A.C. No. 6942 - Sonic Steel Industries, Inc. vs. Chua

Case Digest (A.C. No. 6942)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Termination of Previous Contracts and Filing of Claims

On November 30, 1990, the security service agreement between People’s Security, Inc. (PSI) and MERALCO was terminated.
Fifty-six PSI security guards, including the eight individual respondents, filed a complaint for unpaid monetary benefits (NLRC-NCR Case No. 05-02746-90).

Entering into New Security Service Agreements

On December 1, 1990, MERALCO entered into a security service agreement with respondent Armed Security & Detective Agency, Inc. (ASDAI):

The agreement required ASDAI to provide 220 licensed, uniformed, bonded, and armed security guards to guard the MERALCO Center.
Detailed provisions included:

The determination of guard numbers based on MERALCO’s needs, with the possibility to adjust upon 24-hour notice.
The payment structure: a fixed monthly fee per guard, with additional amounts for supervisees (Shift Leader and Detachment Commander).
A clear stipulation that security guards were employed by the agency (ASDAI) and not by MERALCO.
A clause releasing MERALCO from liabilities arising from the acts of the security guards and confirming that discipline, inspection, and replacement of guards were for the agency’s purview.

Subsequently, the individual respondents were absorbed by ASDAI and retained at MERALCO’s head office.

Subsequent Changes and Additional Complaints

On July 21, 1992, following the termination of the agreement with ASDAI, the individual respondents filed a new complaint (NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-07-03953-92) alleging unpaid benefits and illegal dismissal.
On July 25, 1992, MERALCO entered into a new agreement with respondent Advance Forces Security & Investigation Services, Inc. (AFSISI) which terminated the previous ASDAI contract.
The amended complaint by the individual respondents alleged:

Non-payment of overtime, service incentive leave, premium pay for Sundays and Holidays, and uniform allowances.
That respondent Benamira, among others, was unjustly dismissed by not receiving work assignments under AFSISI, effectively amounting to an illegal dismissal by discontinuing any assignment.

Adjudicatory Proceedings and Rulings in Lower Forums

On January 3, 1994, Labor Arbiter Manuel P. Asuncion rendered a decision holding ASDAI (and MERALCO jointly) liable, ordering:

Reinstatement of the individual respondents as regular security guards of ASDAI with full benefits, and
Joint and solidary payment of monetary claims (including deductions for overtime and premium pay) plus attorney’s fees.

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision on April 10, 1995.
On August 11, 1995, after further pleadings, the individual respondents pursued a petition for certiorari specifically mantling the issue of illegal dismissal.

Appeal and the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision

On September 27, 2000, the CA modified the NLRC decision by:

Declaring MERALCO as the direct employer of the individual respondents,
Emphasizing that MERALCO employed a scheme of cyclic hiring through different agencies to allegedly escape security of tenure, and
Ordering MERALCO to reinstate the security guards and pay full backwages computed from the time compensation was withheld.

Petition for Review on Certiorari by MERALCO

MERALCO filed the present petition for review, contesting the CA’s finding on modern issues including:

The determination of the existence of an employer-employee relationship,
The attribution of illegal dismissal, and
The reimbursement right from ASDAI if MERALCO was deemed indirectly liable.

MERALCO’s petition was anchored on several grounds questioning the application of the “four-fold” test (hiring power, wage payment, dismissal power, and control) and disputing the legitimacy of the new theory raised by the individual respondents on appeal.

Issues:

Proper Determination of the Employer-Employee Relationship

Whether the individual respondents are directly employed by MERALCO or solely by the contracted security agencies (ASDAI/AFSISI).
Whether the “four-fold” test (power to hire, payment of wages, power to dismiss, and power to control) is satisfied by MERALCO.

Nature and Effect of the Security Service Agreements

Whether the contractual stipulations indicate a labor-only contracting relationship or a job (independent) contracting relationship.
The significance of the explicit provisions in the security service agreements which designate the agencies as the employers of the security guards.

Procedural and Evidentiary Considerations

The admissibility of the individual respondents’ change in theory on appeal from contending that ASDAI was their employer to asserting MERALCO’s direct employer status.
Whether such a change violates the rules of fair play, justice, and due process as higher courts are precluded from considering issues not alleged in the lower pleadings.

Liability for Wages and Claims of Illegal Dismissal

Whether MERALCO can be held jointly and solidarily liable for the payment of wages, backwages, and other benefits due to the individual respondents under the applicable provisions of the Labor Code.
Whether the alleged termination of work assignments, resulting in “constructive dismissal,” justifies reinstatement and monetary awards.

Right to Reimbursement

Whether MERALCO is entitled to claim reimbursement from the security agency (ASDAI) for payments made to the individual respondents pursuant to its indirect employer status, particularly under Articles 106, 107, and 109 of the Labor Code and Article 1217 of the Civil Code.

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Case Digest (A.C. No. 6942) Core Legal Reasoning Model Expanded

Facts:

Case Digest (A.C. No. 6942) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Ratio:

Doctrine:

Case Digest (A.C. No. 6942)
Core Legal Reasoning Model

Expanded

Case Digest (A.C. No. 6942)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model