PBCOM Vs NLRC

 

037 PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS

vs. NLRC G.R. No. L-66598 December 19, 1986

FACTS:

Petitioner Philippine Bank of Communications and the Corporate Executive Search Inc. (CESI) entered into a letter agreement dated January 1976 under which CES) undertook to provide "Tempo[rary] Services" to petition pet itioner er Cons Consistin isting g of the "tempo "temporary rary services services"" of ele eleven ven (11) messeng messengers. ers. The contract contract period is described as being "from January 1976—." Attached to the letter agreement was a "List of Messengers assigned at Philippine Bank of Communications" which list included, as item No. 5 thereof, the name of  private respondent Ricardo Orpiada. Ricardo Orpiada was thus assigned to work with the petitioner bank. As such, he rendered services to the bank, within the premises of the bank and alongside other people also rendering services to the bank.  There was some question as to when Ricardo Orpiada commence commenced d rendering services to the bank. As noted above, the letter agreement was dated January 1976. However, the position paper submitted by CESI to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC (NLRC)) stated that CES) hired Ricardo Orpiada on 25 June 1975 as a Tempo Service employee, and assigned him to work with the petitioner bank "as evidenced by the appointment memo issued to him on 25 June 1975.” 1975. ” Be that as it may, on or about October 1976, the petition pet itioner er requeste requested d CES CESII to withdraw withdraw Orpiada' Orpiada's s assig assignmen nmentt bec because ause,, in the allegation allegation of the bank, Orpiada's services "were no longer needed." On 29 October 1976, Orpiada instituted a complaint in the Department of Labor (now Ministry of Labor and Employment) Employmen t) against the petitioner for illegal dismissal and failure to pay the 13th month pay provided for in Presidential Decree No. 851. After investigation, the Office of the Regional Director, Regional Office No. IV of the Department of Labor, issued an order dismissing Orpiada's complaint for failure of Mr. Orpiada to show the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the bank and himself. Despi Despite te the for foreg egoin oing g ord order, er, Orp Orpiad iada a su succe cceede eded d in hav having ing his compla complaint int certi certifie fied d for com compul pulsor sory y arbitratio arbit ration. n. Duri During ng the compulso compulsory ry arbit arbitratio ration n proc proceed eedings ings,, CESI was brought brought into the picture as an additional respondent by the bank. Both the bank and CESI stoutly maintained that CESI (and not the bank) was the employer of Orpiada. On 12 September 1977, respondent Labor Arbiter Dogelio rendered a decision reinstating complainant to the same or equivalent position with full back wages and to pay the latter's 13th month pay for the year 1976. On 26 October 1977, the bank appealed the decision of the Labor Arbiter to the respondent NLRC. More than six years later—the NLRC promulgated its decision affirming the award of the Labor Arbiter except for the modification reducing the complainant's back wages to two (2) years without qualification. Accordingly, on 2 April 1984, the bank filed the present petition for certiorari with this Court seeking to annul and set aside the decision of respondent Labor Arbiter Dogelio and the decision of the NLRC. ISSUE:

WON an em emplo ploye yer-e r-emp mploy loyee ee rel relati ations onship hip exist existed ed betwe between en the pe petit tition ioner er Phil. Phil. Bank Bank of 

Communications Communication s and private respondent respondent Ricardo Orpiada. Orpiada. HELD:

Yes, because CESI is a “labor-only” contractor.

It is in necessary in this case to confront the task of determining the appropriate characterization of the relationship between the bank and CESI was that relationship one of employer and job (independent) contractor or one of employer and "labor-only" contractor to resolve the issue. 106 , an employer who enters Under the general rule set out in the 1st and 2nd paragraphs of Article 106, into a contract with a contractor for the performance of work for the employer, does not thereby create an emplo em ploye yer-e r-empl mploye oyee e relat relation ionshi ship p be betwe tween en himse himself lf and th the e emp employ loyee ees s of the con contra tracto ctor. r. Thu Thus, s, th the e employee empl oyees s of the contrac contractor tor rema remain in the contrac contractor's tor's employees employees and his alone alone.. Nonethel Nonetheless ess when when a contractor fails to pay the wages of his employees in accordance with the Labor Code, the employer who contracted out the job to the contractor becomes jointly and severally liable with his contractor to the employees of the latter "to the extent of the work performed under the contract" as such employer were the employer employer of the cont contracto ractor's r's employe employees. es. The law itself, in other other word words, s, establis establishes hes an employe employerremployee relationship between the employer and the job contractor's employees for a limited purpose, i.e., in order to ensure that the latter get paid the wages due to them. A similar situation obtains where there is "labor only" contracting. The "labor-only" contractor-i.e "the person or intermediary" is considered "merely "merely as an agent of the employer. " The employer is made by the statute responsible to the employees of the "labor only" contractor as if such employees had been directly 

