SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 146408. February 29, 2008.]

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. , petitioner, vs . ENRIQUE LIGAN, EMELITO

SOCO, ALLAN PANQUE, JOLITO OLIVEROS, RICHARD GONCER,
NONILON PILAPIL, AQUILINO YBANEZ, BERNABE SANDOVAL, RUEL
GONCER, VIRGILIO P. CAMPOS, JR., ARTHUR M. CAPIN, RAMEL
BERNARDES, LORENZO BUTANAS, BENSON CARESUSA, JEFFREY
LLENOS, ROQUE PILAPIL, ANTONIO M. PAREJA, CLEMENTE R.
LUMAYNO, NELSON TAMPUS, ROLANDO TUNACAO, CHERRIE
ALEGRES, BENEDICTO AUXTERO, EDUARDO MAGDADARAUG,
NELSON M. DULCE, and ALLAN BENTUZAL , respondents.

DECISION

CARPIO MORALES , J : p

Petitioner Philippine Airlines as Owner, and Synergy Services Corporation

(Synergy) as Contractor, entered into an Agreement 1 on July 15, 1991 whereby Synergy
undertook to "provide loading, unloading, delivery of baggage and cargo and other
related services to and from [petitioner]'s aircraft at the Mactan Station." 2
The Agreement speci ed the following "Scope of Services" of Contractor
Synergy:
1.2 CONTRACTOR shall furnish all the necessary capital, workers,
loading, unloading and delivery materials, facilities, supplies, equipment and
tools for the satisfactory performance and execution of the following services
(the Work):
a. Loading and unloading of baggage and cargo to and from the aircraft;

b. Delivering of baggage from the ramp to the baggage claim area;

c. Picking up of baggage from the baggage sorting area to the designated parked
aircraft;

d. Delivering of cargo unloaded from the flight to cargo terminal;

e. Other related jobs (but not janitorial functions) as may be required and
necessary;

CONTRACTOR shall perform and execute the aforementioned Work at the

following areas located at Mactan Station, to wit:
a. Ramp Area

b. Baggage Claim Area

c. Cargo Terminal Area, and

d. Baggage Sorting Area 3 (Underscoring supplied)

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 And it expressly provided that Synergy was "an independent contractor and . . .
that there w[ould] be no employer-employee relationship between CONTRACTOR
and/or its employees on the one hand, and OWNER, on the other." 4
On the duration of the Agreement, Section 10 thereof provided:
10.1 Should at any time OWNER nd the services herein undertaken by
CONTRACTOR to be unsatisfactory, it shall notify CONTRACTOR who shall
have fteen (15) days from such notice within which to improve the
services. If CONTRACTOR fails to improve the services under this
Agreement according to OWNER'S speci cations and standards, OWNER
shall have the right to terminate this Agreement immediately and without
advance notice.

10.2 Should CONTRACTOR fail to improve the services within the period stated
above or should CONTRACTOR breach the terms of this Agreement and
fail or refuse to perform the Work in such a manner as will be consistent
with the achievement of the result therein contracted for or in any other
way fail to comply strictly with any terms of this Agreement, OWNER at its
option, shall have the right to terminate this Agreement and to make other
arrangements for having said Work performed and pursuant thereto shall
retain so much of the money held on the Agreement as is necessary to
cover the OWNER's costs and damages, without prejudice to the right of
OWNER to seek resort to the bond furnished by CONTRACTOR should the
money in OWNER's possession be insufficient. aIDHET

xxx xxx xxx (Underscoring supplied)

Except for respondent Benedicto Auxtero (Auxtero), the rest of the respondents,
who appear to have been assigned by Synergy to petitioner following the execution of
the July 15, 1991 Agreement, led on March 3, 1992 complaints before the NLRC
Regional O ce VII at Cebu City against petitioner, Synergy and their respective o cials
fo r underpayment, non-payment of premium pay for holidays, premium pay for rest
days, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay and allowances, and for regularization
of employment status with petitioner, they claiming to be "performing duties for the
benefit of [petitioner] since their job is directly connected with [its] business . . . ." 5
Respondent Auxtero had initially led a complaint against petitioner and Synergy
and their respective o cials for regularization of his employment status. Later alleging
that he was, without valid ground, verbally dismissed, he led a complaint against
petitioner and Synergy and their respective o cials for illegal dismissal and
reinstatement with full backwages. 6
The complaints of respondents were consolidated.
By Decision 7 of August 29, 1994, Labor Arbiter Dominador Almirante found
Synergy an independent contractor and dismissed respondents' complaint for
regularization against petitioner, but granted their money claims. The fallo of the
decision reads:
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, judgment is hereby
rendered as follows:

