G.R. No. 217301 - Consolidated Building Maintece, Inc. vs. Asprec, Jr.

The case involves petitioners Consolidated Building Maintenance, Inc. (CBMI) and its Human Resource Manager, Sarah Delgado, versus respondents Rolando Asprec, Jr. and Jonalen Bataller.
CBMI is a corporation engaged in providing janitorial, kitchen, messengerial, elevator maintenance, and allied services. It renders its services to various entities, including Philippine Pizza, Inc.-Pizza Hut (PPI).
The respondents alleged that they are regular employees of PPI, having been initially engaged and later transferred to CBMI under circumstances that allegedly amounted to labor-only contracting.

CBMI’s contractual relationship with PPI involved annual “contracts of services” executed from 2000 and from 2002 up to 2010, covering services such as kitchen, delivery, and sanitation.
Respondents Asprec and Bataller claimed they were originally employed by PPI but were transferred to CBMI following interviews and procedural instructions—purportedly as a scheme by PPI to avoid regularization.
Both respondents recounted similar narratives in their sworn statements (Sinumpaang Salaysay dated February 8, 2011) indicating that despite a transition to CBMI, their work conditions, duties, and payment arrangements remained unchanged.

An incident involving an alleged delivery discrepancy (an excess of pizza boxes delivered by Jessie Revilla) triggered disciplinary actions.
Asprec contended that he was not responsible for the incident, while Bataller explained that due to being occupied with customers, she did not immediately notice the extra delivery but later attempted to notify her superiors.
Subsequent to the incident, preventive suspension was imposed on the respondents, followed by their eventual dismissal or lay-off from work as a consequence of the investigation into the said incident.

On November 12, 2010, the respondents filed a Complaint for constructive illegal dismissal, illegal suspension, and non-payment of separation pay.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a Decision on June 27, 2011, holding that the respondents were employees of PPI and finding them illegally dismissed. The LA ordered reinstatement with backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
On September 28, 2011, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) issued a Resolution which affirmed, with modifications, the LA’s Decision; it recognized the respondents as regular employees of CBMI based on the employment contract and CBMI’s admission.
The Court of Appeals (CA) on November 15, 2013, denied the petition for certiorari filed by CBMI and Sarah Delgado, reinstating the LA decision, though it held that CBMI was, in fact, acting as a labor-only contractor under the control of PPI.
A subsequent motion for reconsideration by the petitioners was denied by the CA in its Resolution dated March 4, 2015.
The petition for review on certiorari was then elevated to the Supreme Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

The respondents maintained that their transfer from PPI to CBMI was a mere ploy to circumvent their regularization, thereby constituting illegal dismissal.
The petitioners argued that CBMI is an independent contractor with substantial capital, proper registration with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), and that the respondents were its employees, not PPI’s.
Disputes also focused on whether the extended preventive suspension and eventual lay-off met the legal requirements regarding notice and the maximum allowed period, and whether such actions amounted to illegal dismissal.

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in declaring that CBMI is a labor-only contractor, thereby implying that the control and supervision over the respondents were effectively exercised by PPI.

Consideration of CBMI’s registration and its business operations, including its alleged substantial capital and independent business activities.
Evaluation of the nature of the contractual arrangements between CBMI and PPI, and the impact on the determination of the employment relationship of the respondents.

Whether the respondents were indeed regular employees of CBMI or PPI, impacting their entitlement to monetary claims and other benefits.

Analysis of the employment contracts, appointment processes, and the extent of control and supervision over the respondents.
Consideration of the factual determinations by the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and the Court of Appeals regarding employment status.

Whether the respondents were illegally dismissed due to the extension of their preventive suspension beyond the statutory period and the failure to promptly reinstate or complete the due process under the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code.

Scrutiny of the preventive suspension period vis-à-vis the mandatory 30-day limit.
Examination of the investigation process and whether due notice and procedural safeguards were provided.

Whether the awards for backwages, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees were properly granted given the established facts of the case and the applicable legal standards.

Assessment of the imposition of these monetary claims in light of the alleged illegal dismissal and extended suspension.
Evaluation of the evidentiary basis for attributing liability and awarding damages.