Title
Alaska Milk Corporation vs. Ruben P. Paez, et al.
Case
G.R. No. 237277
Decision Date
Jul 10, 2023
A series of consolidated petitions regarding labor relations and illegal dismissal claims against Alaska Milk Corporation and Asiapro Multi-Purpose Cooperative. The court ruled on the legitimacy of labor contractors and the employment status of the workers involved.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 267093)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Relationships
    • Alaska Milk Corporation is a domestic corporation engaged in manufacturing dairy products.
    • Asiapro Multi-Purpose Cooperative is a registered cooperative contracting services of its worker-members.
    • 5S Manpower Services Cooperative also engaged as a service contractor.
    • Respondents (Paez, Combite, Bate, Medrano, Oliver) worked as production helpers at Alaska’s Laguna Plant, supplied by Asiapro and 5S Manpower under Joint Operating Agreements.
  • Terminations and Complaints
    • In 2013, respondents were informed of termination of their assignments:
      • Paez relieved July 10, 2013.
      • Bate, Combite, Oliver relieved October 15, 2013.
      • Medrano relieved November 27, 2013.
    • Requests for transfer to other principals were made by respondents but before arrangements could be made, complaints for illegal dismissal, regularization, and payment claims were filed.
  • Proceedings before the Labor Arbiter and NLRC
    • Labor Arbiter dismissed complaints due to lack of merit, finding Asiapro and 5S Manpower as legitimate contractors exercising control over the workers.
    • NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, holding respondents were not Alaska’s employees and thus not illegally dismissed.
  • Court of Appeals and Supreme Court Decisions
    • CA held Asiapro and 5S Manpower were labor-only contractors, that respondents were regular employees of Alaska, and declared illegal dismissal.
    • Supreme Court reversed CA ruling with key findings:
      • Asiapro demonstrated substantial capital, independent business, multiple clients, valid contractor status.
      • 5S Manpower failed to prove substantial capital or investments and had only Alaska as a client, considered labor-only contractor.
      • Respondents Bate, Combite, Oliver whose contracts expired with 5S Manpower were illegally dismissed and entitled to reinstatement and full backwages.
      • Respondents Paez and Medrano were members of Asiapro, not illegally dismissed since they refused reassignment.
  • Other Related Cases
    • Gilbuena, et al. (G.R. No. 232718) also filed illegal dismissal claims after contract expirations with Asiapro; LA and NLRC ruled in their favor but CA reversed, ruling Asiapro as legitimate contractor.
    • Gilbuena, et al. sought payment of accrued salaries after failure of Alaska and Asiapro to reinstate them promptly, leading to writs of execution and further legal disputes.
    • Rosales, et al. (G.R. No. 238965), former Asiapro members transferred to 5S Manpower, claimed illegal dismissal; LA found 5S Manpower legitimate employer but guilty of illegal dismissal due to lack of due process; NLRC reversed illegal dismissal finding; CA affirmed 5S as legitimate contractor and no illegal dismissal.

Issues:

  • G.R. Nos. 237277 and 237317 (Motions for Reconsideration)
    • Whether 5S Manpower is a legitimate job contractor.
    • Whether Bate, Combite, and Oliver were illegally dismissed.
    • Whether Asiapro is a legitimate job contractor.
    • Whether Paez and Medrano were illegally dismissed.
  • G.R. No. 232718
    • Whether Asiapro is a legitimate job contractor and the real employer of Gilbuena, et al.
    • Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between Alaska and Gilbuena, et al.
    • Whether Gilbuena, et al. were illegally dismissed.
  • G.R. No. 256753
    • Whether the CA erred in ruling that execution of LA’s order of reinstatement was not suspended despite CA reversal of NLRC decisions.
  • G.R. No. 238965
    • Whether Asiapro and 5S Manpower are legitimate job contractors.
    • Whether employer-employee relationship existed between Alaska and Rosales, et al.
    • Whether Rosales, et al. were illegally dismissed.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.