Case Digest (G.R. No. 160506)
Facts:
Joeb M. Aliviado, et al., G.R. No. 160506, March 09, 2010, Supreme Court Second Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are 80+ merchandisers who worked servicing Procter & Gamble Phils., Inc. (“P&G”) products but had employment contracts and received wages from two agencies: Promm-Gem, Inc. and Sales and Promotions Services (“SAPS”). The agencies assigned them to various retail outlets to promote and merchandize P&G products; petitions allege employments beginning as early as 1982 up to the early 1990s and terminations in 1992–1993.In December 1991 petitioners filed complaints for regularization, service incentive leave pay, other benefits and damages. The Labor Arbiter (November 29, 1996) dismissed the complaints for lack of merit, finding Promm-Gem and SAPS legitimate independent contractors and not P&G employees. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision (July 27, 1998) and denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration (November 19, 1998).
Petitioners sought certiorari review before the Court of Appeals (CA), which denied relief but modified the NLRC decision by ordering P&G to pay service incentive leave pay (March 21, 2003); the CA denied motions for reconsideration (October 20, 2003). Petitioners then filed the instant petition for review with the Supreme Court. The SC noted th...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error in failing to find that P&G was the employer of petitioners (i.e., whether Promm-Gem and SAPS were labor-only contractors or legitimate job contractors)?
- Were the terminations of the petitioners’ services illegal?
- Are petitioners entitled to moral damages, attorney’s fees, reinstatement and backwages as...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)