Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

Myla Ruth N.

Sara

Vallum vs. NLRC

FACTS:

Petitioner Hyatt Baguio and petitioner Vallum entered into a contract for security services wherein Vallum
agreed to protect the properties and premises of Hyatt by providing guards.
Hyatt’s Manager wrote a letter to the President of Vallum that the contract of security services would be
terminated. So, Vallum informed the respondents that the contract had already expired. Private respondents were
directed to report to Vallum;s office for re-assignment. However, none of the respondents reported. Instead, they
filed complaints for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practices.

ISSUE: W/N private respondent security guards are indeed employees of petitioner Hyatt

HELD: Yes.
In respect of the selection and engagement of employees, private respondents filled up Hyatt employment
application forms and submitted directly to Hyatt.
With regards to control and supervision, orders received by private respondent security guards were set
forth on paper bearing the letterheads of both Hyatt and Vallum. Therefore, Hyatt explicitly purported at the very
least, to share with Vallum the exercise of the power of control and supervision with Vallum over the guards.
However, in the contract for security services between Vallum and Hyatt, it provides that the Agency shall
exercise supervision and control, provide its own expense all necessary paraphernalia and the Agency shall be held
solely liable for any claim of wages and damages. SC ruled that the aforementioned facts are different from that of
the contract. The characterization of such relationship cannot conclusively be made in terms alone in the written
agreement but must rest upon the detailed facts.
Under Rule VII of Book III Sec. 8, there is job contracting when the contractor carries on an independent
business. In the case at bar, Vallum did not have a branch in Baguio. Hyatt provided Valum with offices at Hyatt’s
own premises.
With respect to the performance of work, the security guards were performing activities directly related to
the business operation of Hyatt since to safeguard the person and belongings of the guests is an obligation of a
hotel with its guests.
Wherefore, petition is dismissed.