Case Digest (G.R. No. 110241)
Facts:
Asia Brewery, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission and Isidro Orate, G.R. No. 110241, July 24, 1996, the Supreme Court Third Division, Francisco, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Asia Brewery, Inc. (ABI) had a manpower-supply arrangement first with Era Industries (ERA) and, upon termination of that contract, entered into a service contract dated February 7, 1991 with Cabuyao Maintenance and Services, Inc. (CMSI) for the provision of maintenance, janitorial and utility personnel to ABI’s beer division. The CMSI–ABI contract described the workers as those “of the CONTRACTOR” and contained a warranty that the contractor would assume compliance with labor laws and relieve the client of liability. CMSI assigned some 400–450 workers to ABI; the parties later entered into a stipulation of facts reflecting these arrangements.
After CMSI assumed the contract, CMSI executed individual employment agreements with the affected workers (hereinafter the private respondents) requiring compliance with ABI rules and prohibiting participation in strikes. On July 5, 1991, the private respondents filed a complaint against ABI alleging unpaid overtime, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, failure to regularize employment, underpaid night differential, and related personnel-record relief; a supplemental complaint for illegal dismissal and a motion for immediate reinstatement followed on July 29, 1991, alleging denial of entry, confiscation of IDs, and being “put on hold.”
At the Labor Arbiter, the issues were whether the private respondents were employees of ABI, whether they were illegally dismissed, and whether they were entitled to the claimed relief. The Labor Arbiter found CMSI to be a labor-only contractor, treated the private respondents as regular employees of ABI, and awarded their monetary claims. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion in finding an employer–employee relationship between ABI and the private respondents?
- Were the private respondents employees of ABI under the doctrine of labor-only contracting?
- Were the private respondents illegally dismissed and entitled to the c...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)