Atty. Julius Gregory Delgado
ELBA CABALLERO VS. VIKINGS COMMISSARY, ET AL., G.R. NO. 238859 (OCTOBER 19, 2022):
CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION FROM DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT NOT A CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF THE STATUS OF THE CONTRACTOR AS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
This case stemmed from a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of overtime pay, 13th month pay, separation pay and service charges, with claims for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees filed by Elba J. Caballero (“petitioner Caballero”) against the respondents. Petitioner Caballero claims that while she was interviewed and hired by the Human Resources of respondent Vikings Commissary (“respondent Vikings”), she was made to sign a contract from respondent Hardworkers Manpower Services, Inc. (“respondent Hardworkers”). Petitioner Caballero was hired as a packer with a basic daily salary rate of Php466.00 plus Php115.00 Emergency Cost of Living Allowance (ECOLA). After completing her initial 3-month contract, she was assigned as dimsum maker at the Vikings Rockefeller Office. Petitioner Caballero was rehired for another 5-month contract which was renewed twice for the same period.
On April 15, 2016, Vikings Executive Chef Sung Haw Law informed petitioner Caballero that her services was terminated and that she should go home. However, she continued working during the day. Before noontime, Ms. Rhea Tabumal, a staff member at Vikings, approached her and said, “Pinapasabi ni boss bakit hindi ka pa raw umuuwi eh tanggal ka na nga sa trabaho effective ngayon?” Petitioner Caballero requested an explanation for her dismissal without due process but to no avail. Hence, petitioner Caballero lodged a complaint for illegal dismissal.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint ruling that petitioner Caballero was hired by respondent Hardworkers on a per-project-basis or a fixed-term employment. The National Labor Relations Commission affirmed the ruling with modification. The Commission held that respondent Hardworkers was able to present Certificate of Registration and that petitioner Caballero supposedly failed to prove that she was illegally dismissed. The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner Caballero’s petition ruling that the Commission did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
On a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the Supreme Court favored petitioner Cabellero and held that respondent Hardworkers is engaged in labor-only contracting. The Court held that to determine whether the contractor was engaged by the principal as a legitimate job contractor or a labor-only contractor, “the totality of the facts and the surrounding circumstances of the case are to be considered.” The Court also held that the burden of proof lies with the contractor or the principal to prove that it is engaged in a legitimate job contracting. The Court held:
“First, while it had a paid-up capital of P3,000,000.00, Hardworkers did not present any other proof showing its equipment, assets, and tools for the conduct of its business. Petitioner herself worked on the premises of Vikings, using equipment provided and owned by Vikings; and performed activities according to the instructions of Vikings, first as a packer and then as a dim sum maker.
Second, there was no proof of what particular job, work, or service Hardworkers was supposed to perform for Vikings. The service agreement between Hardworkers and Vikings was not submitted in evidence. On the other hand, the employment contract between Hardworkers and petitioner shows that petitioner was appointed as dim sum maker at Vikings, which implies that Hardworkers merely recruits for and supplies Vikings with specific types of employees. In fact, Hardworkers contends that it assigns workers to Vikings after having passed the assessment made by Vikings. At this point, it must be emphasized that petitioner’s contention that it was Vikings who initially interviewed and hired her, and it was Vikings’ Human Resources Manager Dy-Corduva who told her to approach Hardworkers to process her employment, remains uncontroverted. Notably, Vikings did not file any position paper before the labor tribunals and even waived the filing of its comment before this Court.
Third, petitioner is also correct in her contention that her job as a dim sum maker is directly related to Vikings’ food business. Indeed, petitioner’s continuous rehiring at Vikings for more than a year indicates the necessity or desirability of that activity to the business of the employer.
Fourth, Hardworkers failed to show that it, and not Vikings, established petitioner’s working procedure and methods and supervised her work. There was no evidence that Hardworkers exercised control over petitioner or her work. Under the employment contract, petitioner was required to abide by the policies, rules, and regulations of Vikings. It was also undisputed that petitioner was initially hired as a packer, and that it was Vikings’ decision to move her to a different department and train her to be a dim sum maker.
Finally, with regard to the power of dismissal, it is undisputed that Vikings had the power to dismiss the petitioner. Both parties in their respective pleadings admit that Vikings recommends the dismissal of employees. Without such recommendation from Vikings, Hardworkers would not have dismissed petitioner.”
The Supreme Court held that the totality of circumstances leads to the conclusion that notwithstanding respondent Hardworkers’ registration as an independent contractor, it has engaged in a prohibited labor-only contracting with Vikings. Ergo, a certificate of registration with the DOLE is not a conclusive proof of the status of the contractor as an independent contractor or the legitimacy of its operations.