Case Summary (G.R. No. 82823-24)
Employment Background
The forty-six private respondents were employed under individual contracts with the Petitioner and assigned to various firms requiring security and janitorial services. Their employment contracts contained provisions outlining potential suspension due to the termination of contracts between the Petitioner and its clients. In early 1986, due to the sequestration of various offices by the Presidential Commission on Good Government, many private respondents were placed on "floating status," meaning they were not receiving salary or financial benefits. The private respondents filed a complaint with the Department of Labor and Employment for illegal dismissal on July 25, 1986, which prompted the proceedings.
Legal Findings and Review Process
The labor arbiter ruled in favor of the private respondents, declaring them to have been illegally dismissed and entitled to separation pay and other benefits. This decision was subsequently affirmed by the NLRC. The Petitioner appealed, arguing that the respondents were denied due process and that the NLRC committed a grave abuse of discretion in classifying the respondents as employees. The Petitioner claimed that it was justified in placing the respondents in "floating status" and that premature allegations of dismissal should not be entertained.
Due Process Review
The Supreme Court found that the Petitioner was not denied due process as it had the opportunity to present its case, including submitting position papers and engaging in stipulation of facts. Regarding the employer-employee relationship, evidence indicated that the Petitioner exercised significant control over the private respondents, including determining their salaries, working conditions, and assignments, affirming their status as regular employees entitled to security of tenure.
Employer-Employee Relationship and Dismissal Claims
The determination of an employer-employee relationship required examining various factors, such as selection and engagement, payment of wages, the power of dismissal, and control over employees' conduct. It was clear that the private respondents had been regular employees of the Petitioner. The ruling clarified that if employees remained on "floating status" for over six months, it would constitute constructive dismissal. The NLRC's interpretation of the law was found to be aligned with Article 286 of the Labor Code, indicating that such prolonged "floating status" could lead to termination of employment.
Ruling on Specific Respondents
For the twenty-seven private respondents who accepted employment with other
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 82823-24)
Case Overview
- Case Citation: 256 Phil. 1182
- Division: First Division
- G.R. Nos.: 82823-24
- Date of Decision: July 31, 1989
- Petitioner: Agro Commercial Security Services Agency, Inc.
- Respondents: The National Labor Relations Commission, Hon. Labor Arbiter Bienvenido V. Hermogenes, Manuel Jimenez, et al.
- Legal Issues:
- Determination of employer-employee relationship between a security agency and its security guards.
- Legality of the "floating status" of security guards and if it amounts to illegal dismissal.
Background Facts
- Private respondents, totaling forty-six (46), were employed as security guards and/or janitors under individual contracts with the petitioner.
- These employees were assigned to various firms and offices where the petitioner had service contracts.
- The employment contracts outlined the conditions of employment, including provisions for suspension of employment status in case of termination of client contracts.
- In early 1986, due to the sequestration of offices by the Presidential Commission on Good Government, many private respondents were placed on "floating status" starting September 16, 1986, resulting in an indefinite period without salary or benefits.
- On July 25, 1986, several private respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the petitioner, seeking separation pay, 13th month pay for 1986, and service incentive leave pay.
Labor Arbiter's Decision
- The labor arbiter ruled in favor of the private respondents, determining that they had been illegally dismissed and ordering the petitioner to pay separation pay, 13th month pay, and service incentive leave pay.
- The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the labor arbiter's decision.