Sunteți pe pagina 1din 2

G.R. No.

86010 October 3, 1989

LEOPOLDO GUARIN and ONE HUNDRED TWENTY (120) OTHERS, petitioners, vs.NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION, LIPERCON SERVICES, INC., and/or NOVELTY PHILIPPINES, INC., respondents.

Facts of the case:

In 1983, private respondents Lipercon Services, Inc. and Novelty Philippines, Inc. entered into a
"Contract of Services" in which the former, for a contract price, undertook to provide the latter with
Contractual Laborers/Helpers/Janitors. For this reason, petitioners were hired by Lipercon to work with
Novelty as helpers, janitors, janitresses, firemen, and mechanics. Petitioners worked with Novelty as
such for three years. In 1986, Novelty terminated its agreement with Lipercon and consequently
petitioners were dismissed. Petitioners filed an illegal dismissal case against Novelty and Lipercon, in
which case the Labor Arbiter ruled that petitioners were regular employees of Novelty and declared
their dismissal illegal. Both employers appealed. The National Labor Relations Commission reversed the
Labor Arbiter's decision and ruled that Lipercon was an independent contractor. It ordered Lipercon to
reinstate petitioners.

Issue:

Whether or not Lipercon is an independent contractor and the petitioners are its employees.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled that as provided in Article 106 of the Labor Code, and as can be gleaned from
the agreement between Lipercon and Novelty, it was clear that Lipercon was a "labor-only" contractor
and thus served merely an agent of Novelty tasked to provide it with manpower. Lipercon's contention
that it is an independent contractor because it claimed to have substantial capital and investment in
tools and equipment was not given merit because it was not able to present substantial evidence to that
effect. On the contrary, the Supreme Court held that petitioners' works were directly related to the daily
operations of a garment factory since gardeners work to maintain clean and well-kept grounds around
the factory, mechanics to keep the machines functioning properly, and firemen to look out for fires. This
fact is confirmed, according to the Court, by Novelty's rehiring the workers or renewing the contract
with Lipercon every year from 1983 to 1986, a period of three (3) years.

As Lipercon was a "labor-only" contractor, the workers it supplied Novelty became regular employees of
the latter and the Court ordered their reinstatement with backwages.
National Federation of Labor v. NLRC [G.R. No. 127718, March 2, 2000]

FACTS: Petitioners are members of the NFL, employed by private respondents in the Patalon
Coconut Estate in Zamboanga City. Pursuant to RA 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, the
Patalon CoconutEstate was warded to the Patalon Estate Reform Association, of which petitioners are
members and co-owners. As a result of this acquisition, the Patalon Estate shut down operations and
the employment of the petitioners were severed. Petitioners did not receive separation pay. Petitioners
became co-owners of the land and subsequently filed complaints for illegal dismissal. The
Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLRC dismissed the charge for illegal dismissal but ordered the
payment of separation pay. The NLRC reversed the decision.

ISSUE: W/N an employer that was compelled to cease its operation because of compulsory acquisition
by the government of its land purposes of agrarian reform is liable to pay separation pay its affected
employees.

HELD: No. The peculiar circumstance in the case at bar involves neither the closure of an establishment
nor a reduction in personnel as contemplated in Article 283. The closure contemplated in 283 is a
voluntary act on the part of the employer as may be gleaned for the wording, the employer MAY also
terminate, denoting that it is directory in nature. The Labor Code does not contemplate a situation
where theclosure is forced upon the employer. As such, petitioners are not entitled to separation pay as
private respondents did not voluntary shut down operation as they even sought to be exempted from
the coverage of RA 6657.

S-ar putea să vă placă și