Case Summary (G.R. No. 217301)
Antecedent Facts
The respondents, Asprec and Bataller, claimed to have been regular employees of PPI, with Asprec having started work in January 2001 and Bataller in March 2008. They described how PPI referred them to CBMI for continued employment, resulting in a situation where they continued their roles without significant change in duties or supervision, despite being transitioned to CBMI's payroll. The controversy erupted after an incident of alleged attempted theft involving CBMI personnel, which led to the respondents’ suspension and subsequent dismissal.
Labor Arbiter’s Ruling
Following the filing of their complaint on November 12, 2010, for constructive illegal dismissal, the Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled on June 27, 2011, in favor of the respondents, ordering their reinstatement due to what was determined as illegal dismissal by the bosses of both CBMI and PPI. The LA utilized the "four-fold test" to establish their employment status under PPI and found both companies liable, denying any assertion of legitimate job contracting by CBMI.
National Labor Relations Commission's (NLRC) Ruling
The NLRC issued a resolution on September 28, 2011, affirming the LA's decision yet modifying the responsibilities concerning payment and effectively dropping PPI from the case. It asserted that the respondents were regular employees of CBMI, highlighting the importance of employment contracts and CBMI’s acknowledgment of the respondents' employment status. This led to appeals from both parties concerning the NLRC's determination.
Court of Appeals (CA) Ruling
On November 15, 2013, the CA reversed the NLRC's resolution, stating that CBMI was acting as a labor-only contractor, which rendered the arrangement illegal. The CA concluded that their duties were essential to PPI's core business and that PPI maintained sufficient control over their work activities, leading to a declaration of illegal dismissal.
Issues Presented
The main issues evaluated were whether CBMI qualifies as a labor-only contractor and whether the respondents have validly claimed to be illegally dismissed, leading towards entitlement to monetary claims for damages, including back wages and attorney's fees.
Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court determined the petition to be partially meritorious. The Court acknowledged the divergence in factual assessments between the LA, NLRC, and CA, allowing for a re-evaluation of the evidence. The Court concluded that CBMI was indeed an independent contractor based on substantial investment criteria and operational control. It emphasized that no convincing evidence was presented to rebut the presumption of regularity bestowed upon CBMI by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).
Dismissal and Suspension Analysis
The Court noted that while CBMI legi
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 217301)
Background of the Case
- The case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by Consolidated Building Maintenance, Inc. (CBMI) and its Human Resource Manager Sarah Delgado, challenging the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated November 15, 2013, and its Resolution dated March 4, 2015.
- The CA Decision denied the petition for certiorari filed by the petitioners, which sought to overturn the Resolution dated September 28, 2011, of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) that upheld the Labor Arbiter's (LA) decision from June 27, 2011.
- The respondents, Rolando Asprec, Jr. and Jonalen Bataller, alleged that they were wrongfully dismissed and sought reinstatement and monetary claims.
Antecedent Facts
- CBMI is a corporation providing various services, including janitorial and kitchen services, primarily for clients like Philippine Pizza, Inc. (PPI).
- The respondents were employed by PPI but were later assigned to CBMI, which they claimed was a scheme to prevent their regularization.
- Asprec and Bataller detailed their employment transitions, asserting that after their contracts with PPI expired, they were required to sign contracts with CBMI while continuing their work at PPI under similar conditions.
- The respondents were eventually involved in an incident related to an attempted theft, which led to their suspension and subsequent dismissal by CBMI.
Labor Arbiter's Ruling
- The LA ruled in favor of the respondents, fin