Scribd
Upload
185 views1 page

Labor Dispute: Contractor Status

1. Philippine Pizza, Inc. filed a petition arguing that Consolidated Building Maintenance, Inc. is a legitimate job contractor and employer of delivery riders it had hired. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Philippine Pizza, Inc. and found that Consolidated Building Maintenance, Inc. is a legitimate job contractor. 2. Consolidated Building Maintenance, Inc. has been registered as a job contractor with the Department of Labor and Employment since 1967, has substantial capital and assets, and provides services to various clients independently of Philippine Pizza, Inc. 3. As the legitimate job contractor, Consolidated Building Maintenance, Inc. exercises control over the delivery riders through hiring, payment of wages

Uploaded by

Alelie Joy Malazarte
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
185 views1 page

Labor Dispute: Contractor Status

1. Philippine Pizza, Inc. filed a petition arguing that Consolidated Building Maintenance, Inc. is a legitimate job contractor and employer of delivery riders it had hired. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Philippine Pizza, Inc. and found that Consolidated Building Maintenance, Inc. is a legitimate job contractor. 2. Consolidated Building Maintenance, Inc. has been registered as a job contractor with the Department of Labor and Employment since 1967, has substantial capital and assets, and provides services to various clients independently of Philippine Pizza, Inc. 3. As the legitimate job contractor, Consolidated Building Maintenance, Inc. exercises control over the delivery riders through hiring, payment of wages

Uploaded by

Alelie Joy Malazarte
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

PHILIPPINE PIZZA, INC. vs. ELVIS C. TUMPANG, JOEL L. RAMO, RUEL C.

FENIS,
AND CONSOLIDATED BUILDING MAINTENANCE, INC.
G.R. No. 231090
June 22, 2022

Facts:
Petitioner is a domestic corporation and the franchisee and operator of the Pizza Hut
chain of restaurants. On the other hand, CBMI is a corporation engaged in the business of
providing janitorial, kitchen, messengerial, elevator maintenance, and allied services to various
clients, such as petitioner. Respondents filed a complaint for regularization with the Labor
Arbiter. They alleged that petitioner hired them as delivery riders sometime in 2003, 2004, and
2008, respectively. According to respondents, they became regular employees of petitioner in
view of the years of service they rendered as delivery riders, a job necessary and desirable to
petitioner’s business. Moreover, respondents averred that CBMI is a labor-only contractor as it
was petitioner which exercised control and supervision over them and owned the tools and
motorcycles they used in the performance of their duties.

The LA decided in favor of petitioner and dismissed the complaint for regularization filed
by respondents for lack of merit. Aggrieved, respondents appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC
dismissed the appeal of respondents and agreed with the LA that CBMI is a legitimate job
contractor, and hence, the employer of respondents. On appeal, the CA ruled in favor of
respondents and CBMI, and held that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in
affirming the ruling of the LA that CBMI was a legitimate job contractor. According to the CA,
CBMI is a labor-only contractor as respondents’ duties as delivery riders were necessary and
desirable in the usual trade and business of petitioner. Aggrieved, petitioner and CBMI moved to
reconsider the Decision of the CA, but the latter denied it. Hence, the instant petition.

Issue:
Whether CBMI is a legitimate job contractor and the employer of respondents.

Ruling:
The Court ruled that the CA erred in imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
NLRC. The status of CBMI as a legitimate job contractor is supported by substantial evidence
and, in fact, settled by case laws. That CBMI is a legitimate job contractor had long been
resolved in the cases of Asprec and Cayetano.

In support of its position that it is engaged in legitimate job contracting, CBMI attached
for the Court’s reference, its Certificate of Registration with the Department of Labor and
Employment. Furthermore, it cites that it has been in operation for almost 50 years, counting
various institutions among its clients. Per documentary evidence attached by CBMI, the
company’s total assets at the time of filing of the respondents’ complaint before the NLRC in
2010 amounted to Php84,351,349.00. Based on its attached Audited Financial Statements for the
years 2008 and 2009, its total assets, which consists of cash, receivables, and property and
equipment, amounted to Php79,203,902.00 and Php76,189,554.00, respectively. Incidentally, for
the years 2005 to 2007 and 2012, CBMI’s paid-up capital amounted to Php3,500,000.00, which
is even beyond by the standard set by the DOLE D.O. No. 18-A, series of 2011, of what
constitutes substantial capital. Clearly, CBMI has substantial capital to maintain its manpower
business. From the evidence adduced by CBMI, it is also clear that it runs a business independent
from the PPI. Based on its registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC),
CBMI has been in existence since 1967; and has since provided a variety of services to entities in
various fields, such as banking, hospitals, and even government institutions. Without necessarily
touching on the respondents’ status prior to their employment with CBMI, in the instant
controversy, CBMI’s control over the respondents is manifested by the fact that they wield and
exercise the following powers over them: selection and engagement, payment of wages,
dismissal, and control over the employees’ conduct. All these, without doubt indicate that CBMI
possesses the power of control over the respondents; which in turn supports the conclusion that
CBMI carries a business independent of petitioner PPI.

You might also like