Title
LAKAS SA INDUSTRIYA NG KAPATIRANG HALIGI NG ALYANSA-PINAGBUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWANG PROMO NG BURLINGAME vs. BURLINGAME CORPORATION
Case
G.R. No. 162833
Decision Date
Jun 15, 2007
Petitioner LIKHA-PMPB sought certification election for promo employees of Burlingame Corp., contested as F. Garil Manpower workers. SC ruled F. Garil a labor-only contractor, making Burlingame the employer, reinstating certification election order.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 162833)

Facts:

Lakas sa Industriya ng Kapatirang Haligi ng Alyansa‑Pinagbuklod ng Manggagawang Promo ng Burlingame v. Burlingame Corporation, G.R. No. 162833, June 15, 2007, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.

On January 17, 2000, petitioner LIKHA‑PMPB filed a petition for certification election with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) seeking to represent about 70 rank‑and‑file promo employees deployed at respondent Burlingame Corporation's establishments. Petitioner alleged there was no existing union representing those regular promo employees and prayed for voluntary recognition or, alternatively, a certification/consent election.

Respondent moved to dismiss, contending there was no employer‑employee relationship between Burlingame and the promo personnel because they were employees of F. Garil Manpower Services, a licensed local employment agency; respondent attached the manpower services contract between Burlingame and F. Garil to substantiate its claim.

A Med‑Arbiter, Renato D. Parungo, dismissed the petition on June 29, 2000 for lack of employer‑employee relationship. Petitioner appealed to the Secretary of Labor and Employment, who on December 29, 2000 ordered the immediate conduct of a certification election among the promo employees. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration on January 19, 2001, which the Secretary denied by Resolution of February 19, 2002.

Respondent then sought judicial relief before the Court of Appeals, which reversed the Secretary's order in a Decision dated August 29, 2003; the Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated March 15, 2004. Petitioner filed the present petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution and reinstatement of the Secretary’s order for a certification election.

(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

  • Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in declaring that there is no employer‑employee relationship between the promo workers and Burlingame because F. Garil Manpower Services is an independent...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.