LINGNAM RESTAURANT VS. SKILLS & TALENT EMPLOYMENT

 

LINGNAM RESTAURANT VS. SKILLS & TALENT EMPLOYMENT

[GR No. 2146671, December 3, 2018]

 

FACTS:

Respondent Skills & Talent Employment Pool, Inc. (STEP) is a domestic corporation engaged in manpower management and technical services, and one of its clients is petitioner Lingnam Restaurant, a business enterprise owned and operated by Liberty C. Nacion. In a contract of employment, respondent Jessie Colaste is a project employee of respondent STEP assigned to work with petitioner Lingnam Restaurant as assistant cook.

On May 21, 2008, Jessie Colaste led with the Labor Arbiter an Amended Complaint for illegal dismissal against Lingnam Restaurant and STEP. Jessie Colaste alleged that on December 21, 2006, he started working at Lingnam Restaurant as an assistant cook/general utility with a salary of P350.00 a day. He worked six days a week, eight hours a day on two shifts. On March 5, 2008, Colaste reported to the main office of STEP at Ortigas Center, Pasig City. He was informed by one Katherine R. Barrun that his contract with Lingnam Restaurant had expired.

Lingnam Restaurant denied that it is the employer of complainant Jessie Colaste and alleged that STEP is Colaste's real employer. Hence, it is not liable for the claims and causes of action of Colaste, and that the complaint should be dismissed insofar as it is concerned.

 

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent STEP is engaged in labor-only contracting

 

RULING:

Yes, respondent STEP is engaged in labor-only contracting.

The service rendered by STEP in favor of Lingnam Restaurant was not the performance of a specic job, but the supply of personnel to work at Lingnam Restaurant. In this case, STEP provided petitioner with an assistant cook in the person of Jessie Colaste. In the Employment Contract between Jessie Colaste and STEP from January 4, 2006 up to June 3, 2007, Colaste was assigned as kitchen helper at petitioner Lingnam Restaurant, while in the subsequent employment contracts 28 28 from November 5, 2007 up to January 5, 2008; and from January 5, 2008 up to March 5, 2008, he was assigned as assistant cook at petitioner Lingnam Restaurant. The three employment contracts state that Jessie Colaste’s “work result performance shall be under Strict Supervision, Control and make sure that the end result is in accordance with the standard specified by client to STEP Inc.”

Thus, the work performance of Colaste is under the strict supervision and control of the client (petitioner Lingnam Restaurant) as well as the end result thereof. As assistant cook of petitioner Lingnam Restaurant, respondent Colaste's work is directly related to the restaurant business of petitioner. He works in petitioner's restaurant and presumably under the supervision of its Chief Cook. This falls under the denition of labor-only contracting under Section 5 of Rule VIII-A, Book III of the Amended Rules to Implement the Labor Code, since the contractor, STEP , merely supplied Jessie Colaste as assistant cook to the principal, Lingnam Restaurant; the job of Colaste as assistant cook is directly related to the main business of Lingnam Restaurant, and STEP does not exercise the right to control the performance of the work of Colaste, the contractual employee.

As respondent STEP is engaged in labor-only contracting, the principal, petitioner Lingnam Restaurant, shall be deemed the employer of respondent Jessie Colaste, in accordance with Section 7, Rule VIII-A, Book III of the Amended Rules to Implement the Labor Code. Colaste started working with petitioner since 2006 and he should be considered a regular employee of petitioner.

The reason for the termination of Jessie Colaste was his contract with petitioner Lingnam Restaurant through respondent STEP had expired. Lingnam Restaurant explained that Colaste's real employer is STEP. But since respondent STEP is engaged in labor-only contracting, petitioner Lingnam Restaurant is deemed the employer of Colaste. Thus, the reason for Colaste's termination is not a just or authorized cause for his dismissal under Articles 282 to 284 of the Labor Code. Moreover, Colaste was not afforded procedural due process, since petitioner failed to comply with the written notice requirement under Article 277 (b) of the Labor Code. The lack of valid cause for dismissal and petitioner's failure to comply with the twin-notice requirement rendered the dismissal of respondent Colaste illegal.

As respondent Colaste was illegally dismissed, the Court of Appeals correctly held that he is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benets or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CIR v. DLSU

  COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY, INC., [G.R. No. 196596. November 9, 2016.]   FACTS: In 2004, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued to DLSU Letter of Authority (LOA) No. 2794 authorizing its revenue officers to examine the latter's books of accounts and other accounting records for all internal revenue taxes for the period Fiscal Year Ending 2003 and Unverified Prior Years. BIR through a Formal Letter of Demand assessed DLSU the following deficiency taxes: (1) income tax on rental earnings from restaurants/canteens and bookstores operating within the campus; (2) VAT business income; and (3) documentary stamp tax (DST) on loans and lease contracts. The BIR demanded the payment of P17,303,001.12, inclusive of surcharge, interest and penalty for taxable years 2001, 2002 and 2003. DLSU protested the assessment. The Commissioner failed to act on the protest; thus, DLSU filed on August 3, 2005 a petition for review with the CTA Division. ...
Read more

DIRECTOR OF LANDS vs. IAC

  DIRECTOR OF LANDS V. IAC   G.R. No. 73002 | December 29, 1986 FACTS The Director of Lands has brought this appeal by certiorari from a judgment of the IAC affirming a decision of the CFI of Isabela, which ordered registration in favor of Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc. of 5 parcels of land, acquired by it from Mariano and Acer Infiel , members of the Dumagat tribe .   The appealed judgment sums up the findings of the trial court: That Acme Plywood & Veneer Co. Inc., represented by Mr. Rodolfo Nazario is a corporation duly organized in accordance with the laws That Acme Plywood & Veneer Co. Inc., represented by Mr. Rodolfo Nazario can acquire real properties pursuant to the provisions of the Articles of Incorporation That the land subject of the Land Registration proceeding was ancestrally acquired by Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc., on October 29, 1962, from Mariano Infiel and Acer Infiel, both members of ...
Read more

CIR v. PAGCOR

  COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner , vs. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, and PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION, respondents   G.R. No. 177387, November 9, 2016   FACTS :   PAGCOR has operated under a legislative franchise granted by PD No. 1869, in its Charter, 4 whose Section 13 (2) provides that: (2) Income and other Taxes — (a) Franchise Holder: No tax of any kind or form, income or otherwise, as well as fees, charges or levies of whatever nature, whether National or Local, shall be assessed and collected under this Franchise from the Corporation; nor shall any form of tax or charge attach in any way to the earnings of the Corporation, except a Franchise Tax of five percent (5%) of the gross revenue or earnings derived by the Corporation from its operation under this Franchise.   Notwithstanding the aforesaid 5% franchise tax imposed, the BIR issued several assessments against PAGCOR of P13,710,145,629.67 for alleged defic...
Read more