Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • PAL v. Ligan (G.R. No. 146408) : Investment Which Relates To The Job, Work or Service To Be

    Uploaded by

    Joe Real
    12 views3 pages
    This case involves respondents who were hired by Synergy Services Corporation to provide loading and delivery services for Philippine Airlines (PAL). The respondents filed complaints claiming they should be considered regular employees of PAL and receive labor standard benefits. [1] The Labor Arbiter initially found Synergy to be an independent contractor, but the NLRC and CA found Synergy to be a labor-only contractor. [2] The Supreme Court affirmed this finding, as the work performed by the respondents was directly related to PAL's main business and PAL exercised control over the respondents' work. [3] Therefore, Synergy was a labor-only contractor and the respondents should be considered regular employees of PAL.

    Original Description:

    asafsdea

    Original Title

    1. PAL V LIGAN

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case involves respondents who were hired by Synergy Services Corporation to provide loading and delivery services for Philippine Airlines (PAL). The respondents filed complaints claiming they should be considered regular employees of PAL and receive labor standard benefits. [1] The Labor Arbiter initially found Synergy to be an independent contractor, but the NLRC and CA found Synergy to be a labor-only contractor. [2] The Supreme Court affirmed this finding, as the work performed by the respondents was directly related to PAL's main business and PAL exercised control over the respondents' work. [3] Therefore, Synergy was a labor-only contractor and the respondents should be considered regular employees of PAL.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    12 views3 pages

    PAL v. Ligan (G.R. No. 146408) : Investment Which Relates To The Job, Work or Service To Be

    Uploaded by

    Joe Real
    This case involves respondents who were hired by Synergy Services Corporation to provide loading and delivery services for Philippine Airlines (PAL). The respondents filed complaints claiming they should be considered regular employees of PAL and receive labor standard benefits. [1] The Labor Arbiter initially found Synergy to be an independent contractor, but the NLRC and CA found Synergy to be a labor-only contractor. [2] The Supreme Court affirmed this finding, as the work performed by the respondents was directly related to PAL's main business and PAL exercised control over the respondents' work. [3] Therefore, Synergy was a labor-only contractor and the respondents should be considered regular employees of PAL.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    PAL v. Ligan (G.R. No.

    146408)

    Facts:

    Petitioner Philippine Airlines and Synergy Services Corporation as


    Contractor, entered into an Agreement whereby Synergy undertook to
    provide loading and delivery services by furnishing all the necessary
    capital, workers, materials, supplies and equipment for the performance
    and execution of said work. Herein respondents who appear to have been
    assigned to work for petitioner filed complaints before the NLRC for the
    payment of their labor standard benefits and regularization of employment
    status claiming that they are performing duties directly connected with
    petitioner’s business. The Labor Arbiter’s decision found Synergy an
    independent contractor but was vacated on appeal. The NLRC tribunal
    declared Synergy to be a labor-only contractor and was affirmed by the CA.
    Petitioner moved for reconsideration but was denied.

    Issue:

    Whether or not there is labor-only contracting.

    Ruling: YES.

    For labor-only contracting to exist, Section 5 of D.O. No. 18-02 which


    requires any of two elements to be present is, for convenience, re-quoted:
    (i) The contractor or subcontractor does not have substantial capital or
    investment which relates to the job, work or service to be
    performed and the employees recruited, supplied or placed by such
    contractor or subcontractor are performing activities which are directly
    related to the main business of the principal, OR

    (ii) The contractor does not exercise the right to control over the
    performance of the work of the contractual employee.

    Even if only one of the two elements is present then, there is labor-only
    contracting.

    From the records of the case, it is gathered that the work performed by
    almost all of the respondents – loading and unloading of baggage and
    cargo of passengers – is directly related to the main business of petitioner.
    And the equipment used by respondents as station loaders, such as trailers
    and conveyors, are owned by petitioner.

    Petitioner PAL, and not Synergy, exercises control and


    supervision over the respondent workers’ methods of doing the work, as
    reflected in their Agreement: (1) Contractor (Synergy) shall require all its
    workers, employees, suppliers and visitors to comply with OWNER’S
    (PAL) rules, regulations, procedures and directives relative to the
    safety and security of OWNER’S premises, properties and
    operations (2) xxx shall furnish its employees and workers
    identification cards to be countersigned by OWNER and uniforms to be
    approved by OWNER. (3) OWNER may require CONTRACTOR to
    dismiss immediately and prohibit entry into OWNER’S premises of any
    person employed therein by CONTRACTOR who in OWNER’S opinion is
    incompetent or misconducts himself or does not comply with OWNER’S
    reasonable instructions xxx
    Petitioner in fact admitted that it fixes the work schedule of respondents as
    their work was dependent on the frequency of plane arrivals. And as the
    NLRC found, petitioner’s managers and supervisors approved respondents’
    weekly work assignments and respondents and other regular PAL
    employees were all referred to as “station attendants” of the cargo
    operation and airfreight services of petitioner.

    Respondents having performed tasks which are usually necessary and


    desirable in the air transportation business of petitioner, they should be
    deemed its regular employees and Synergy as a labor-only contractor.

    You might also like