G.R. No. 265610 - Borromeo vs. Lazada E-Services Philippines, Inc.

Walter L. Borromeo commenced service as a pick-up rider for Lazada on February 5, 2015 until March 31, 2016, initially under RGServe Manpower Services (RGServe).
Jimmy N. Parcia worked as a pick-up rider for Lazada from March 31, 2012 until March 31, 2016, initially under Dynamic Personnel Assistance Manpower (Dynamic).

Borromeo and Parcia subsequently signed Independent Contractor Agreements with Lazada on April 1, 2016, and July 16, 2017, respectively.
Under these Agreements, they were to provide logistics and delivery services using their own motor vehicles, receiving a service fee of PHP 1,200.00 for a full day’s work.
Borromeo’s contract had a term of one year unless earlier terminated or renewed; Parcia’s was for six months, renewable or terminable at Lazada’s discretion.

Petitioners’ duties included picking up products sold on Lazada’s platform from merchants and delivering them to Lazada’s warehouses.
They reported to Lazada supervisors for coordination and scanning of products picked up, including providing updates via text or phone calls.
They were also sometimes directed to retrieve defective items for return to merchants, tasks outside the specified duties yet complied with to avoid loss of assignments.

On August 18 and 19, 2017, petitioners were informed of their termination effective August 23, 2017, due to Lazada’s personnel reduction in the pick-up department.
Lazada announced retention of only five pick-up riders remaining post-reduction.

Petitioners filed a complaint with the NLRC for illegal dismissal and related monetary claims, asserting employer-employee relationship with Lazada, alleging RGServe and Dynamic were labor-only contractors, thus rendering them Lazada’s regular employees.
Lazada countered that petitioners were independent contractors using their own vehicles and that their contracts explicitly disavowed any employer-employee relationship.
Lazada asserted expired or pre-terminated contracts and denied illegal dismissal claims, contending absence of employer-employee relationship deprived the Labor Arbiter of jurisdiction.

Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, concluding no employer-employee relationship existed based on contract terms, official registrations, and lack of control over means and methods of work.
NLRC affirmed the dismissal, emphasizing contractual freedom and noting failure to implead alleged labor-only contractors precluded passing on certain claims.

The CA denied petitioners’ Rule 65 petition, holding petitioners were independent contractors, highlighting factors such as business registrations, contract terms, control over means of work, and payment methods.
The CA reasoned absence of employer-employee relationship meant no illegal dismissal had occurred.

Petitioners acknowledged late filing but alleged former counsel’s misrepresentations and urged consideration on merits for substantial justice.
They argued employment status under the four-fold test and reliance on the Supreme Court decision in Ditiangkin v. Lazada, asserting control exercised by Lazada and economic dependence.
Lazada opposed outright dismissal due to delay and defended the independent contractor status, distinguishing the present case from Ditiangkin, denying employer-employee relationship and any entitlement to benefits or damages.

Whether the Petition should be dismissed outright for being filed beyond the reglementary period.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the NLRC's finding that petitioners are independent contractors and not employees of Lazada.