1.
Philippine Bank of Communication vs NLRC
GR No. L-66598
acts!
Philippine Bank of Communications (PBC) and the Corporate Executive Search Inc. (CESI) entered into a letter agreement
dated Januar !"#$ under %hich CESI undertook to provide temporar services to PBC consisting of the temporar services
of !! messengers. &ttached to the letter %as a list of messengers to 'e assigned( %hich included )icardo *rpiada
)icardo *rpiada %as thus assigned to %ork %ith the petitioner 'ank. &s such( he rendered services to the 'ank( %ithin the
premises of the 'ank and alongside other people also rendering services to the 'ank.
+here %as some ,uestion as to %hen )icardo *rpiada commenced rendering services to the 'ank. &s noted a'ove( the letter
agreement %as dated Januar !"#$.-o%ever(..the position paper su'mitted ' (CESI) to the /ational 0a'or )elations
Commission stated that (CESI) hired )icardo *rpiada on 12 June !"#2 as a +emporar Service emploee( and assigned him
to %ork %ith the petitioner 'ank 3as evidenced ' the appointment memo issued to him on 12 June !"#2. 3
*cto'er !"#$( PBC re,uested CESI to %ithdra% *rpiada4s assignment 'ecause his services %ere no longer needed.
*rpiada instituted a complaint %ith the 5ept of 0a'or for illegal dismissal and failure to pa !6
th
month pa. &fter investigation(
the *ffice of the )egional 5irector issued an order dismissing *rpiada4s complaint for failure to sho% existence of an
emploer7emploee relationship 'et%een the 'ank and himself.
*rpiada succeeded in having his complaint certified for compulsor ar'itration( CESI %as made an additional respondent.
0a'or &r'iter 5ogelio rendered a decision ordering PBC to reinstated *rpiada to the same or e,uivalent position %ith full 'ack
%ages and to pa his !6
th
month pa. *n appeal( /0)C modified the lBaor &r'iter4s decision limiting 'ack %ages to t%o ears
and affirmed in all other aspects
"ssue!
8hether or not an emploer7emploee relationship existed
#el$
9es( there %as an emploer7emploee relationship. +he court affirmed the /0)C decision.
Ratio!
+here are four factors to verif the existence of an emploer7emploee relationship: selection and engagement of the putative
emploee( pament of %ages( po%er of dismissal( and po%er to control the putative emploees; conduct.
8ith respect to the selection and engagement of the emploee( although *rpiada %as not personall selected ' PBC( his selection
%as still su'<ect to the acceptance of the 'ank. 8ith respect to %ages( PBC remitted to CESI amounts corresponding to the dail
service rate and CESI paid the %ages. *rpiada did not even appear in the paroll of PBC( 'ut %as listed in the paroll of CESI. 8ith
respect to po%er of dismissal( after %ithdra%al from his assignment( he %as also terminated ' CESI. It %ould appear that he %as hired
' CESI specificall for assignment %ith PBC. 8ith regards to control( since *rpiada performed his functions %ithin the 'ank4s
premises( not %ithin CESI4s premises( he must have 'een su'<ect to at least the same control and supervision that the 'ank exercises.
&pplication of the a'ove factors in the specific context of this case appears to ield mixed results so far as concerns the existence of an
emploer7 emploer relationship 'et%een the 'ank and *rpiada.=nder the general rule set out in the first and second paragraphs of
&rticle !>$( an emploer %ho enters into a contract %ith a contractor for the performance of %ork for the emploer( does not there'
create an emploer7emploee relationship 'et%een himself and the emploees of the contractor. +hus( the emploees of the contractor
remain the contractor;s emploees and his alone. /onetheless %hen a contractor fails to pa the %ages of his emploees in
accordance %ith the 0a'or Code( the emploer %ho contracted out the <o' to the contractor 'ecomes <ointl and severall lia'le %ith his
contractor to the emploees of the latter 3to the extent of the %ork performed under the contract3 as such emploer %ere the emploer
of the contractor;s emploees. 8e hold that( in the circumstances ;instances of this case( (CESI) %as engaged in 3la'or7onl3 or
attracting vis7a7vis the petitioner and in respect )icardo *rpiada( and that 'ecause there is la'or7onl contracting( the petitioner 'ank is
lia'le to *rpiada as if *rpiada had 'een directl( emploed not onl ' (CESI) 'ut also ' the 'ank. It ma %ell 'e that the 'ank ma in
turn proceed against (CESI) to o'tain reim'ursement of( or some contri'ution to( the amounts %hich the 'ank %ill have to pa to
*rpiada: 'ut this it is not necessar to determine here.
