MAGO v. SUNPOWER

 

MAGO ET AL., VS. SUNPOWER MFG. LTD.

 [G.R. No. 210961, January 24, 2018]

 

FACTS:

The petitioners are former employees of Jobcrest. During the time material to this case, the petitioners cohabited together.

On October 10, 2008, Jobcrest and Sunpower entered into a Service Contract Agreement, in which Jobcrest undertook to provide business process services for Sunpower, a corporation principally engaged in the business of manufacturing automotive computer and other electronic parts.

Jobcrest then trained its employees, including the petitioners, for purposes of their engagement in Sunpower. It was alleged that sometime in October 2011, Sunpower conducted an operational alignment, which affected some of the services supplied by Jobcrest. Sunpower decided to terminate the Coinstacking/Material Handling segment and the Visual Inspection segment. Meanwhile, Leo and Leilanie were respectively on paternity and maternity leave because Leilanie was due to give birth to their common child.

When Leo reported for work to formally file his paternity leave, Allan purportedly informed Leo that his employment was terminated due to his absences. Leo, however, further alleged that he was asked to report to Jobcrest on December 14, 2011 for his assignment to Sunpower. In their defense, both Jobcrest and Allan denied terminating Leo's employment from Jobcrest.

Leo complied with the directive to go to Jobcrest's office on December 14, 2011. While he was there, Jobcrest's Human Resource Manager, Noel J. Pagtalunan (Noel), served Leo with a "Notice of Admin Charge/Explanation Slip." The notice stated that Leo violated the Jobcrest policy against falsification or tampering because he failed to disclose his relationship with Leilanie. Leo denied the charges and explained that he already filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC.

Leilanie, on the other hand, alleged that when she reported for work at Jobcrest on November 29, 2011, she was informed by one of the Jobcrest personnel that she will be transferred to another client company. She was likewise provided a referral slip for a medical examination, pursuant to her new assignment.

Instead of complying with Jobcrest's directives, Leo and Leilanie filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and regularization on December 15, 2011. Despite the filing of the complaint, Leilanie returned to Jobcrest on December 16, 2011, where she was served with a similar "Notice of Admin Charge/Explanation Slip," requiring her to explain why she failed to disclose her co-habitation status with Leo.

During the mandatory conference, Jobcrest clarified that the petitioners were not dismissed from employment and offered to accept them when they report back to work. The petitioners refused and insisted that they were regular employees of Sunpower, not Jobcrest.

 

ISSUE:

Whether or not Jobcrest is a legitimate and independent contractor

RULING:

Yes, Jobcrest is a legitimate and independent contractor.

Jobcrest has substantial capital.

Substantial capital or investment was defined in DOLE DO No. 18-02 as "capital stocks and subscribed capitalization in the case of corporations, tools, equipment, implements, machineries and work premises, actually and directly used by the contractor or subcontractor in the performance or completion of the job, work or service contracted out." DOLE later on specified in its subsequent issuance, DOLE DO No. 18-A, series of 2011, that substantial capital refers to paid-up capital stocks/shares of at least Php3,000,000.00 in the case of corporations. 68 68 Despite prescribing a threshold amount under DO No. 18-A, certificates of registration issued under DO No. 18-02, such as that of Jobcrest, remained valid until its expiration.

The records show that as early as the proceedings before the LA, Jobcrest established that it had an authorized capital stock of Php8,000,000.00, Php2,000,000.00 of which was subscribed, and a paid-up capital stock of Php500,000.00, in full compliance with Section 13 of the Corporation Code.

Suncrest does not control the manner by which the petitioners accomplished their work.

Upon review of the records, the Court finds that the evidence clearly points to Jobcrest as the entity that exercised control over the petitioners' work with Sunpower. Upon the petitioners' assignment to Sunpower, Jobcrest conducted a training and certication program, during which time, the petitioners reported directly to the designated Jobcrest trainer. The affidavit of Jobcrest's Operations Manager, Kathy T. Morales (Kathy), states that operational control over Jobcrest employees was exercised to make sure that they conform to the quantity and time specications of the service agreements with Jobcrest's clients. She narrated that manager and shift supervisors were assigned to the premises of Sunpower, with the task to oversee the accomplishment of the target volume of work. She also mentioned that there is administrative control over Jobcrest employees because they monitor the employees' attendance and punctuality, and the employees' observance of other rules and regulations.

The petitioners' very own sworn statements further establish this point. In his statement, Leo averred that when he reported for work to file his application for paternity leave, he reported to Allan, Jobcrest's supervisor, who then approved his leave application. He likewise narrated that it was Jobcrest's Human Resource Manager, Noel, who informed Leo about the disciplinary charge against him for allegedly violating the Jobcrest Code of Conduct. The same conclusion holds for Leilanie. In her statement, Leilanie narrated that she reported for work to the Jobcrest oce on November 29, 2011 after giving birth to her second child. She also alleged in her affidavit that similar to Leo, it was Noel who informed her of the disciplinary action against her, through the service of a copy of the "Notice of Admin Charge/Explanation Slip."

The petitioners were regular employees of Jobcrest.

The four-fold test is the established standard for determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship.

 

The petitioners themselves admit that they were hired by Jobcrest. 100 100 In their subsequent engagement to Sunpower, it was Jobcrest that selected and trained the petitioners. Despite their assignment to Sunpower, Jobcrest paid the petitioners' wages, including their contributions to the SSS, Philhealth, and Pag-IBIG. The power to discipline the petitioners was also retained by Jobcrest, as evidenced by the "Notice of Admin Charge/Explanation Slip" furnished the petitioners through Jobcrest's Human Resource department. The Court further notes that on December 27, 2010 and January 25, 2011, Leilanie and Leo were respectively confirmed as regular employees of Jobcrest. 104 104 Jobcrest did not even deny that the petitioners were their regular employees. Consequently, the petitioners cannot be terminated from employment without just or authorized cause.

 

All things considered, Sunpower is not the statutory employer of the petitioners. The circumstances obtaining in this case, as supported by the evidence on record, establish that Jobcrest was a legitimate and independent contractor. There is no reason for this Court to depart from the CA's findings.