 

037

employed by the employer . Thus, where "labor only" contracting exists in a given case, the statute itself  implies or establishes an employer-e employer-employee mployee relationship betwee between n the employer (the owner of the project) and the employees of the "labor only" contractor, this time for a comprehensive purpose: "employer for purposes of this of  this Code, Code, to prevent any violation or circumven circumvention tion of  any provision of  this Code. Code. " The law in effect holds both the employer and the "labor-only" contractor responsible responsible to the latter's employees employees for the more effective safeguarding of the employees' rights under the Labor Code.  The bank and CESI urge that CESI is NOT properly regarded as a "labor-only" contractor upon the ground that CESI is possessed of substantial capital or investment in the form of office equipment, tools and trained service personnel. We are unable to agree with the bank and CES) on this score. The definition of "labor-only" of  "labor-only" contracting in Section 9 of Rule VIII of Book III entitled "Conditions of Employment," of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code must be read in conjunction with the definition of  job  job contracting given Rules . The undertaking given by CESI in favor of the bank was not the in Section 8 of the same Rules. performance of a specific job for instance, the carriage and delivery of documents and parcels to the addresses thereof. In the present case, the undertaking of CESI was to  provide its client-the bank-with a certain number of persons able to carry out the work of messengers . Orpiada utilized the premises and office equipment equipment of the bank and not those of CESI’s. Succinctly put, CESI is not a parcel delivery company: as its name indicates, it is a recruitment and placement corporation placing bodies, as it were, in different client companies for longer or shorter periods of time.

Phil Bank v NLRC FACTS: 

Petitioner and CESI entered into a letter agreement wherein CESI will provide “Temporary Services” topetitioner. Attached to the letter was a list of messeng ers, assigned to work with the petitioner, includingrespondent Orpiada. Orpiad Orpi ada a rend render ered ed serv servic ices es withi within n the the prem premis ises es of the the bank. bank. On Octo Octobe berr 1976 1976,, petitionerrequested CESI to withdraw Orpiada’s assignment because Orpiada’s services were no longer needed. Thus,Orpia Thus,Orpiada da filed a complaint complaint against against petitioner petitioner for illegal illegal dismissal and failure top ay the 13 th month pay. ISSUE:

W/N an ER-EE relationship existed between the bank and respondent HELD:

 Yes .In the case at bar, Orpiada is not previously selected by the bank but was a assigned ssigned to work work by CESI CESI.. The The sele select ctio ion n of Orpia Orpiada da by CESI CESI,, was was howe howeve verr subj subjec ectt to the the acceptance of the bank. With respect to the payment of Orpiada’s wages, the bank remitted to CESI the daily rate or Orpiada and CESI pays the latter his wages. He was al also so lis liste ted d in the the payr payroll oll of CESI CESI with with SSS SSS dedu deduct ctio ion. n. In re resp spec ectt of the the power power of  dismissal, dismis sal, the bank requested CESI to withdraw withdraw Orpiada’s Orpiada’s assignment, assignment, which resulted resulted to the latter’s termination. With regards to power of control, Orpiada performed his functions within the bank’s premises and not inCESA/Payment of wages and power of  dism dismis issa sall exis existt betwe between en CESI CESI and and Orpi Orpiad ada. a. Howe Howeve ver, r, selec selecti tion on and and cont contro roll exis existt between Orpiada and the bank. Thus, it is necessary to determine the relationship between the bank andCESI, whether the latter is a job (independent) contactor or a labor-only contracting. In the present case, the undertaking of CESI in favor of the bank was not the performance performance of a specific job, but to produce its client – the bank – with a certain number of persons to work as messengers. Thus, Orpiada utilized the premises and office equipment equipment of the bank and not of CESI. Orpiada Orpiada worked in the bank for a

 

037

period of 16 months. Under the Labor Code, any employee who has rendered at least 1 year, whether continuous or not, shall be considered as a regular employee. Therefore, CESI was only engaged in a labor-only contracting with petitioner and Orpiada. As a result,petitioner is liable to Opiada as if Opiada had been directly employer by the bank. Wherefore, petition of certiorari is denied.