G.R. No. 200344 - Miller vs. Miller y Espenida

Petitioner Philippine Bank of Communications entered into a letter agreement in January 1976 with Corporate Executive Search Inc. (CESI) to provide “temporary services” in the form of eleven messengers.
The agreement stipulated a daily service rate of ₱8 per messenger and attached a “List of Messengers” wherein private respondent Ricardo Orpiada was included.
Despite the January 1976 date of the letter agreement, CESI’s position paper stated that Orpiada was hired on June 25, 1975 and assigned to the bank as evidenced by an appointment memo.

Orpiada rendered services at the bank’s premises alongside other personnel supplied by CESI, performing duties as a messenger.
Around October 1976, the bank requested CESI to withdraw Orpiada’s assignment, alleging that his services “were no longer needed.”
Following the withdrawal, CESI terminated Orpiada’s employment, indicating his hiring was solely for the purpose of fulfilling the messenger assignment at the bank.

On October 29, 1976, Orpiada filed a complaint in the Department of Labor (now the Ministry of Labor and Employment) for illegal dismissal and non-payment of the 13th month pay pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 851.
The Regional Office of the Department of Labor initially dismissed the complaint on the ground that Orpiada failed to prove an employer-employee relationship with the bank.
Orpiada succeeded, however, in having his complaint certified for compulsory arbitration in the case “Ricardo Orpiada, complainant, versus Philippine Bank of Communications, respondent.”
During arbitration, the bank and CESI maintained that CESI was Orpiada’s employer and that no direct employment relationship existed between Orpiada and the bank.

On September 12, 1977, Labor Arbiter Dogelio rendered a decision ordering the bank to reinstate Orpiada with full back wages and to pay his 13th month pay for 1976.
The bank appealed on October 26, 1977 to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
More than six years later, the NLRC affirmed the arbiter’s decision with the modification of reducing the complainant’s back wages to two years’ worth.
On April 2, 1984, the bank filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court seeking to annul the decisions of both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC.

The letter agreement between the bank and CESI expressly provided that the individual messengers would be subject to the bank’s acceptance and operate under its workdays, hours, and methods, yet they would remain CESI’s employees.
Despite this contractual language, evidence showed that Orpiada worked within the bank’s premises and was under the bank’s supervision, thus raising questions regarding the true nature of the employment relationship.
The case invoked factors from Viana vs. Al-Lagdan and Pica, particularly the selection and engagement process, the payment of wages, the power of dismissal, and the bank’s control over the employees’ conduct.

Whether a direct employer-employee relationship was established between the petitioner bank and private respondent Ricardo Orpiada.
The implications of CESI’s role in hiring and assigning Orpiada vis-à-vis the bank’s supervisory and control functions.

Whether the arrangement between the bank and CESI constituted a job contracting relationship or a “labor-only” contracting arrangement.
Whether the bank’s attempt to circumscribe its responsibilities under the contractual agreement is acceptable in light of labor laws and statutory factors.

Whether the provisions of the letter agreement, which intended to avoid the establishment of an employer-employee relationship between the bank and the assigned personnel, can override the application of statutory principles.
The effect of exceeding the threshold of one year of service on the status of Orpiada as a regular employee, thereby imposing obligations under the Labor Code.