Search
Home
Saved
206 views
0
Sign In
Upload
RELATED TITLES
0
Labor - Dole vs. Esteva Uploaded by Kristel Tiu
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines News
Documents
Sheet Music
Labor law digest
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Join
Albenson Enterprises vs.
1
of 2
Isagani Ecal vs NLRC
Case Digest Norkis Trading v.
Search document
DOLE PHILIPPINES, INC. v. ESTEVA
Facts:
-
-
-
-
-
-
Petitioner DOLEFIL is a domestic corporation with its pineapple plantation in Polomolok, South Cotabato. Respondents are members of the Cannery Multi-Purpose Cooperative (CAMPCO), which is dul registered with the CDA, and live in communities surrounding petitioner’s petitioner’ s plantation. plantation. On August 17, 1993, CAMPCO entered into a Service Contract with petitioner, which stated tha number of CAMPCO members that report for work and the type of service they performed wou depend on the needs of petitioner at any given time. The Service Contract stated that it shall only be for a period of 6 months, (from 1 July to 31 Dec 1993) however, the parties had extended or renewed the same for the succeeding years without executing another written contract. On May 5, 1993, the Sangguniang Bayan of Polomolok passed Resolution No. 64 calling the atte the DOLE Secretary to the worsening working conditions of o f petitioner’s workers and the organi contractual workers into several cooperatives to replace the individual labor-only contractors tha supply workers to the petitioner. The DOLE Regional Office thus organized a Task Force to investigate and found that 6 coopera were engaged in labor-only contracting, one of which was CAMPCO. The DOLE Regional Office held a conference where the 6 cooperatives were given the oppor explain the nature of their activities in relation to petitioner, and petitioner also submitted its paper. Nevertheless, Nevertheless, DOLE Regional Office found the 6 cooperatives were engaged in different activ DOLEFIL with 3 cooperatives (including CAMPCO) engaged in labor-only contracting activi issued an Order to all cooperatives to cease and desist from engaging in labor-only contracting a with DOLEFIL. DOLEFIL brought this case before the Labor Arbiter and NLRC, which both ruled in its favor. CA ruled for respondents and held that DOLEFIL illegally dismissed its employees and ordered reinstated with backwages.
Issues: 1. W/N CAMPCO was a labor-only contractor 2. W/N petitioner is their real employer. Held: YES. The Court upheld the ruling of the CA.
Sign up to vote on this title
Useful
Not useful
Home
Saved
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Upload
Sign In
Join
Search
Home
Saved
0
206 views
Upload
Sign In
RELATED TITLES
0
Labor - Dole vs. Esteva Uploaded by Kristel Tiu
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines News
Documents
Sheet Music
Labor law digest
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Join
Albenson Enterprises vs.
1
of 2
Isagani Ecal vs NLRC
Case Digest Norkis Trading v.
Search document
h. the control of the premises; i. the duty to supply the premises tools, appliances, materials and labor; and j. the mode, manner and terms of payment.
Although the relationship of petitioner and CAMPCO have some factors suggestive of an independent co relationship (i.e., CAMPCO chose who among its members should be sent to work for petitioner; petitio CAMPCO the wages of the members, plus a percentage thereof as administrative charge; CAMPCO wages of the members who rendered service to petitioner), many other factors are present which would a labor-only contracting arrangement between petitioner and CAMPCO:
a. When CAMPCO was established and the Service Contract between petitioner and CAMP entered into, CAMPCO only had P6,600.00 paid-up capital which is hardly substantial. b. CAMPCO did not carry out an independent business from petitioner. It was established services to petitioner to augment its workforce during peak seasons. Petitioner was its only clie as CAMPCO had its own office and office equipment, these were mainly used for admin purposes; the tools, machineries, and equipment actually used by CAMPCO members when r services to the petitioner belonged to the latter. c. Petitioner exercised control over the CAMPCO members. Petitioner attempts to refute co alleging the presence of a CAMPCO supervisor in the work premises. Yet, the mere presence w premises of a supervisor from the cooperative did not mean CAMPCO had control members. CAMPCO members, before working for the petitioner, had to undergo instructions the training provided by petitioner’s personnel. It was petitioner who determined and prepared assignments of the CAMPCO members. CAMPCO members worked within petitioner’s plant processing plants alongside regular employees performing identical jobs. d. CAMPCO was not engaged to perform a specificaand special job or service. In the Service You're Reading Preview of 1993, CAMPCO agreed to assist petitioner in its daily operations, and perform odd jobs as Unlock full access with a free trial. assigned. e. CAMPCO members, including respondents, performed activities directly related to the p business of petitioner. They worked as can processing attendant, feeder of canned pinea Download With Free Trial pineapple processing, nata de coco processing attendant, fruit cocktail processing attendant, functions which were, not only directly related, but were very vital to petitioner’s business of pr and processing of pineapple products for export.
2. Since CAMPCO is engaged in labor-only contracting, then an employer-employee relationship exists petitioner and CAMPCO, and CAMPCO is considered a mere agent orup intermediary of title petitioner. Sign to vote on this
useful Useful NotThis Further, this Court concludes that respondents are regular employees of petitioner. Court cannot su previous NLRC ruling that the CAMPCO members were valid “term employments,” wherein the empl employee knowingly and voluntarily agreed to employment for only a limited or specified period of tim
Home
Saved
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Upload
Sign In
Join
