Case Summary (G.R. No. L-56077)
Applicable Law and Legal Framework
1987 Philippine Constitution – guiding principles on labor relations and social justice.
Labor Code of the Philippines, as interpreted under relevant jurisprudence.
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, particularly Section 8, Rule VII, Book II on legitimate job contractors.
Factual Background
PSI entered into a security service agreement with PLDT, supplying uniformed, armed security guards to protect PLDT’s facilities. The agreement explicitly disavowed any employer-employee relationship between PLDT and the security guards, vesting PSI with full control over hiring, supervision, discipline, and payment of guards. PLDT’s role was limited to interviewing security guards referred by PSI and accepting or rejecting them based on standards such as height requirements.
Petitioners’ Allegations
The security guards asserted that they have worked for PLDT since 1982 and were under PLDT’s direct control and supervision. They contended that although PSI or other agencies supplied security, PLDT effectively controlled their work, and PSI acted merely as a middleman for wage payments. The petitioners thus claimed entitlement to regular employee status with benefits and compensation on par with PLDT rank-and-file employees. After filing the complaint, the petitioners formed a union to assert their rights.
Procedural History
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the dismissal. On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the NLRC’s decision, concluding that PSI, not PLDT, was the employer. The Supreme Court initially denied the petition for review on procedural grounds but subsequently reconsidered and decided to address the merits of the case.
Legal Issue
The central question was whether an employer-employee relationship exists between the petitioners and PLDT despite the security service contract involving PSI, the security agency.
Legal Standard: Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. NLRC
The Supreme Court applied the four-factor test from Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. NLRC to determine employer status:
- Selection and engagement of the employee;
- Payment of wages;
- Power to dismiss;
- Power to control employee conduct.
Application of Legal Standard to the Case
- Selection and Engagement: Evidence demonstrated that PSI exercised exclusive power to hire, engage, and discharge security guards. The PLDT interviews served only as a screening procedure for acceptance but did not create an employer-employee relationship. Employment relationship was deemed complete upon hiring by PSI before assignment to PLDT.
- Payment of Wages: PSI was responsible for determining and paying wages directly to the guards. PLDT merely paid PSI a lump sum for services; wage payment was unrelated to PLDT. Guards enjoyed employee benefits under PSI, including social security registration.
- Power to Dismiss: Although PLDT could demand replacement of security guards for valid reasons based on their performance, actual dismissal and employment termination were within PSI’s authority. Being removed from PLDT did not mean termination from PSI; guards could be reassigned to other clients.
- Power to Control Conduct: While PLDT monitored guard performance and provided training, such activities did not translate into direct supervision or control to establish an employer-employee relationship. The trainings were funded and approved by PSI, and monitoring was part of PLDT’s quality assurance as a client.
Validity of PSI as a Job Contractor
The Court affirmed PSI’s status as a legitimate and independent job contractor in accordance with the Omnibus Rules implementing the Labor Code. PSI possessed substantial capital, proper licensing, business facilities, and had multiple clients aside from PLDT, confirming its independence.
Rejection of Petitioners’ Arguments
The Court rejected contentions that PSI was an “in-house” agency of PLDT warranting piercing of corporate identity. It also dismissed the claim that certificates or commendations from PLDT to guards indicated an employer-employee relationship, recognizing these as mere recognition not control mechanisms.
Findings on Individual Petitioners
Documentation for key petitioners such as Zaldy Abella and Roberto Basilides showed employment contracts, assignments, leaves, and disciplinary actions issued solely by PSI, reinforcing PSI’s employer status.
Affirmation of Lower Tribunal Findings
Given that the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and Court of Appeals consistently found PSI as the employer and these findings were supported by substantial evidence, the Supreme Court adhered t
...continue reading