(1) Ordering respondents PAL and Synergy jointly and severally to pay all the
complainants herein their 13th month pay and service incentive leave
benefits;

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 xxx xxx xxx

(3) Ordering respondent Synergy to pay complainant Benedicto Auxtero a

financial assistance in the amount of P5,000.00.

The awards hereinabove enumerated in the aggregate total amount of

THREE HUNDRED TWENTY-TWO THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED FIFTY NINE
PESOS AND EIGHTY SEVEN CENTAVOS (P322,359.87) are computed in detail
by our Fiscal Examiner which computation is hereto attached to form part of
this decision.
The rest of the claims are hereby ordered dismissed for lack of merit. 8
(Underscoring supplied)
On appeal by respondents, the NLRC, Fourth Division, Cebu City, vacated and set
aside the decision of the Labor Arbiter by Decision 9 of January 5, 1996, the fallo of
which reads:
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Labor Arbiter Dominador A. Almirante,
dated August 29, 1994, is hereby VACATED and SET ASIDE and judgment is
hereby rendered:

1. Declaring respondent Synergy Services Corporation to be a 'labor-only'

contractor;

2. Ordering respondent Philippine Airlines to accept, as its regular employees,

all the complainants, . . . and to give each of them the salaries, allowances
and other employment benefits and privileges of a regular employee under
the Collective Bargaining Agreement subsisting during the period of their
employment;

xxx xxx xxx

4. Declaring the dismissal of complainant Benedicto Auxtero to be illegal
and ordering his reinstatement as helper or utility man with respondent
Philippine Airlines , with full backwages, allowances and other bene ts
and privileges from the time of his dismissal up to his actual
reinstatement; and
5. Dismissing the appeal of respondent Synergy Services Corporation, for lack of
merit. 10 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Only petitioner assailed the NLRC decision via petition for certiorari before this
Court.
By Resolution 11 of January 25, 1999, this Court referred the case to the Court of
Appeals for appropriate action and disposition, conformably with St. Martin Funeral
Homes v. National Labor Relations Commission which was promulgated on September
16, 1998.
The appellate court, by Decision of September 29, 2000, a rmed the Decision of
the NLRC. 12 Petitioner's motion for reconsideration having been denied by Resolution
of December 21, 2000, 13 the present petition was filed, faulting the appellate court ScaEIT

I.
. . . IN UPHOLDING THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION DECISION
WHICH IMPOSED THE RELATIONSHIP OF EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE BETWEEN
PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 II.
. . . IN AFFIRMING THE RULING OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION ORDERING THE REINSTATEMENT OF RESPONDENT AUXTERO
DESPITE THE ABSENCE [OF] ANY FACTUAL FINDING IN THE DECISION THAT
PETITIONER ILLEGALLY TERMINATED HIS EMPLOYMENT.
III.

