Case Digest (G.R. No. 160506)
Facts:
The case involves a petition for review filed by Joeb M. Aliviado and 75 other individuals (collectively referred to as "petitioners") against Procter & Gamble Phils., Inc. and Promm-Gem, Inc. (collectively referred to as "respondents"). The events leading to the case began when the petitioners, who worked as merchandisers for Procter & Gamble (P&G), filed a complaint in December 1991 against P&G for regularization, service incentive leave pay, and other benefits, which was later amended to include claims regarding their dismissal. The petitioners were employed through Promm-Gem and Sales and Promotions Services (SAPS) under contracts that lasted approximately five months. They were assigned to various outlets and received their wages from Promm-Gem or SAPS, which also imposed disciplinary measures on them.
On November 29, 1996, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, ruling that there was no employer-employee relationship between the...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 160506)
Facts:
Employment Details:
Petitioners worked as merchandisers for Procter & Gamble Philippines, Inc. (P&G) from various dates, starting as early as 1982 or as late as June 1991, until their dismissal in either May 5, 1992, or March 11, 1993. They were employed under contracts with Promm-Gem, Inc. (Promm-Gem) or Sales and Promotions Services (SAPS), which were allegedly legitimate independent contractors.
Nature of Work:
Petitioners were assigned to different outlets, supermarkets, and stores to handle P&G products. They received their wages from Promm-Gem or SAPS, which also imposed disciplinary measures on them for issues like absenteeism or dishonesty.
Legal Proceedings:
In December 1991, petitioners filed a complaint against P&G for regularization, service incentive leave pay, and other benefits, later amended to include their dismissal. The Labor Arbiter, National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and Court of Appeals (CA) ruled in favor of P&G, finding Promm-Gem and SAPS as legitimate independent contractors and the employers of petitioners.
Issue:
- 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)