Case Digest (G.R. No. 177785)
Facts:
The case involves petitioners Randy Almeda, Edwin M. Audencial, Nolie D. Ramirez, Ernesto M. Calicagan, and Reynaldo M. Calicagan against Asahi Glass Philippines, Inc. The events leading to the case began when the petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Asahi Glass and its labor contractor, San Sebastian Allied Services, Inc. (SSASI), on December 9, 2002. The petitioners were employed by SSASI and assigned to work for Asahi Glass as glass cutters and a quality controller, with their employment durations ranging from three to eleven years. On December 1, 2002, Asahi Glass terminated its service contract with SSASI, leading to the termination of the petitioners' employment. The petitioners contended that SSASI was a labor-only contractor and that they should be considered regular employees of Asahi Glass, claiming their dismissal was unlawful due to lack of due process.
In the lower court, the Labor Arbiter ruled on February 18, 2004, dismissing the c...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 177785)
Facts:
Background of the Case: Petitioners Randy Almeda, Edwin Audencial, Nolie Ramirez, Ernesto Calicagan, and Reynaldo Calicagan filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against respondent Asahi Glass Philippines, Inc. (a glass manufacturing company) and San Sebastian Allied Services, Inc. (SSASI), a labor contractor. Petitioners worked for Asahi through SSASI for periods ranging from 3 to 11 years as glass cutters and quality controllers. On December 1, 2002, Asahi terminated its contract with SSASI, leading to the dismissal of petitioners.
Petitioners’ Allegations: Petitioners argued that SSASI was a labor-only contractor, and since their roles were directly related to Asahi’s main business, they should be considered regular employees of Asahi. They claimed their dismissal lacked due process and was unlawful.
Respondent’s Defense: Asahi denied being the employer of petitioners, asserting that they were employees of SSASI, a legitimate job contractor licensed by the DOLE. Asahi claimed that petitioners were hired for intermittent services unrelated to its main business and that SSASI exercised control over petitioners.
Labor Arbiter’s Decision: The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit but ordered SSASI to pay separation benefits to petitioners.
NLRC’s Decision: On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, finding SSASI to be a labor-only contractor and declaring petitioners as regular employees of Asahi. The NLRC ordered their reinstatement and payment of backwages.
Court of Appeals’ Decision: The CA reversed the NLRC’s decision, reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s ruling, and held that SSASI was a legitimate job contractor.
Petition to the Supreme Court: Petitioners sought to reverse the CA’s decision, asserting that SSASI was a labor-only contractor and that their dismissal was illegal.
Issue:
- Whether petitioners were employees of Asahi or SSASI.
- Whether SSASI was a labor-only contractor or a legitimate job contractor.
- Whether petitioners were illegally dismissed.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)