G.R. No. 238289 - Ortiz vs. Forever Richsons Trading Corp.

Oscar S. Ortiz (petitioner) filed a complaint on June 28, 2013, against Forever Richsons Trading Corporation, now Charverson Wood Industry Corporation, and Adan Co (respondents) for illegal dismissal and money claims.
Oscar claimed to have been hired by Forever Richsons in June 2011 through a 5-month employment contract with Workpool Manpower Services, a manpower agency.
Despite contract expiration, Oscar continued working for respondents. In April 2013, workers were asked to sign new 5-month contracts and other documents; Oscar refused.

Oscar alleged he was a regular employee of the respondents for two years post-expiration of the contract, performing necessary tasks related to respondents’ plywood manufacturing and marketing business.
He claimed illegal dismissal after refusing to sign new contracts and blank documents.
Oscar submitted payslips indicating payment below minimum wage and claimed non-payment of holiday pay, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, and overtime.
He prayed for reinstatement, backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

Respondents asserted that Oscar was employed by Workpool Manpower, a legitimate job contractor certified by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).
Oscar signed a project worker contract with Workpool Manpower from January 24 to June 24, 2013.
Workpool Manpower’s manager attested Oscar was their employee and that his employment terminated upon contract expiration.
Respondents contended they were not Oscar’s employer and denied liability over his dismissal and monetary claims.

Labor Arbiter dismissed Oscar’s complaint for failure to implead Workpool Manpower as an indispensable party, though found that Oscar became Workpool Manpower’s regular employee after the contract expired.
NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s dismissal and ruling regarding Workpool Manpower’s indispensability.
Oscar’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC.

The CA dismissed Oscar’s petition for certiorari, upholding the NLRC decision.
The CA agreed that Workpool Manpower was Oscar’s employer and highlighted Oscar’s refusal to implead it as an indispensable party.
The CA distinguished Oscar’s case from a prior CA decision involving another employee, William Longakit, citing differences in admission of contracts.

Oscar questioned the CA’s ruling, asserting he was a regular employee of respondents, and Workpool Manpower was a labor-only contractor.
He claimed the CA erred in dismissing his petition based on a technical ground that violated his substantive rights.
Respondents maintained that Oscar was employed solely by Workpool Manpower and that contracting was legitimate.

Whether the contract between respondents and Workpool Manpower constitutes labor-only contracting.