LAKAS SA INDUSTRIYA NG KAPATIRANG HALIGI NG

ALYANSA-PINAGBUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWANG
PROMO NGBURLINGAME,

to Burlingame. The actual hiring itself was done

through the deployment of personnel to
establishments by Burlingame.

- versus - BURLINGAME CORPORATION,

There is no doubt that F. Garil was engaged

in labor-only contracting, and as such, is considered
merely an agent of Burlingame. In labor-only
contracting, the law creates an employer-employee
relationship to prevent a circumvention of labor
laws. The contractor is considered merely an agent
of the principal employer and the latter is
responsible to the employees of the labor-only
contractor as if such employees had been directly
[21]
employed by the principal employer.

On January 17, 2000, the petitioner Lakas

sa Industriya ng Kapatirang Haligi ng AlyansaPinagbuklod
ng
Manggagawang
Promo
ng Burlingame (LIKHA-PMPB) filed a petition for
certification election before the Department of
Labor and Employment (DOLE). The petitioner
claimed that there was no existing union in the
aforementioned establishment representing the
regular rank-and-file promo employees
The respondent filed a motion to dismiss
the petition. It argued that there exists no
employer-employee relationship between it and the
petitioners members. It further alleged that the
petitioners members are actually employees of F.
Garil Manpower Services (F. Garil), a duly licensed
local employment agency.
Issue:
The resolution of this issue boils down to a
determination of the true status of F.
Garil, i.e., whether it is an independent contractor or
a labor-only contractor.
we agree with the Secretary that F. Garil is
not an independent contractor.
First, F. Garil does not have substantial
capitalization or investment in the form of tools,
equipment, machineries, work premises, and other
materials, to qualify as an independent
contractor. No proof was adduced to show F. Garils
capitalization.
Second, the work of the promo-girls was
directly related to the principal business or
operation of Burlingame.
Lastly, F. Garil did not carry on an
independent business or undertake the performance
of its service contract according to its own manner
and method, free from the control and supervision
of its principal, Burlingame.
The four-fold test will show that respondent
is the employer of petitioners members.
It is patent that the involvement of F. Garil
in the hiring process was only with respect to the
recruitment aspect, i.e. the screening, testing and
pre-selection of the personnel it provided

WHEREFORE, REVERSED and SET ASIDE

FAR EAST AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY, INC. and/or

ALEXANDER UY, Petitioners,
vs.
JIMMY LEBATIQUE and THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS, Respondents.
Petitioner Far East Agricultural Supply, Inc. (Far East)
hired on March 4, 1996 private respondent Jimmy
Lebatique as truck driver with a daily wage
of P223.50. He delivered animal feeds to the
companys clients.
On January 24, 2000, Lebatique complained of
nonpayment of overtime work particularly on
January 22, 2000, when he was required to make a
second delivery in Novaliches, Quezon City. That
same day, Manuel Uy, brother of Far Easts General
Manager and petitioner Alexander Uy, suspended
Lebatique apparently for illegal use of company
vehicle. Even so, Lebatique reported for work the
next day but he was prohibited from entering the
company premises.
Simply stated, the principal issues in this case are: (1)
whether Lebatique was illegally dismissed; and (2)
whether Lebatique was a field personnel, not
entitled to overtime pay.
Petitioners contend that, (1) Lebatique was not
dismissed from service but merely suspended for a
day due to violation of company rules; (2) Lebatique
was not barred from entering the company premises
since he never reported back to work; Also,
petitioners maintain that Lebatique, as a driver, is
not entitled to overtime pay since he is a field
personnel whose time outside the company
premises cannot be determined with reasonable
certainty.
After consideration of the submission of the
parties, we find that the petition lacks merit. We
are in agreement with the decision of the Court of
Appeals sustaining that of the Labor Arbiter.
It is well settled that in cases of illegal dismissal, the
burden is on the employer to prove that the
9
termination was for a valid cause.
The records show that petitioners failed to prove
that Lebatique abandoned his job. Nor was there a
showing of a clear intention on the part of Lebatique
to sever the employer-employee relationship. When
Lebatique was verbally told by Alexander Uy, the
companys General Manager, to look for another
job, Lebatique was in effect dismissed.

As correctly found by the Court of Appeals,

Lebatique is not a field personnel as defined above
for the following reasons: (1) company drivers,
including Lebatique, are directed to deliver the
goods at a specified time and place; (2) they are not
given the discretion to solicit, select and contact
prospective clients; and (3) Far East issued a
directive that company drivers should stay at the
clients premises during truck-ban hours which is
from 5:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 to 9:00 p.m.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack
of merit

PNOC-ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, Southern Negros
Geothermal Project,

of repeatedly and continuously hiring respondents

to do the same kind of work belies its contention
that respondents were hired for a specific project or
undertaking. The absence of a definite duration for
the project/s has led the Court to conclude that
respondents are, in fact, regular employees.

- versus NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

COMMISSION, Fourth Division,
Cebu City, and PNOC-EDC,
SNGPEU-ASSOCIATED LABOR
UNIONS-TUCP, LEONORA A.
TORRES, ALEJANDRO B.
TABAERA, JR., ARNEL T. AMOR,
ROSELA S. CALIMPONG, WILSON
D. NUAY, and ROBERTO S. RENZAL,

.,

April 13, 2007

On October 29, 1998, the six employees, herein
respondents, filed before the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) a complaint for illegal
dismissal against petitioner.
For its part, petitioner asseverated that
respondents were contractual employees; as such,
they cannot claim to have been illegally dismissed
because upon the expiration of the term of the
contract or the completion of the project, their
employer-employee relationship also ended.
ISSUE: (a) whether respondents were
project employees or regular employees; and (b)
whether or not they were illegally dismissed from
employment.
The contentions of petitioner have no merit.
Thus, the applicable formula to ascertain
whether an employment should be considered
regular or non-regular is the reasonable connection
between the particular activity performed by the
employee in relation to the usual business or trade
[9]
of the employer. As we held in Grandspan
[10]
Development Corporation v. Bernardo:
As defined, project employees are those
workers hired (1) for a specific project or
undertaking, and (2) the completion or termination
of such project or undertaking has
been determined at the time of the engagement of
[12]
the employee.
Unmistakably, the alleged projects stated in
the employment contracts were either too vague or
imprecise to be considered as the specific
undertaking contemplated by law. Petitioners act

Another cogent factor which militates

against petitioners insistence that the services of
respondents were terminated because the projects
for which they were hired had been completed is the
fact that respondents contracts of employment
were extended a number of times for different or
new projects.
As regular workers, respondents are
entitled to security of tenure under Article 279 of
the Labor Code and can only be dismissed for a just
or authorized cause.
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing,
the petition is DENIED.