. . . [IN ANY EVENT IN] COMMITT[ING] A PATENT AND GRAVE ERROR IN

UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION WHICH COMPELLED THE PETITIONER TO EMPLOY THE
RESPONDENTS AS REGULAR EMPLOYEES DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEIR
SERVICES ARE IN EXCESS OF PETITIONER COMPANY'S OPERATIONAL
REQUIREMENTS. 14 (Underscoring supplied)
Petitioner argues that the law does not prohibit an employer from engaging an
independent contractor, like Synergy, which has substantial capital in carrying on an
independent business of contracting, to perform specific jobs.
Petitioner further argues that its contracting out to Synergy various services like
janitorial, aircraft cleaning, baggage-handling, etc., which are directly related to its
business, does not make respondents its employees.
Petitioner furthermore argues that none of the four (4) elements of an employer-
employee relationship between petitioner and respondents, viz.: selection and
engagement of an employee, payment of wages, power of dismissal, and the power to
control employee's conduct, is present in the case. 15
Finally, petitioner avers that reinstatement of respondents had been rendered
impossible because it had reduced its personnel due to heavy losses as it had in fact
terminated its service agreement with Synergy effective June 30, 1998 16 as a cost-
saving measure.
The decision of the case hinges on a determination of whether Synergy is a mere
job-only contractor or a legitimate contractor. If Synergy is found to be a mere job-only
contractor, respondents could be considered as regular employees of petitioner as
Synergy would then be a mere agent of petitioner in which case respondents would be
entitled to all the bene ts granted to petitioner's regular employees; otherwise, if
Synergy is found to be a legitimate contractor, respondents' claims against petitioner
must fail as they would then be considered employees of Synergy.
The statutory basis of legitimate contracting or subcontracting is provided in
Article 106 of the Labor Code which reads:
ART. 106. CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR. — Whenever an
employer enters into a contract with another person for the performance of the
former's work, the employees of the contractor and of the latter's subcontractor,
if any, shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
In the event that the contractor or subcontractor fails to pay the wages of
his employees in accordance with this Code, the employer shall be jointly and
severally liable with his contractor or subcontractor to such employees to the
extent of the work performed under the contract, in the same manner and extent
that he is liable to employees directly employed by him.
The Secretary of Labor may, by appropriate regulations, restrict or
prohibit the contracting out of labor to protect the rights of workers established
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 under the Code. In so prohibiting or restricting, he may make appropriate
distinctions between labor-only contracting and job contracting as well as
differentiations within these types of contracting and determine who among the
parties involved shall be considered the employer for purposes of this Code, to
prevent any violation or circumvention of any provision of this Code.
There is "labor-only " contracting where the person supplying workers to
an employer does not have substantial capital or investment in the
form of tools, equipment, machineries, work premises, among others,
AND the workers recruited and placed by such person are performing
activities which are directly related to the principal business of such
employer . In such cases, the person or intermediary shall be considered
merely as an agent of the employer who shall be responsible to the
workers in the same manner and extent as if the latter were directly
employed by him . (Emphasis, capitalization and underscoring supplied) HEISca

Legitimate contracting and labor-only contracting are de ned in Department Order

(D.O.) No. 18-02, Series of 2002 (Rules Implementing Articles 106 to 109 of the Labor
Code, as amended) as follows:
Section 3. Trilateral relationship in contracting arrangements . — In
legitimate contracting , there exists a trilateral relationship under which there
is a contract for a speci c job, work or service between the principal and the
contractor or subcontractor, and a contract of employment between the
contractor or subcontractor and its workers. Hence, there are three parties
involved in these arrangements, the principal which decides to farm out a job or
service to a contractor or subcontractor, the contractor or subcontractor which
has the capacity to independently undertake the performance of the job, work or
service, and the contractual workers engaged by the contractor or subcontractor
to accomplish the job, work or service. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Section 5. Prohibition against labor-only contracting. — Labor-only
contracting is hereby declared prohibited. For this purpose, labor-only
contracting shall refer to an arrangement where the contractor or subcontractor
merely recruits, supplies or places workers to perform a job, work or service for a
principal, and any of the following elements are [sic] present:
(i) The contractor or subcontractor does not have substantial capital or
investment which relates to the job, work or service to be performed and
the employees recruited, supplied or placed by such contractor or
subcontractor are performing activities which are directly related to the
main business of the principal ; OR

(ii) The contractor does not exercise the right to control over the
performance of the work of the contractual employee. (Emphasis,
underscoring and capitalization supplied)

