ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION, now merged with PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL BANK, petitioner
vs. REYNOLD
CALUMPANG, respondent
G.R. No. 219435 | January 17, 2018
TOPIC:
Contracting and Subcontracting of Labor
FACTS:
Petitioner Allied Banking Corporation and
Race Cleaners, Inc. entered into a Service Agreement whereby RCI will provide
Allied with messengerial, janitorial, communication, and maintenance services.
On Sept. 28, 2003, respondent Reynold
Calumpang was hired as a janitor by RCI and was assigned at the bank’s Tanjay
City Branch.
Petitioner observed that whenever
respondent went out on errands, it takes a long time for him to return to the
branch. It was eventually discovered that during these times, respondent was
also plying his pedicab and ferrying passengers. The Bank Manager also found
out that respondent has been borrowing money from several clients of the
branch. He was then told by the Bank Manager that his services was no longer
needed.
Thereafter, respondent filed a complaint
for illegal dismissal and underpayment of wages against petitioner before the
NLRC.
In his position paper, respondent asserted
that the four-fold test of employer-employee relationship is present between
him and the bank. He averred that he was a regular employee of the Bank
assigned as a janitor of the branch with a salary P4,200 payable every 15 days
each month, and assigned such other tasks essential and necessary for the
Bank’s business.
He alleged that petitioner engaged his services
and exercised direct control and supervision over him, through the Branch Head,
not only as to the result of his work but also as to the means and methods by
which the same was to be accomplished. As regards the payment of salary,
respondent claimed that it was the Branch that directly paid his salaries and
wages. As for the power of dismissal, respondent further alleged that it was
petitioner Bank, through its Branch Head, who terminated his services.
Pettitioner denied the existence of any
employer-employee relationship between itself and respondent. It asserted that
respondent was clearly an employee of RCI by virtue of the Service Agreement
which clearly indicated in Article XI thereof that there would be no
employer-employee relationship between RCI’s employees and the Bank. It further
averred that RCI is a qualified job contractor because of its capitalization
and the fact that it exercised control and supervision over its employees
deployed at the branches of the petitioner in accordance with Rule VIII-A, Sec.
4, pars. (d) & (e) of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code.
ISSUE:
1.
Whether RCI is a labor-only
contractor
2.
Whether there exists an
employer-employee relationship between the Bank and the respondent
RULING:
Permissible job contracting or
subcontracting has been distinguished from labor-only contracting such that
permissible job contracting or subcontracting refers to an arrangement whereby
a principal agrees to put out or farm out to a contractor the performance or
completion of a specific job, work or service within a definite or
predetermined period, regardless of whether such job, work or service is to be
performed or completed within or outside the premises of the principal, while
labor-only contracting, on the other hand, pertains to an arrangement where the
contractor or subcontractor merely recruits, supplies or places workers to
perform a job, work or service for a principal.
As a general rule, a contractor is presumed
to be a labor-only contractor, unless such contractor overcomes the burden of
proving that it has the substantial capital, investment, tools and the like.
In the present case, petitioner failed to
establish that RCI is a legitimate labor contractor as contemplated under the
Labor Code. Except for the bare allegation of petitioner that RCI had
substantial capitalization, it presented no supporting evidence to show the
same. Aside from this, petitioner’s claim that RCI exercised control and
supervision over respondent is belied by the fact that petitioner admitted that
its own Branch Manager had informed respondent that his services would no
longer be required at the Branch. Moreover, respondent’s work is related to
petitioner’s business and is characterized as part of or in pursuit of its
banking operations.
A finding that a contractor is a labor-only
contractor, as opposed to permissible job contracting, is equivalent to
declaring that there is an employer-employee relationship between the principal
and the employees of the supposed contractor, and the labor-only contractor is
considered as a mere agent of the principal, the real employer.
In this case, petitioner bank is the
principal employer and RCI is the labor-only contractor. Accordingly,
petitioner and RCI are solidarily liable for the rightful claims of respondent.
Comments
Post a Comment