CASE DIGEST: LIKHA-PMPB vs Burlingame Corp 524 SCRA 690 (2007)

Concept: Independent Contract and Labor Only Contractor

Facts:

• Jan. 17, 2000, LIKHA-PMPB filed a petition for certification before DOLE, it seeks to represent all RANK and FILE EMPLOYEES (means the employee doesn't occupy a high-level position within the organization) of the respondent, which counts to 70 all in all.
• LIKA-PMPB said that there is no existing union in Burlingame representing the regular rank and file employees.
• It prayed that it be voluntarily recognized by Burlingame to be a collective bargaining agent or the alternative, that a certification/consent election be held among regular rank and file employees.
• Burlingame filed a motion to dismiss the petition. It argued that there exists no employee-employer relationship between them and the members of the LIKHA-PMPB. It further alleged that the members are employee F.GARIL MANPOWER SERVICES, a duly licensed local employment agency. To prove such contention, respondent presented a copy of its contract with F. Garil.
• June 29, 2000. Med-Arbiter Renato Panungo dismissed the petition for lack of employee-employer relationship, which lead LIKHA to file a appeal before the secretary of labor and employment.
• December 29, 2000. Secretary ordered the immediate conduct of a certificaiton election.
• Respondents went to CA, CA revered the decision. Petitioners filed for a motion of reconsideration. Denied.

Issue: w/on employee-employer exists because F. Garil is an independent contractor

Held:

• There is is employee-employer relationship and F.Garil is not an independent contractor 
• Findings shows thru four-fold test, shows that there is Employee-Employer relationship (1) selection (2) payment of wages (3) power to dismiss (4) power to control conduct
• F. Garil is a labor only contractor. 
• Does not have substantial capital or investments in form of tools, equipment, machineries, work premises and other materials
• the work of the promo girls are directly relation to the princicpal business
• free from control and supervision from its principal

Source and Full Text: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/162053.htm

San Miguel Corp vs NLRC 510 SCRA 181 (2006)

Concept: Requirements for Independent Contractor

Facts:

• SMC (San Miguel) seeks to reverse the decision of the CA which affirmed the decision of the NLRC that Rafael Maliksi is a REGULAR EMPLOYEE
• Oct. 16, 1990. Maliksi filed a complaint against SMC compelling them to recgonize him as regular employee. Oct 31, 1990, he was dismissed by SMC.
• His complaint then now includes illegal dismissal
• Maliksi thru Lipercon (contractor), was assigned to SMC. After a while another contractor (Skillpower) assigned him to SMC again then lastly, another contractor (Philippine Sofware Services and Education Center or PHILSEC) assgined him to SMC. (To clarify things dear reader, Three different agencies assigned him to SMC). Those assignments are from 1981 to 1985.
• Maliksi argued that he is an employee if Magnolia (a division of SMC). He also argued that the contractors are LABOR ONLY CONTRACTORS and not his employer.
• PHILSEC disclaimed liability as it catered only to computerized accounting needs of businesses like SMC. PHILSEC's principal funding being manual control of data needed during computerization.
• Maliksi was terminated because the project ended.
• SMC contends that PHILSEC exercised sxclusive managerial prerogative over Maliksi as ti hiring, payment of salary, dismissal, and control of his work (take note these are the requisites for employee-employer relationship). PHILSEC has substantial capital of its own and what it caters to clients are computer programs and training systems on computer tech and not the usual labor or man power supply (test for independent contractor).
• SMC said that Maliksi's service has no relations to SMC's primary business which is food and beverages. (The court said that this contention has no merit since accounting chorva is part of the business).
• The Labor Arbiter declared that Maliksi is an employee of PHILSEC.
• Maliksi appealed to the NLRC, reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter, making SMC the employer.
• SMC appealed to the CA. CA affired the decision of the NLRC.
• CA said that tho Lipercon and Skillpower are mere conduits on Maliksi being on SMC, still made him (Maliksi) a regular employee because of the required one year period.

Issue: W/ON Maliksi is a regular employee

Held. Yes, he is a regular employee. Lipercon and Skillpower are LABOR ONLY CONTRACTORS providing personnel services for a fee. There is an employee-employer relationship and the court gives due deference ti the factual findings of the NLRS and CA. Having served SMC for 3 years thru Lipercon and Skillpower deemed Maliksi a regular employee.

Source and Full Text: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/december2006/147566.htm