Earl Christian L. Lerio

Labor 2

LABOR CASES

Locsin vs. PLDT (602 SCRA 740)

Facts:

Petitioners are security guards of the SSCP, a security agency, who were assigned in the respondent company, PLDT, whereby a Security Service Agreement was entered into between the agency and the respondent. Subsequently, this agreement was terminated on October 1, 2001 but the said petitioners were still tasked to secure the premises of the respondent company up to September 30, 2002. The continued services rendered despite the agreement was evidenced by the petitioner’s pay slips. The petitioners then filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter(LA) for illegal dismissal and recovery of money claims (i.e. overtime pay, holiday pay, etc ). The LA decided in favor of the petitioners, the decision was appealed to NLRC but was denied as well as the MFR, but the petition for certiorari was granted by the CA.

Issue: WON there exists an EER between the petitioners and respondent?

Ruling:

YES. In the ordinary course of things, responsible business owners or managers would not allow security guards of an agency with whom the owners or managers have severed ties with to continue to stay within the business’ premises. This is because upon the termination of the owners’ or managers’ agreement with the security agency, the agency’s undertaking of liability for any damage that the security guard would cause has already been terminated. Thus, in the event of an accident or otherwise damage caused by such security guards, it would be the business owners and/ or managers who would be liable and not the agency. The business owners or managers would, therefore, be opening themselves up to liability for acts of security guards over whom the owners or managers allegedly have no control.

From the foregoing circumstances, reason dictates that we conclude that petitioners remained at their post under the instructions of respondent. We can further conclude that the respondent dictated upon the petitioners that the latter perform their regular duties to secure the premises during operating hours. This, to our mind and under the circumstances, is sufficient to establish the existence of EER.

Moreover, respondent having the power of control over petitioner must be considered as petitioner’s employer—from the termination of the agreement onwards—as this was the only time that any evidence of control was exhibited by the respondent over the petitioners.

Far East Agri Supply, Alexander Uy vs. CA, Lebatique (515 SCRA 491)

Facts:

Private respondent is a truck driver hired by herein petitioner company. On a certain day, Lebatique complained for non-payment of overtime pay and on the same day, the brother of the Manager suspended private respondent for illegal use of company vehicle. Despite the suspension, Lebatique reported for work the next day but was prohibited from entering the premises of the company. Private respondent sought the assistance of DOLE to claim his overtime. Then, the Manager terminated him, where the dismissal was couched on abandonment of work.

Issue: WON there was illegal dismissal?

Ruling :

Yes. To constitute abandonment as a just cause for dismissal, there must be: a.) absence without justifiable reason, b.) a clear intention, as manifested by some overt act, to sever the EER. An employee who takes steps to protest his layoff cannot be by any stretch of imagination be said to have abandoned his work and the filing of the complaint is proof enough of his desire to return to work, thus negating any suggestion of abandonement.