Dropped by at the supermart this afternoon to get my self some things as quick as possible. Pulled a cart and walked along to get a bucket of biscuits, some malt and powdered milk, sandwich spread and a bottle of olive oil. I was checking out this Hershey chocolate powdered can reading the calorie content label slowly walking with the other hand stretching trying to feel where the cart is and put it in there. I turned surprised and quite puzzled why this lady was smiling at me like nearly laughing and this little girl wearing cute pair of glasses hands on waist was staring at me like "Well I'll be damned that's our cart mister" LOL.
Let's tackle another Labor case.
Petitioners are regular workers of private respondent Cotabato Timberland Co. Inc. (CTCI) who were hired to perform milling and pilling works and the production and manufacture of plywood and veneer by private respondent TIMEX SAWMILL, a subsidiary of respondent CTCI .
Let's tackle another Labor case.
Petitioners are regular workers of private respondent Cotabato Timberland Co. Inc. (CTCI) who were hired to perform milling and pilling works and the production and manufacture of plywood and veneer by private respondent TIMEX SAWMILL, a subsidiary of respondent CTCI .
ABNORMAL DEMAND
CTCI experienced an abnormal rise in demand for its plywood and other lumber products. CTCIs regular workers could not allegedly cope with this demand, and this in turn led to an increased need for additional manpower on the part of CTCI to enable it to meet such demand
HIRING TO MEET DEMAND
The hiring of herein petitioners was facilitated through Teddy Arabi, who was tapped and hired by private respondent CTCI to recruit petitioners under strict instructions. Majority of herein petitioners are neighbors, friends and provincemates of Teddy Arabi. In short, petitioners were engaged, briefed and instructed by CTCI before the commencement of their respective work. Teddy Arabi never maintained an office in private respondents company since his main task is simply to recruit, under strict instruction, additional workers as the need arises.
WORKERS EXPLOITED
The complainants worked on shifting schedules, initially, in three (3) shifts 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.; then, 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.; and finally, 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
Respondent Teddy Arabi appeared to have been paid by CTCI on the basis of sawmill production and/or number of workers or time used in a certain job or area of operation. The former respondent in turn paid the complainants their wages, at the rate of P35.00 daily starting July 1989 and P50.00 daily, starting April 1990 which they continued to have up to the time this case was filed on 17 October 1994
It appears that aside from said basic wages, the complainants were not paid anything else. Considering that herein petitioners were exploited and underpaid, Teddy Arabi was also tasked by private respondent CTCI to double as an enforcer to sweet talk, threaten or silence any worker who would inquire or question their unconscionably P50.00 per day wage rate and other unpaid labor standards benefits.
For effectivity and faster communication, private respondent CTCI provided Teddy Arabi and his brother Ronie (also an employee of CTCI) with hand-held radios so that the latter could immediately contact the former whenever some problem arises from among the workers in the work premises. Because of this set-up, complaining workers usually do not anymore pursue their labor claims against CTCI with the Department of Labor and Employment. This has been the modus operandi of private respondent CTCI.
Petitioners continued working as workers/laborers at TIMEX SAWMILL and were working under the full control and supervision of CTCIs personnel. Eventually, the working conditions threat became uncontrollable and Teddy Arabi became helpless in controlling the workers demands.
LABOR COMPLAINT
A letter-complaint was filed by agroup of disgruntled workers with the DOLE, Region IX Office, Zamboanga City for unpaid Labor Standards benefits due them. Thereafter, their group of complainants were continuously harassed and intimidated by management people and were told that if they will pursue their complaints, their services will be terminated and no benefits whatsoever shall be paid them.
AMICABLE SETTLEMENT
Fortunately, private respondent CTCI managed to convince Teddy Arabi to intercede in this problem and subsequently, an amicable settlement was effected between CTCI and the complaining workers. CTCI paid a total of P223,531.25 as settlement to the claims of the workers. However, CTCI, with ill-motives, maliciously made it appear in the signed quitclaims of the complaining workers that Teddy Arabi was the workers employer and the one who paid their claims. However, the checks were issued in the name of CTCI.
Thereafter on June 17, 1994, petitioners were warned verbally by Administration Personnel that allegedly top management has been dissatisfied with their work performance and production output results and that very soon their services will be terminated.
WORKERS TERMINATED
Eventually, petitioners were barred from entering the main gate of respondent CTCI on July 31, 1994 by the company security guards when they reported for work. Petitioners were informed by the guards that they were already terminated effective that day and should not anymore report for work.
ILLEGAL DISMISSAL COMPLAINT FILED TO LABOR ARBITER
Evidently, petitioners termination was without notice and without the observance of due process required under the Labor Code and the Constitution. Thus, petitioners, in search for justice filed their respective complaints with the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch 9, Zamboanga City, for the ILLEGAL DISMISSAL and other monetary claims.
FAVORABLE LABOR ARBITER DECISION
On May 17, 1995, Executive Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of herein petitioners and against private respondent CTCI.
