Contact Details

6th & 7th Floors Tuscan Building
114 V.A. Rufino Street, Legaspi Village, 1229 Makati City, Philippines
Telephone: +63 2 8674696
Fax: +63 2 8671304
E-mail: counsel[at]platonmartinez.com
Home arrow Law Updates arrow Permissible job contracting; when present
Permissible job contracting; when present Print
In Rolando Sasan, Sr. et al. vs. NLRC, et al. G.R. No. 176240. October 17, 2008 the Court reiterated that in distinguishing between permissible job contracting and prohibited labor-only contracting, it is not enough to show substantial capitalization or investment in the form of tools, equipment, etc. Other facts that may be considered include the following: whether or not the contractor is carrying on an independent business; the nature and extent of the work; the skill required; the term and duration of the relationship; the right to assign the performance of specified pieces of work; the control and supervision of the work to another; the employer’s power with respect to the hiring, firing and payment of the contractor’s workers; the control of the premises; the duty to supply premises, tools, appliances, materials and labor; and the mode and manner or terms of payment. Simply put, the totality of the facts and the surrounding circumstances of the case are to be considered. Each case must be determined by its own facts and all the features of the relationship are to be considered. The law does not require both substantial capital and investment in the form of tools, equipment, machineries, etc. It is enough that it has substantial capital. The Court has expostulated that once it is established that an entity such as in this case, HI has substantial capital, it was no longer necessary to adduce further evidence to prove that it does not fall within the purview of “labor-only” contracting. There is even no need for HI to refute the contention of petitioners that some of the activities they performed such as those of messengerial services are directly related to the principal business of E- PCIBank.
In this case, the Court also took note that the subcontractor was issued by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) a Certificate of Registration stating among other things that it has complied with the requirements as provided for under the Labor Code, as amended, and its Implementing Rules and having paid the registration fee. Having been issued by a public officer, this certification carries with it the presumption that it was issued in the regular performance of official duty. In the absence of proof, petitioner’s bare assertion cannot prevail over this presumption. Moreover, the DOLE being the agency primarily responsible for regulating the business of independent job contractors, we can presume in the absence of evidence to the contrary that it thoroughly evaluated the requirements submitted by HI as a precondition to the issuance of the Cerificate of Registration.
< Prev   Next >
Free Joomla Templates