0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
219 vues1 page
1. Philippine Bank of Communication hired Corporate Executive Search Inc. to provide temporary messenger services, including Ricardo Orpiada. Orpiada worked at the bank but was paid by CESI.
2. When the bank no longer needed Orpiada's services, they requested CESI remove him. Orpiada filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
3. The NLRC found an employer-employee relationship existed between the bank and Orpiada, as the bank controlled Orpiada's work. The bank was ordered to reinstate Orpiada with back wages.
1. Philippine Bank of Communication hired Corporate Executive Search Inc. to provide temporary messenger services, including Ricardo Orpiada. Orpiada worked at the bank but was paid by CESI.
2. When the bank no longer needed Orpiada's services, they requested CESI remove him. Orpiada filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
3. The NLRC found an employer-employee relationship existed between the bank and Orpiada, as the bank controlled Orpiada's work. The bank was ordered to reinstate Orpiada with back wages.
1. Philippine Bank of Communication hired Corporate Executive Search Inc. to provide temporary messenger services, including Ricardo Orpiada. Orpiada worked at the bank but was paid by CESI.
2. When the bank no longer needed Orpiada's services, they requested CESI remove him. Orpiada filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
3. The NLRC found an employer-employee relationship existed between the bank and Orpiada, as the bank controlled Orpiada's work. The bank was ordered to reinstate Orpiada with back wages.
GR No. L-66598 acts! Philippine Bank of Communications (PBC) and the Corporate Executive Search Inc. (CESI) entered into a letter agreement dated Januar !"#$ under %hich CESI undertook to provide temporar services to PBC consisting of the temporar services of !! messengers. &ttached to the letter %as a list of messengers to 'e assigned( %hich included )icardo *rpiada )icardo *rpiada %as thus assigned to %ork %ith the petitioner 'ank. &s such( he rendered services to the 'ank( %ithin the premises of the 'ank and alongside other people also rendering services to the 'ank. +here %as some ,uestion as to %hen )icardo *rpiada commenced rendering services to the 'ank. &s noted a'ove( the letter agreement %as dated Januar !"#$.-o%ever(..the position paper su'mitted ' (CESI) to the /ational 0a'or )elations Commission stated that (CESI) hired )icardo *rpiada on 12 June !"#2 as a +emporar Service emploee( and assigned him to %ork %ith the petitioner 'ank 3as evidenced ' the appointment memo issued to him on 12 June !"#2. 3 *cto'er !"#$( PBC re,uested CESI to %ithdra% *rpiada4s assignment 'ecause his services %ere no longer needed. *rpiada instituted a complaint %ith the 5ept of 0a'or for illegal dismissal and failure to pa !6 th month pa. &fter investigation( the *ffice of the )egional 5irector issued an order dismissing *rpiada4s complaint for failure to sho% existence of an emploer7emploee relationship 'et%een the 'ank and himself. *rpiada succeeded in having his complaint certified for compulsor ar'itration( CESI %as made an additional respondent. 0a'or &r'iter 5ogelio rendered a decision ordering PBC to reinstated *rpiada to the same or e,uivalent position %ith full 'ack %ages and to pa his !6 th month pa. *n appeal( /0)C modified the lBaor &r'iter4s decision limiting 'ack %ages to t%o ears and affirmed in all other aspects "ssue! 8hether or not an emploer7emploee relationship existed #el$ 9es( there %as an emploer7emploee relationship. +he court affirmed the /0)C decision. Ratio! +here are four factors to verif the existence of an emploer7emploee relationship: selection and engagement of the putative emploee( pament of %ages( po%er of dismissal( and po%er to control the putative emploees; conduct. 8ith respect to the selection and engagement of the emploee( although *rpiada %as not personall selected ' PBC( his selection %as still su'<ect to the acceptance of the 'ank. 8ith respect to %ages( PBC remitted to CESI amounts corresponding to the dail service rate and CESI paid the %ages. *rpiada did not even appear in the paroll of PBC( 'ut %as listed in the paroll of CESI. 8ith respect to po%er of dismissal( after %ithdra%al from his assignment( he %as also terminated ' CESI. It %ould appear that he %as hired ' CESI specificall for assignment %ith PBC. 8ith regards to control( since *rpiada performed his functions %ithin the 'ank4s premises( not %ithin CESI4s premises( he must have 'een su'<ect to at least the same control and supervision that the 'ank exercises. &pplication of the a'ove factors in the specific context of this case appears to ield mixed results so far as concerns the existence of an emploer7 emploer relationship 'et%een the 'ank and *rpiada.=nder the general rule set out in the first and second paragraphs of &rticle !>$( an emploer %ho enters into a contract %ith a contractor for the performance of %ork for the emploer( does not there' create an emploer7emploee relationship 'et%een himself and the emploees of the contractor. +hus( the emploees of the contractor remain the contractor;s emploees and his alone. /onetheless %hen a contractor fails to pa the %ages of his emploees in accordance %ith the 0a'or Code( the emploer %ho contracted out the <o' to the contractor 'ecomes <ointl and severall lia'le %ith his contractor to the emploees of the latter 3to the extent of the %ork performed under the contract3 as such emploer %ere the emploer of the contractor;s emploees. 8e hold that( in the circumstances ;instances of this case( (CESI) %as engaged in 3la'or7onl3 or attracting vis7a7vis the petitioner and in respect )icardo *rpiada( and that 'ecause there is la'or7onl contracting( the petitioner 'ank is lia'le to *rpiada as if *rpiada had 'een directl( emploed not onl ' (CESI) 'ut also ' the 'ank. It ma %ell 'e that the 'ank ma in turn proceed against (CESI) to o'tain reim'ursement of( or some contri'ution to( the amounts %hich the 'ank %ill have to pa to *rpiada: 'ut this it is not necessar to determine here.
Dennis Dipinto and Kieran Cunningham v. John Sperling, in His Capacity As President of Lodge 8 of The Fraternal Order of Police and The City of Newport, 9 F.3d 2, 1st Cir. (1993)