Title
Supreme Court
San Miguel Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Case
G.R. No. 147566
Decision Date
Dec 6, 2006
Rafael Maliksi, employed via contractors at SMC for years, sought regularization. Courts ruled him a regular SMC employee, citing labor-only contracting and illegal dismissal, awarding reinstatement, backwages, and damages.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 147566)

Facts of the Case

Rafael Maliksi filed a complaint against SMC and PHILSSEC on October 16, 1990, claiming recognition as a regular employee and alleging illegal dismissal after his services were terminated on October 31, 1990. Maliksi's work history includes engagements with Lipercon and Skillpower, both of which acted as labor contractors for SMC. He argued that his dismissal was retaliatory due to his complaint for regularization and cited the absence of due process in his termination.

Employment Structure and Responsibilities

Maliksi worked under various contracts with the mentioned labor contractors, handling accounting tasks linked to SMC’s Magnolia Division. His employment was characterized as being under the direct supervision of PHILSSEC, with salary payments also facilitated through this contractor. Following the completion of the computerization project on October 31, 1990, Maliksi's engagement was terminated.

Labor Arbiter's Decision

Initially, the Labor Arbiter ruled that Maliksi was a regular employee of PHILSSEC and dismissed the claims against SMC based on a lack of employer-employee relationship between them. The Arbiter granted Maliksi five months of back wages due to his refusal to accept alternative job offers from PHILSSEC.

NLRC and CA Rulings

Dissatisfied with the Labor Arbiter's decision, Maliksi appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which overturned the Arbiter’s ruling. The NLRC declared Maliksi a regular employee of SMC and ordered his reinstatement with full benefits. The Court of Appeals (CA) subsequently affirmed the NLRC’s decision, highlighting that SMC had used the labor contractors to bypass labor laws aimed at establishing regular employment.

Reversal of Labor Arbiter Decision

The NLRC and CA concluded that Maliksi's work was integral to SMC’s operations for over the statutory period required for regularization. The courts found that SMC had employed labor-only contractors, thus negating the stance that Maliksi was simply a project employee while working for PHILSSEC.

Legal Contention and Arguments

In its appeal, SMC argued that Maliksi should not be considered a regular employee because he was employed under PHILSSEC, an independent contractor. SMC contended that the CA's ruling erroneously classified Maliksi as an SMC employee, disregarding the independent nature of PHILSSEC.

Court's Affirmation of Employee Status

The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the lower courts by affirming that the relationship between Maliksi and SMC constituted an employer-employee bond, despite the existence of intermediary contractors. It established that SMC engaged in practices aimed at circumventing labor laws, resulting in the regularization of Maliksi’s employment after more than three years of service.

Bad Faith and Compensation

Th

...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.