PHILIPPINE FUJI XEROX CORPORATION, JENNIFER A. BERNARDO and ATTY. VICTORINO LUIS vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PAMBANSAN PAMBANSAN KILUSAN KI LUSAN NG PAGGAA PAGGAA,, !KILUSAN"#TUCP, PHILIPPINE XEROX EMPLOYEES UNION#KILUSAN AND PEDRO GARADO G.R. N$. %%%&'% MARCH &, %(() FACTS OF THE CASE Petitioner Fuji Xerox entered into an agreement under which Skillpower, Inc. supplied workers to operate copier machines of Fuji Xerox as part of their "Xerox Copier Project". espondent !arado was assigned as ke operator at Fuji Xerox #uendia #ranch. In $%&', !arado went on lea(e and was replaced ) a su)stitute. *owe(er, upon his return he found out that there was a spoilage of o(er + copies. *e tried to talk to the ser(ice technician to stop the meter of the machine since he was afraid that he would )e )lamed for the spoilage. -he technician refused and later on Fuji Xerox learned a)out the incident. Fuji Xerox reported reported this to Skillpower, Inc. Skillpower, Skillpower, Inc. asked !arado to explain the incident and was put on suspension. !arado filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. -he a)or /r)iter ruled that !arado was an emploee of Skillpower, Inc. this dismissing the complaint for illegal dismissal against Fuji Xerox. / said that Skillpower exercised control and super(ision of !arado0s work although the later recei(es his salar from Fuji Xerox. 1n appeal, the 2C found that !arado was an emploee of Fuji Xerox and was illegall dismissed ) the latter. 2C said that although !arado0s re3uest was wrongful it was not the appropriate penalt. penalt. 2C also said that although !arado was suspended ) Skillpower, Inc. the compan acted at the )ehest of Fuji Xerox. -he power of control and super(isi super(ision on was with Fuji Xerox and also the pament pament of respondent respondent0s 0s salar. salar. Skillpow Skillpower, er, Inc. merel acted as a pamaster4agent of Fuji Xerox and that Skillpower, Inc is a la)or4onl contractor. -hus, !arado is emploed ) Fuji Xerox. Fuji Xerox contends that Skillpower, Skillpower, Inc. is an independent contractor. -hus, this appeal to the SC.
ISSUE $. 5hether 5hether or not !arado !arado is is an emploee emploee of Fuji Fuji Xerox Xerox or of Skill Skillpower power,, Inc.
RULING ISSUE*% Ga+ad$ s an -/0$1-- $2 F34 X-+$5 -he /greement )etween petitioner Fuji Xerox and Skillpower, Inc. pro(ides that Skillpower, Inc. is an independent contractor and that the workers hired ) it 6shall not, in an manner and under an circumstances, )e considered emploees of 7the8 Compan, and that the Compan has no control or super(ision whatsoe(er o(er the conduct of the Contractor or an of its workers in respect to how the accomplish their work or perform the Contractor9s o)ligations under this /!::;:2-.< /!::;:2-.< In Tabas v. California Manufacturing Company, Inc., 7%8 this Court held on facts similar to those in the case at )ar= -here is no dou)t that in the case at )ar, i(i performs 6manpower ser(ices,< meaning to sa, it contracts out la)or in f a(or of clients. 5e hold that it is one notwithstanding its (ehement claims to the contrar, and notwithstanding the pro(ision of the contract that it is 6an independent contractor.< -he nature of one9s )usiness is not determined ) self4ser(ing appellations one attaches thereto )ut ) the tests pro(ided ) statute statute and pre(aili pre(ailing ng case law. -he )are fact that i(i maintains maintains a separate separate line of )usiness does not extinguish the e3ual fact that it has pro(ided California with workers to pursue the latter9s own )usiness. In this connection, we do not agree that the petitioners had )een made to perform acti(ities 6which are not directl directl related related to the general general )usiness )usiness of manufactur manufacturing,< ing,< Californi California9s a9s purported purported 6principa 6principall operation operation acti(it.< -he petitioners had )een charged with 6merchandising 7sic8 promotion or sale of the products of 7California8 in the different sales outlets in ;etro ;anila including task and occasional 7sic8 price tagging,< an acti(it that is dou)tless, an integral part of the manufacturing )usiness. It is not, then, as if i(i had ser(ed as its >California9s? promotions or sales arm or agents, or otherwise, rendered a piece of work it >California? could not ha(e itself done@ i(i as a placement agenc, had simpl supplied it with the manpower manpower necessar necessar to carr carr out its >Califor >California9 nia9s? s? merchandis merchandising ing acti(iti acti(ities, es, using using its >Califor >California9 nia9s? s? premises and e3uipment. xxx
xxx
xxx
-he fact that the petitioners ha(e allegedl admitted )eing i(i9s 6direct emploees< in their complaints is nothing conclusi(e. For one thing, the fact that the petitioners were >are?, will not a)sol(e California since lia)ilit has )een imposed ) legal operation. For another, and as we indicated, the relations of parties must )e judged from case to case and the decree of law, and not ) declaration of parties. Skillpower, Inc. is, therefore, a 6la)or4onl< contractor and !arado is not its emploee. 2o gra(e a)use of discretion can thus )e imputed to the 2C for declaring petitioner Fuji Xerox guilt of illegal dismissal of pri(ate respondent.
