Case Digest (G.R. No. 229490) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Aliviado v. Procter & Gamble Philippines, Inc. et al. (G.R. No. 160506, March 9, 2010), over eighty merchandisers engaged between 1982 and 1992 sued Procter & Gamble Philippines (P&G), Promm-Gem, Inc. and Sales and Promotions Services (SAPS) for illegal dismissal, regularization and benefits. The petitioners originally contracted with Promm-Gem or SAPS for five-month terms to promote and stock P&G products in retail outlets. They received wages, disciplinary actions and terminations from their respective agencies, not directly from P&G. On December 1991 they filed before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) a complaint for regularization, service incentive leave pay and damages. The Labor Arbiter dismissed their claim in 1996 for lack of an employment relationship with P&G, a finding affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission in 1998 and by the Court of Appeals in 2003. The petitioners then sought full review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.Issues
Case Digest (G.R. No. 229490) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Background
- Petitioners – Eighty (80) individuals engaged as merchandising personnel handling Procter & Gamble Phils., Inc. (P&G) products from as early as 1982 to 1992–1993.
- Respondents – P&G (principal), Promm-Gem, Inc. (contractor), and Sales and Promotions Services (SAPS, contractor).
- Employment and Procedural History
- Engagement
- Petitioners individually signed 5-month contracts with Promm-Gem or SAPS to promote and merchandise P&G products in various outlets.
- Wages, discipline, and dismissal power were exercised by Promm-Gem or SAPS; uniforms and materials were supplied by them.
- Labor Complaints
- December 1991 – Petitioners filed for regularization, service incentive leave pay, benefits, and damages; later amended to include claims of illegal dismissal.
- Labor Arbiter (Nov. 29, 1996) dismissed complaint against P&G for lack of employer-employee relationship.
- National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) (Jul. 27, 1998) affirmed Labor Arbiter; denied reconsideration.
- Court of Appeals (CA) (Mar. 21, 2003) affirmed NLRC with modification ordering P&G to pay service incentive leave pay; denied CA reconsideration (Oct. 20, 2003).
- Supreme Court Petition – Petitioners questioned CA’s findings on employer status, illegal dismissal, and entitlement to damages and fees.
Issues:
- Whether P&G is the employer of petitioners
- Whether petitioners were illegally dismissed
- Whether petitioners are entitled to actual, moral and exemplary damages, litigation costs, and attorney’s fees
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)