx

xxx

xxx


In other words, the mem%ers of the +ales ;orce outsource personnel could not %e the su%#ect of control %y P&'T, and cannot %e considered regular employees of P&'T P&'T F. Length of service cannot always ripen to regular employment

Under Article 01/ of the &a%or Code, 2regular employment3 refers to that that arrang arrangeme ement nt where% where%y y the emplo employee yee 2has 2has %een %een engage engaged d to perfor perform m acti
Article 01/ of the &a%or Code reads in full Art Art 01/ 01/ Re#ular and casual emplo&ment  The pro
9/

An employment shall %e deemed to %e casual if it is not co
CA-G.R. SP No.155563 $ECISI'0 Pa#e 4

employee6s employee6s acti
9) 90 95

"abor Relations Commission, 4// Commission, 4// Phil 18, )/5 (0///$= and acienda and acienda 9ino<ortencia Star3e, Inc. v. Cuenca, 4F8 Phil )F1, 0/F (0//9$ >niversal Robina Su#ar /illin# Corporation v. Acibo, et al., R :o )1845F, .anuary )9, 0/)4 Id. Id. see Id. see also /ara#uinot, also /ara#uinot, r. r. v. v. 0"RC , 541 Phil 91/, 8//-8/) ()FF1$


Code as the law is supplemented %y other rules Corollarily, the group of wor*ers enumerated a%o
III. La' C"nsncs "# R'a!iJati"n

To go %ac* to the regulariDation of indiic dward is entitled to, Arlo Aluminum must still pay the amount of P)49,07800 as a monetary award This will amount to dou%le compensation considering that said monetary award was already coic dward insofar as his unpaid wages and other la%or %enefits are concerned

ii considering that P&'T and the contractors are solidarily lia%le for whate
94

R :o :o 0)9174, .ul 9 0/)7


In Vi#ilia v. Philippine Colle#e of Criminolo#&, Inc. ,99 the +upreme Court held Considering that B@B+I, as the la%or-only contractor, is solidarily lia%le with the respondents, as the principal employer, then the :&RC and the CA correctly held that the respondents? solidary lia%ility was already expunged %y
Clearly, the application of these legal pro
In its petition, P&'T challenged the assailed issuances of the pu%lic respon responden dentt on
98

R :o 0///F4, .un )/ 0/)5

P/I Colle#es v. v. 0"RC , R :o )0)488 August )9, )FF7, holds1 Certiorari is a remedy narrow in its scope and inflexi%le in character It is not a general utility tool in the legal wor*shop actual wor*shop actual issues are not a proper proper subHect for certiorari, certiorari, as the power of the +upreme Court to re
CA-G.R. SP No.155563 $ECISI'0 Pa#e 4

selecti
South Cotabato, et al. v. on. Secretar& of "abor , R :o 0)7979, .une )9, 0/)8

CA-G.R. SP No.155563 $ECISI'0 Pa#e 4+

the '&?s conclusion that they are employees of petitioners

@ased ased on the the #uri #urisp spru rude dent ntiial stan stand dard ard of South South Cotoba Cotobato, to, the Complianc Compliancee rder did not comply comply with the foregoing foregoing standards standards "e will explain irst, as in the South South Cotabato Cotabato case case,, the the Regi Region onal al 'irec 'irecto torr had had presumed, not demonstrated, the existence of control To %egin with, the conclusion or finding was %ased on inter Report, 5,-K listed in the Compliance rder, ,-/ under the )/ .anuary 0/)1 Resolution and ,0 under the 04 April 0/)1 Resolution n the matter of the existence of employer-employee relationship, the +upreme Court has ruled in avier v. v. l& Ace Corporation Corporation,,91 that It must %e noted that the issue of .a
R :o )F0091, ;e%ruary )9, 0/)0


pro
In the case under under considerati consideration, on, the Regional Regional 'irector came out with the Compliance rder, as affirmed %y the pu%lic respondent, %y relying hea
CA-G.R. SP No.155563 $ECISI'0 Pa#e (

The +upreme Court has re#ected e
 R :o )87800, .une 0F, 0/)/

CA-G.R. SP No.155563 $ECISI'0 Pa#e )

M As pre
%hird, the %hird, the appreciation of the e
R :o )18))4, cto%er 7, 0/)9

CA-G.R. SP No.155563 $ECISI'0 Pa#e *

Anent the power of control, the Court again finds no cogent reason to depart from the findings of the :&RC that in case of matters that needed to %e addressed with respect to employee performance, petitioner dealt directly with +.+ and not with the employee concerned In any e
In the present case and as amply demonstrated %y P&'T in its petition, the pu%lic respondent clearly misappreciated the exercise %y P&'T of its power to control the results intended to %e achie
CA-G.R. SP No.155563 $ECISI'0 Pa#e 4

It would reGuire a leap of faith to so conclude that these are means and methods control, as easily, these are all intended to ensure that the results H the satisfactory satisfactory deli
uided %y the cardinal due process rights enunciated %y the +upreme Cour Courtt in An# in An# %iba& v. Court of Industrial Relations ,80 this Court holds that the assailed issuances, sa
8) 80

R :o )87800 .anuary 09, 0/)), 0/)), 8F Phil 859 ()F4/$

CA-G.R. SP No.155563 $ECISI'0 Pa#e 

(4$ (4$ The The pu%l pu%lic ic res respo pond nden entt in issu issuin ing g the the assa assail iled ed ord orders ers did not ma*e his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the contro
The The mone moneta tary ry awar award d pro< pro

monetary award In sum, sum, the the appl applic icat atio ion n of the the stra straig ight ht com computa putati tion on meth method od in computing the money awards and the extrapolation of, or o
) The Court AFFIRMS with $"&i#icati"n, the Assailed Resolution dated .anuary )/, 0/)1, and Resolution dated April 04, 0/)1 in 2 In 2 In Re: Special Assessment or Visit Visit of the Establishment SAVE! in Philippine "on# doc*eted as 'S-"S-()*(-(+( $istance %elephone %elephone Compan& P"$%! 3, and doc*eted *() , of pu%l pu%lic ic resp respon onde dent nt on on +il< +il
Allied 9an3in# 9an3in# Corporation v. 0"RC, R :o ))8)01, .uly )0, )FF8 +ee In +ee In %he /atter 'f %he Petition or abeas Corpus 'f Roberto >mil, v. idel V. Ramos, et al., Concurring pinion, ;ernan, C, R :o 1)987, cto%er 5, )FF)


Region Region the matter matter of the regula regulariD riDati ation on of these these indi
CA-G.R. SP No.155563 $ECISI'0 Pa#e 

)E CONC+R1

SESINANDO E. VILLON Associate ustice

MARIA FILOMENA D. SIN(H Associate ustice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article >III, +ection )5 of the Constitution, it is here%y certi certifi fied ed that that the the conc conclu lusi sion onss in the the a%o< a%o
SESINANDO E. VILLON Chairperson, %enth )(th! $ivision

Pldt vs. Bello

Recommend Documents