"Substantial capital or investment" and the "right to control" are de ned in the
same Section 5 of the Department Order as follows:
"Substantial capital or investment" refers to capital stocks and
subscribed capitalization in the case of corporations, tools, equipment,
implements, machineries and work premises, actually and directly used by the
contractor or subcontractor in the performance or completion of the job, work or
service contracted out.
The "right to control " shall refer to the right reserved to the person for
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 whom the services of the contractual workers are performed, to determine not
only the end to be achieved, but also the manner and means to be used in
reaching that end. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
From the records of the case, it is gathered that the work performed by almost
all of the respondents — loading and unloading of baggage and cargo of passengers —
is directly related to the main business of petitioner. And the equipment used by
respondents as station loaders, such as trailers and conveyors, are owned by
petitioner. 17
Petitioner asserts, however, that mere compliance with substantial capital
requirement su ces for Synergy to be considered a legitimate contractor, citing Neri v.
National Labor Relations Commission. 18 Petitioner's reliance on said case is
misplaced.
I n Neri, the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC both determined that Building Care
Corporation had a capital stock of P1 million fully subscribed and paid for. 19 The
corporation's status as independent contractor had in fact been previously con rmed
in an earlier case 20 by this Court which found it to be serving, among others, a
university, an international bank, a big local bank, a hospital center, government
agencies, etc."
In stark contrast to the case at bar, while petitioner steadfastly asserted before
the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that Synergy has a substantial capital to engage in
legitimate contracting, it failed to present evidence thereon. As the NLRC held:
The decision of the Labor Arbiter merely mentioned on page 5 of his
decision that respondent SYNERGY has substantial capital, but there is no
showing in the records as to how much is that capital. Neither had respondents
shown that SYNERGY has such substantial capital. . . . 21 (Underscoring
supplied)
It was only after the appellate court rendered its challenged Decision of
September 29, 2002 when petitioner, in its Motion for Reconsideration of the decision,
sought to prove, for the rst time, Synergy's substantial capitalization by attaching
photocopies of Synergy's nancial statements, e.g., balance sheets, statements of
income and retained earnings, marked as "Annexes 'A' — 'A-4.'" 22
More signi cantly, however, is that respondents worked alongside petitioner's
regular employees who were performing identical work. 23 As San Miguel Corporation
v. Aballa 24 and Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Esteva, et al . 25 teach, such is an indicium of
labor-only contracting. CTEDSI

For labor-only contracting to exist, Section 5 of D.O. No. 18-02 which requires any
of two elements to be present is, for convenience, re-quoted:
(i) The contractor or subcontractor does not have substantial capital or
investment which relates to the job, work or service to be performed and
the employees recruited, supplied or placed by such contractor or
subcontractor are performing activities which are directly related to the
main business of the principal, OR
(ii) The contractor does not exercise the right to control over the performance of
the work of the contractual employee. (Emphasis and CAPITALIZATION
supplied)

