Abing v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ronnie L. Abing sought employment with Allied Banking Corporation (Allied Bank) in December 1991, and was instructed to apply with Marilag Business and Industrial Management Services, Inc. (Marilag), a service contractor of Allied Bank. Petitioner worked at Allied Bank, performing various tasks and holding an Allied Bank ID as a contractual employee. When Allied Bank terminated its service contract with Marilag and entered into a new one with Facilitators General Services, Inc. (FGSI) in August 2002, petitioner was instructed to report to FGSI and subsequently resumed his work at Allied Bank. In October 2003, Allied Bank terminated its contract with FGSI, leading to petitioner being told to stop reporting to the bank's main office. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Allied Bank, asserting he was its employee and was terminated without due process, arguing the service contracts were a scheme to prevent his regularization. Allied Bank denied employing petitioner, stating he was hired by Marilag and FGSI. FGSI claimed it was a legitimate job contractor, that petitioner was its employee, and that he refused reassignment after its contract with Allied Bank ended, subsequently executing a quitclaim and release. Marilag also stated petitioner executed a quitclaim in its favor. The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed petitioner's complaint, finding he failed to prove employment with Allied Bank and was an employee of Marilag and FGSI, citing the quitclaims. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) initially reversed the LA, finding an employer-employee relationship between petitioner and Allied Bank due to the necessity of his services. However, upon reconsideration, the NLRC reinstated the LA's decision, finding FGSI to be a legitimate job contractor and petitioner its employee, noting his quitclaim. The Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the NLRC's decision, finding FGSI to be a legitimate job contractor under DOLE Department Order No. 18-02. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, reiterating his claim that Allied Bank was his true employer and that he was illegally dismissed without valid cause and due process. He argued that the service contracts with Marilag and FGSI were a scheme to prevent his regularization, despite his long and continuous service performing tasks necessary and desirable to Allied Bank's business.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly determined that the National Labor Relations Commission committed no grave abuse of discretion in ruling that FGSI is a legitimate job contractor and that petitioner is an employee thereof. Whether petitioner was an employee of Allied Bank or FGSI.
Ruling
The petition is devoid of merit. The Court finds no reversible error with the decision of the Court of Appeals in dismissing the petition for certiorari filed before it. The Court of Appeals correctly held that the respondent NLRC committed no arbitrary and despotic exercise of its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it ruled that FGSI is an independent job contractor and that the petitioner is an employee thereof. The LA, NLRC, and CA all found that FGSI is a legitimate job contractor and that the petitioner was an employee of FGSI when he was terminated upon the expiration of its service contract with Allied Bank. The Court affirmed that the petitioner is clearly not an employee of Allied Bank and his complaint for illegal dismissal filed against the respondents has no merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the Court of Appeals correctly determined that the National Labor Relations Commission committed no grave abuse of discretion in ruling that FGSI is a legitimate job contractor and that petitioner is an employee thereof: The Court reiterated that a Rule 45 review of a CA decision in a labor case is limited to assessing whether the CA correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC. The Court found that the CA correctly held that the NLRC committed no arbitrary exercise of discretion. The LA, NLRC, and CA consistently found FGSI to be a legitimate job contractor and petitioner to be its employee. The Court cited Section 4(a) of DOLE Department Order No. 18-02, defining legitimate labor contracting, and contrasted it with labor-only contracting under Article 106 of the Labor Code. The evidence presented, including FGSI's long business history, its service contracts with various entities, and its investment in tools and equipment, supported its status as a legitimate job contractor. The application of the four-fold test further confirmed that FGSI, not Allied Bank, possessed the elements of an employer-employee relationship, namely selection and engagement, payment of wages, power of dismissal, and power of control. On Whether petitioner was an employee of Allied Bank or FGSI: The Court applied the four-fold test to determine the employer-employee relationship. Regarding selection and engagement, FGSI hired the petitioner and assigned him to Allied Bank, as acknowledged by the petitioner in his employment agreement and position paper. For payment of wages, the petitioner received his pay and benefits from FGSI, and in his quitclaim, he acknowledged receipt of all monetary benefits from FGSI. The Court noted that unless a quitclaim is unconscionable or obtained from a gullible person, or the terms of the settlement are unconscionable in its face, the courts shall not step in to annul the same, and such circumstances were not present here. Concerning the power of dismissal, the petitioner's quitclaim acknowledged FGSI's power to terminate his services, and his employment agreement stipulated FGSI's right to dismiss him for rule violations. Finally, regarding the power of control, FGSI's Personnel Officer regularly visited Allied Bank's premises to supervise, and FGSI had the power to reassign the petitioner. The petitioner's refusal to be reassigned after the termination of the service contract led to his decision to end his employment with FGSI, after which he collected his final pay. The Court concluded that petitioner was an employee of FGSI, a legitimate job contractor, and not of Allied Bank.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that a review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court concerning a Court of Appeals decision in a labor case is limited to determining whether the CA correctly identified grave abuse of discretion by the National Labor Relations Commission. The Court emphasized that it does not re-evaluate the merits of the NLRC's decision but rather examines the CA's determination of whether the NLRC acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion. This principle ensures that the appellate review remains focused on jurisdictional errors rather than factual disputes already passed upon by labor tribunals.