FACTS:
291 workers filed their complaints against San Miguel
Corporation and Maerc Integrated Services, Inc, for illegal dismissal,
underpayment of wages, non-payment of service incentive leave pays and other
labor standards benefits, and for separation pays The complainants alleged that
they were hired by San Miguel Corporation (SMC) through its agent or
intermediary Maerc Integrated Services, Inc. (MAERC) to work in 2 designated
workplaces in Mandaue City. They washed and segregated various kinds of empty
bottles used by SMC to sell and distribute its beer beverages to the consuming
public. They were paid on a per piece or pakiao basis except for a
few who worked as checkers and were paid on daily wage basis.
Complainants alleged that long before SMC contracted the services
of MAERC a majority of them had already been working for SMC under the guise of
being employees of another contractor, Jopard Services, until the services of
the latter were terminated on 31 January 1988.
SMC denied liability for the claims and averred that the
complainants were not its employees but of MAERC, an independent contractor
whose primary corporate purpose was to engage in the business of cleaning,
receiving, sorting, classifying, etc., glass and metal containers.
In a letter dated 15 May 1991, SMC informed MAERC of the
termination of their service contract by the end of June 1991. SMC cited its
plans to phase out its segregation activities starting 1 June 1991 due to the
installation of labor and cost-saving devices.
When the service contract was terminated, complainants
claimed that SMC stopped them from performing their jobs; that this was
tantamount to their being illegally dismissed by SMC who was their real
employer as their activities were directly related, necessary and desirable to
the main business of SMC; and, that MAERC was merely made a tool or a shield by
SMC to avoid its liability under the Labor Code. MAERC admitted that it recruited the complainants and placed
them in the bottle segregation project of SMC but maintained that it was only
conveniently used by SMC as an intermediary in operating the project.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision holding that MAERC was
an independent contractor. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruled
that MAERC was a labor-only contractor and that complainants were employees of
SMC.
ISSUE:
Whether the complainants are employees of petitioner SMC or
of respondent MAERC.
HELD:
Employees are those of SMC. In ascertaining an employer-employee
relationship, the following factors are considered: (a) the selection and
engagement of employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal;
and, (d) the power to control an employee's conduct.
Evidence discloses that petitioner played a large and
indispensable part in the hiring of MAERC's workers. It also appears that majority
of the complainants had already been working for SMC long before the signing of
the service contract between SMC and MAERC in 1988.
In the case, the incorporators of MAERC admitted having
supplied and recruited workers for SMC even before MAERC was created. The NLRC also found that when MAERC was
organized into a corporation in February 1988, the complainants who were then
already working for SMC were made to go through the motion of applying for work
with Ms. Olga Ouano, President and General Manager of MAERC.
As for the payment of workers' wages, SMC assumed the
responsibility of paying for the mandated overtime, holiday and rest day pays
of the MAERC workers. SMC also paid the employer's share of the SSS and
Medicare contributions, the 13th month pay, incentive leave pay and maternity
benefits. These lend credence to the complaining workers' assertion that while
MAERC paid the wages of the complainants, it merely acted as an agent of SMC.
SMC maintained a constant presence in the workplace through
its own checkers. The responsibility of watching over the MAERC workers by
MAERC personnel became superfluous with the presence of additional checkers
from SMC. Control of the premises in which the contractor's work was
performed was also viewed as another phase of control over the work, and this
strongly tended to disprove the independence of the contractor.
But the most telling evidence is a letter by Mr. Antonio
Ouano, Vice-President of MAERC addressed to Francisco Eizmendi, SMC President
and Chief Executive Officer, asking the latter to reconsider the phasing out of
SMC's segregation activities in Mandaue City. The letter attested to an arrangement entered
into by the two (2) parties which was not reflected in the Contract of
Services. A peculiar relationship mutually beneficial for a time but
nonetheless ended in dispute when SMC decided to prematurely end the contract
leaving MAERC to shoulder all the obligations to the workers.
While MAERC's investments in the form of buildings, tools
and equipment amounted to more than P4 Million, one cannot disregard the fact
that it was the SMC which required MAERC to undertake such investments under
the understanding that the business relationship between petitioner and MAERC
would be on a long term basis.
NOTES:
Jurisprudence has it that in determining the existence of an
independent contractor relationship, several factors may be considered such as:
o
whether the contractor was carrying on an
independent business
o
the nature and extent of the work
o
the skill required
o
the term and duration of the relationship
o
the right to assign the performance of specified
pieces of work
o
the control and supervision of the workers
o
the power of the employer with respect to the
hiring, firing and payment of the workers of the contractor
o
the control of the premises
o
i.the duty to supply premises, tools, appliances,
materials and labor
o
the mode, manner and terms of payment.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento