Title
Aliviado vs. Procter and Gamble Philippines, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 160506
Decision Date
Mar 9, 2010
Petitioners, P&G merchandisers via contractors, claimed illegal dismissal. SC ruled SAPS as labor-only contractor, making P&G their employer; Promm-Gem legitimate. Dismissals illegal; P&G liable for damages, back wages, and reinstatement.
Font Size:

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:

  1. Whether P&G is the employer of petitioners.
  2. Whether petitioners were illegally dismissed.
  3. Whether petitioners are entitled to actual, moral, and exemplary damages, litigation costs, and attorney's fees.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.