Title
Supreme Court
Barretto vs. Amber Golden Pot Restaurant
Case
G.R. No. 254596-97
Decision Date
Nov 24, 2021
Riders employed by Amber through AMSI were illegally dismissed; SC ruled AMSI engaged in labor-only contracting, making Amber the real employer, awarding backwages and refunds.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 254596-97)

Factual Background

The petitioners were hired as riders by Amber Golden Pot Restaurant at various times between 2010 and 2014. On April 30, 2016, Amber entered into a Project Agreement with AMSI to provide necessary workers for its branches. The petitioners claimed they were illegally dismissed on May 19, 2017, without just cause or due process. They filed a complaint against Amber and AMSI for wrongful dismissal, non-payment of wages, illegal deductions, and various damages.

Labor Arbiter's Decision

On April 16, 2018, the Labor Arbiter ruled that the petitioners were illegally dismissed, as Amber had not proven compliance with just cause and due process requirements. The Arbiter found that AMSI was engaged in labor-only contracting, as it did not meet the substantial capital requirement and lacked independent control over the workers' performance. The petitioners were also awarded backwages and refunds for illegal deductions.

Ruling by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)

Affirming the Labor Arbiter's ruling on September 10, 2018, the NLRC held that AMSI had not demonstrated sufficient independence from Amber. The NLRC highlighted that the workers were integral to Amber’s business operations, reinforcing the notion of illegal dismissal due to the absence of proper termination procedures. The NLRC rejected AMSI's submission of additional documents on appeal, stating that the evidence suggested Amber maintained control over the petitioners.

Court of Appeals Decision

The CA partially granted the petitions for certiorari from Amber and AMSI on February 13, 2020, reversing the NLRC's ruling, citing AMSI's status as a legitimate labor contractor based on its registration and adequate capital. The CA concluded that the petitioners failed to prove they'd been dismissed and were thus not entitled to reinstatement or backwages. However, it upheld illegal deductions related to meal expenses, which lacked consent from the petitioners.

Supreme Court Review

The Supreme Court, recognizing the conflicting findings, decided to review the factual issues raised by the parties. It reiterated the nature of labor-only contracting as defined under Article 106 of the Labor Code and determined that AMSI engaged in this practice, failing to operate independently of Amber. The Court emphasized the substantial connection between the petitioners’ work as riders and Amber’s core business operati

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.