Title
Philippine School of Business Administration vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Case
G.R. No. 114143
Decision Date
Aug 28, 1996
Employees Cunanan and Ramos, employed by PSBA since 1981, were illegally dismissed after being forced to join GAYREN. SC ruled they were regular PSBA employees, entitled to reinstatement and backwages, but denied damages due to lack of bad faith.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 114143)

Applicable Law

The 1987 Philippine Constitution and the Labor Code govern the legal principles involved in this case, particularly in the context of employer-employee relationships and the rights of workers.

Factual Background

On April 6, 1989, private respondents Cunanan and Ramos, along with the union, filed a complaint against PSBA-Manila and Gayren Maintenance Specialist (GAYREN) for non-payment of service incentive leave pay, 13th-month pay, and legal holiday pay. GAYREN claimed that Cunanan and Ramos were its employees and not those of PSBA-Manila. However, the private respondents contended they had been regular employees of PSBA-Manila since 1981, working as a carpenter and plumber.

Employment Relationship and Job Contracting

The ruling establishes that job contracting is permissible under specific conditions, including the contractor's independence and substantial capital investment in business operations. The absence of these elements renders the relationship a "labor-only" contract, classifying the contractor as an agent of the principal employer. The Labor Arbiter initially dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, but the NLRC later overturned this decision, recognizing the continued employment status of Cunanan and Ramos with PSBA-Manila.

Regular Employment and Dismissal

The decision highlights that Cunanan and Ramos were deemed regular employees due to their long-term service and the nature of their work, which was integral to PSBA-Manila's operations. Their dismissal by GAYREN for lack of project work was not classified as a just or authorized cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code. Consequently, the court recognized this dismissal as illegal and granted appropriate remedies, including reinstatement and three years of back wages.

Dismissal of Damages Claim

While the court affirmed the recognition of illegal dismissal, it denied the awar

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.