Locsin v PLDT (Labor relations)

LOCSIN v PLDT GR No. 185251 October 2, 2009  

FACTS:  

On November 1, 1990, respondent Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) and the Security and Safety Corporation of the Philippines (SSCP) entered into a Security Services Agreement (Agreement) whereby SSCP would provide armed security guards to PLDT to be assigned to its various offices.  Pursuant to such agreement, petitioners Raul Locsin and Eddie Tomaquin, among other security guards, were posted at a PLDT office.  

On August 30, 2001, respondent issued a Letter dated August 30, 2001 terminating the Agreement effective October 1, 2001.  Despite the termination of the Agreement, however, petitioners continued to secure the premises of their assigned office. They were allegedly directed to remain at their post by representatives of respondent. In support of their contention, petitioners provided the Labor Arbiter with copies of petitioner Locsin's pay slips for the period of January to September 2002.  

Then, on September 30, 2002, petitioners' services were terminated. Thus, petitioners filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal and recovery of money claims such as overtime pay, holiday pay, premium pay for holiday and rest day, service incentive leave pay, Emergency Cost of Living Allowance, and moral and exemplary damages against PLDT.  

DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:

 * Labor Arbiter: PLDT liable for illegal dismissal. It was explained in the Decision that petitioners were found to be employees of PLDT and not of SSCP. Such conclusion was arrived at with the factual finding that petitioners continued to serve as guards of PLDT's offices. As such employees, petitioners were entitled to substantive and procedural due process before termination of employment. 

* NLRC: affirmed Labor Arbiter. 

* CA: reversed the NLRC. The CA applied the four‐fold test in order to determine the existence of an employer‐employee relationship between the parties but did not find such relationship. It determined that SSCP was not a labor‐only contractor and was an independent contractor having substantial capital to operate and conduct its own business. The CA further bolstered its decision by citing the Agreement whereby it was stipulated that there shall be no employer‐employee relationship between the security guards and PLDT.  

ISSUE: whether petitioners became employees of respondent after the Agreement between SSCP and respondent was terminated or Whether or not; complainants extended services to the respondent for one (1) year from October 1, 2001, the effectivity of the termination of the contract of complainants agency SSCP, up to September 30, 2002, without a renewed contract, constitutes an employer‐employee relationship between respondent and the complainants.  

RULING:  

YES, the security guards are employees of PLDT. From the foregoing explanation of the CA, the fact remains that petitioners remained at their post after the termination of the Agreement. Notably, in its Comment dated March 10,  

2009,[8] respondent never denied that petitioners remained at their post until September 30, 2002. While respondent denies the alleged circumstances stated by petitioners, that they were told to remain at their post by respondent's Security Department and that they were informed by SSCP Operations Officer Eduardo Juliano that their salaries would be coursed through SSCP as per arrangement with PLDT, it does not state why they were not made to vacate their posts. Respondent said that it did not know why petitioners remained at their posts.  

Rule 131, Section 3(y) of the Rules of Court provides: SEC. 3. Disputable presumptions.—The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence: x x x x (y) That things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and the ordinary habits of life.  

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.  

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 respondent dictated upon 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 an employer‐employee relationship.