RESPONDENT APPEAL TO NLRC - REVERSE
Private respondents appealed the above-quoted decision to public respondent NLRC which promulgated its resolution on October 25, 1995 reversing and setting aside Executive Labor Arbiter decision.
PETITIONERS CONTENTION
Petitioners defended Public respondent NLRC erred when it ruled that no employer-employee relationship exist between petitioners and private respondent CTCI.
They also added Public respondent NLRC erred when it ruled that Teddy Arabi is an independent contractor and the employer of herein petitioners.
ISSUE:
Whether the NLRC erred in finding that the petitioners herein are not employees of private respondent CTCI but of Teddy Arabi, allegedly an independent contractor.
RULING:
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP
The existence of an employer-employee relationship is principally determined by the following indications:
(1) selection and engagement of the employee;
(2) payment of wages;
(3) power of dismissal; and
(4) employers power to control the employee with respect to the result to be done and to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished.
Private respondent CTCI denies that it is involved in the selection of petitioners. It explained that it had a verbal contract with Arabi, allegedly an independent contractor, for the latter to undertake some of its milling and piling works.
It is true that the records show that it was Arabi who recruited the petitioners to work for the company, the latter being neighbors, friends and provincemates of the former. However, it must be emphasized that Arabi invited or enlisted the petitioners to work for CTCI only because the latter instructed him to do so. Arabis main task is simply to recruit, under strict instructions from CTCI, additional workers as the need arises. In fact, before the petitioners were dispatched to perform their assigned tasks, they were engaged, briefed and instructed by CTCI. While it may be argued that Arabi played a role in the eventual selection and employment of the petitioners, it is clear that his involvement therein was at best perfunctory and mechanical. This is because the recruitment only starts when, in the discretion of CTCI, additional manpower is needed. Patently, the exercise of the power to select and engage the petitioners rested solely in CTCI.
POWER OF CONTROL
With respect to the POWER OF CONTROL over the result of the work to be done and to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished, CTCI alleges that it neither exercised nor exerted any control over petitioners because they never set foot on its premises. It argues that the control test has no application in the instant case because there was no occasion to control the petitioners.
Court, however, find persuasive support on record showing that CTCI exercised the power of control over the employees. As correctly found by the labor arbiter, the work activities and schedules of petitioners were set by CTCI. Evidence of CTCIs absolute control and supervision over the manner and conduct of work of the petitioners can be established from the following:(1) the manning/shifting schedules of the petitioners were entirely prepared and approved by CTCI; and (2) photocopies of the company identification cards not only bear the name of the issuing company as COTABATO TIMBERLAND CO., INC., but were likewise countersigned by CTCIs Personnel Officer.
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
To further buttress its allegation that Arabi is an independent contractor, CTCI presented in evidence its letter dated August 9, 1993, informing Arabi that payment for the contracted services will be on an output/bundled basis, and its letter dated August 2, 1994, notifying Arabi of its decision to increase the workers milling rate. CTCI also alleges that Arabi paid the workers through billings made on CTCI based on work output.
PAYMENT OF WAGES
With respect to the payment of wages, private respondent CTCI alleges that the names of petitioners were not in the payrolls of the company. CTCI asserts that petitioners do not have any evidence to prove that it paid their salaries, directly or indirectly, or that they were issued payslips by the company.
Court said it is not unaware of the practice among employers of not issuing payslips, precisely to evade the liabilities that correspond to employers as mandated under the Labor Code. Under the current practice a third person, usually the purported contractor (service or manpower placement agency), assumes the act of paying the wage.
From the point of view of the contracted-out workers, the payment of wages must observe the conventional procedure. It is with the labor-only contractor whom they signed their contract of employment. Since the two-tier contract formatting is being made to operationalize, it thus becomes irrelevant whether or not their employer is a downright cabo or a labor-only contractor. What is important is that they receive their wages and are able to identify the person paying them.
It is thus understandable why the petitioners were unable to present any payslip bearing the name of CTCI as employer. For the lowly workers, especially in far-flung areas where the wages are extremely low, it is enough that they actually receive their pay, oblivious of the need for payslips, unaware of its legal implications. In fine, we believe that the payment of petitioners wages was coursed through Arabi, but the funds therefor came from the coffers of CTCI.
The scourge of exploitation of labor, as shown by numerous petitions before us, remains pervasive. It is imperative for all government agencies concerned to exert all-out efforts to prevent any further violation or circumvention of the provisions of the Labor Code through deceptive devices and malpractices. UNSCRUPULOUS EMPLOYERS COULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO HIDE BEHIND LABOR-ONLY CONTRACTING IN ORDER TO ESCAPE THE JUST CLAIMS OF THEIR WORKERS AND OTHER EMPLOYEES.
The challenged resolutions rendered by the NLRC was SET ASIDE, and the decision of the Labor Arbiter of the NLRC was REINSTATED. Costs against respondents.
Jang Lim and all the workers wins this case.