Even if only one of the two elements is present then, there is labor-only
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 contracting.
The control test element under the immediately-quoted paragraph (ii), which was
not present in the old Implementing Rules (Department Order No. 10, Series of 1997),
26 echoes the prevailing jurisprudential trend 27 elevating such element as a primary
determinant of employer-employee relationship in job contracting agreements.
One who claims to be an independent contractor has to prove that he contracted
to do the work according to his own methods and without being subject to the
employer's control except only as to the results. 28
While petitioner claimed that it was Synergy's supervisors who actually
supervised respondents, it failed to present evidence thereon. It did not even identify
who were the Synergy supervisors assigned at the workplace.
Even the parties' Agreement does not lend support to petitioner's claim, thus:
Section 6. Qualified and Experienced Worker: Owner's Right to Dismiss
Workers.
CONTRACTOR shall employ capable and experienced workers and
foremen to carry out the loading, unloading and delivery Work as well as provide
all equipment, loading, unloading and delivery equipment, materials, supplies
and tools necessary for the performance of the Work. CONTRACTOR shall upon
OWNER'S request furnish the latter with information regarding the quali cations
of the former's workers, to prove their capability and experience. Contractor
shall require all its workers, employees, suppliers and visitors to
comply with OWNER'S rules, regulations, procedures and directives
relative to the safety and security of OWNER'S premises , properties,
and operations . For this purpose, CONTRACTOR shall furnish its
employees and workers identification cards to be countersigned by
OWNER and uniforms to be approved by OWNER . OWNER may require
CONTRACTOR to dismissimmediately and prohibit entry into OWNER'S
premises of any person employed therein by CONTRACTOR who in
OWNER'S opinion is incompetent or misconducts himself or does not
comply with OWNER'S reasonable instructions and requests regarding
security, safety and other matters and such person shall not again be employed
to perform the services hereunder without OWNER'S permission. 29
(Underscoring partly in the original and partly supplied; emphasis supplied)
Petitioner in fact admitted that it xes the work schedule of respondents as their
work was dependent on the frequency of plane arrivals. 30 And as the NLRC found,
petitioner's managers and supervisors approved respondents' weekly work
assignments and respondents and other regular PAL employees were all referred to as
"station attendants" of the cargo operation and airfreight services of petitioner. 31
Respondents having performed tasks which are usually necessary and desirable
in the air transportation business of petitioner, they should be deemed its regular
employees and Synergy as a labor-only contractor. 32
The express provision in the Agreement that Synergy was an independent
contractor and there would be "no employer-employee relationship between [Synergy]
and/or its employees on one hand, and [petitioner] on the other hand" is not legally
binding and conclusive as contractual provisions are not valid determinants of the
existence of such relationship. For it is the totality of the facts and surrounding
circumstances of the case 3 3 which is determinative of the parties' relationship.
Respecting the dismissal on November 15, 1992 34 of Auxtero, a regular
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 employee of petitioner who had been working as utility man/helper since November
1988, it is not legally justi ed for want of just or authorized cause therefor and for non-
compliance with procedural due process. Petitioner's claim that he abandoned his work
does not persuade. 35 The elements of abandonment being (1) the failure to report for
work or absence without valid or justi able reason, and (2) a clear intention to sever the
employer-employee relationship manifested by some overt acts, 36 the onus probandi
lies with petitioner which, however, failed to discharge the same.
Auxtero, having been declared to be a regular employee of petitioner, and found
to be illegally dismissed from employment, should be entitled to salary differential 37
from the time he rendered one year of service until his dismissal, reinstatement plus
backwages until the nality of this decision. 38 In view, however, of the long period of
t ime 39 that had elapsed since his dismissal on November 15, 1992, it would be
appropriate to award separation pay of one (1) month salary for each year of service, in
lieu of reinstatement. 40
As regards the remaining respondents, the Court a rms the ruling of both the
NLRC and the appellate court, ordering petitioner to accept them as its regular
employees and to give each of them the salaries, allowances and other employment
bene ts and privileges of a regular employee under the pertinent Collective Bargaining
Agreement. cdasia

Petitioner claims, however, that it has become impossible for it to comply with
the orders of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, for during the pendency of this case, it
was forced to reduce its personnel due to heavy losses caused by economic crisis and
the pilots' strike of June 5, 1998. 41 Hence, there are no available positions where
respondents could be placed.
And petitioner informs that "the employment contracts of all if not most of the
respondents . . . were terminated by Synergy effective 30 June 1998 when petitioner
terminated its contract with Synergy." 42
Other than its bare allegations, petitioner presented nothing to substantiate its
impossibility of compliance. In fact, petitioner waived this defense by failing to raise it
in its Memorandum led on June 14, 1999 before the Court of Appeals. 43 Further, the
notice of termination in 1998 was in disregard of a subsisting temporary restraining
order 44 to preserve the status quo, issued by this Court in 1996 before it referred the
case to the Court of Appeals in January 1999. So as to thwart the attempt to subvert
the implementation of the assailed decision, respondents are deemed to be
continuously employed by petitioner, for purposes of computing the wages and
benefits due respondents.
Finally, it must be stressed that respondents, having been declared to be regular
employees of petitioner, Synergy being a mere agent of the latter, had acquired security
of tenure. As such, they could only be dismissed by petitioner, the real employer, on the
basis of just or authorized cause, and with observance of procedural due process.
WHEREFORE , the Court of Appeals Decision of September 29, 2000 is
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Petitioner PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. is ORDERED to:
(a) accept respondents ENRIQUE LIGAN, EMELITO SOCO, ALLAN PANQUE,
JOLITO OLIVEROS, RICHARD GONCER, NONILON PILAPIL, AQUILINO
YBANEZ, BERNABE SANDOVAL, RUEL GONCER, VIRGILIO P. CAMPOS,
JR., ARTHUR M. CAPIN, RAMEL BERNARDES, LORENZO BUTANAS,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 BENSON CARESUSA, JEFFREY LLENOS, ROQUE PILAPIL, ANTONIO M.
PAREJA, CLEMENTE R. LUMAYNO, NELSON TAMPUS, ROLANDO
TUNACAO, CHERRIE ALEGRES, EDUARDO MAGDADARAUG, NELSON
M. DULCE and ALLAN BENTUZAL as its regular employees in their
same or substantially equivalent positions, and pay the wages and
bene ts due them as regular employees plus salary differential
corresponding to the difference between the wages and bene ts
given them and those granted to petitioner's other regular employees
of the same rank; and
(b) pay respondent BENEDICTO AUXTERO salary differential ;
b ackwag es from the time of his dismissal until the nality of this
decision; and separation pay , in lieu of reinstatement, equivalent to
one (1) month pay for every year of service until the nality of this
decision.
There being no data from which this Court may determine the monetary liabilities
of petitioner, the case is REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter solely for that purpose.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, ** Azcuna, *** Tinga and Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.
Quisumbing, J., * is on official leave.

Footnotes
* On official leave per Special Order No. 485 dated February 14, 2008.
** Acting Chairperson
*** Additional member pursuant to Special Order No. 485 dated February 14, 2008.
1. NLRC records, Vol. I, pp. 168-177.

2. Rollo, p. 136.
3. Id. at 136-137.
4. Id. at 138.
5. Id. at 8; NLRC records, Vol. 1, p. 104.

6. Ibid.; vide also NLRC records, Vol. 1, p. 151.

7. Rollo, pp. 302-316.
8. Id. at 315-316.
9. Id. at 226-237.
10. Id. at 236-237.

11. CA rollo, p. 179.

12. Rollo, pp. 7-17. Penned by Associate Justice B.A. Adefuin-De la Cruz and concurred in by
then Presiding Justice Salome Montoya and Associate Justice Renato Dacudao.
13. Id. at 29.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 14. Id. at 42-43.
15. Id. at 47-49.
16. Id. at 52.
17. Id. at 184.

18. G.R. Nos. 97008-09, July 23, 1993, 224 SCRA 717.
19. Id. at 720.
20. Citing Associated Labor Unions-TUCP v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No.
101784, October 21, 1991, Third Division, Minute Resolution.
21. Rollo, p. 285.
22. Vide Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of CA Decision of September 29, 2000, id. at
425-450.
23. Id. at 348-349; vide NLRC records, Vol. 1, pp. 105 and 223; Position Papers for Petitioner,
NLRC records, Vol. 1, pp. 83-92 and pp. 156-167; Affidavit of Benedicto A. Auxtero, NLRC
records, Vol. 1, p. 185; Memorandum for petitioner, NLRC records, Vol. 1, pp. 206-216.
24. G.R. No. 149011, June 28, 2005, 461 SCRA 392, 425. This Court held:
xxx xxx xxx
More. Private respondents had been working in the aqua processing plant inside the
SMC compound alongside regular SMC shrimp processing workers performing identical
jobs under the same SMC supervisors. This circumstance is another indicium of the
existence of a labor-only contractorship.

xxx xxx xxx (Underscoring supplied)

25. G.R. No. 161115, November 30, 2006, 509 SCRA 332.
26. Section 4(f) of Rule VIII-A of the Implementing Rules of Book III, as added by Department
Order No. 10, Series of 1997, merely provides:
(f) "Labor-only contracting" prohibited under this Rule is an arrangement where the
contractor or subcontractor merely recruits, supplies or places workers to perform a job,
work or service for a principal, and the following elements are present :

(i) The contractor or subcontractor does not have substantial capital or investment to
actually perform the job, work or service under its own account and responsibility; and

(ii) The employees recruited, supplied or placed by such contractor or subcontractor are
performing activities which are directly related to the main business of the principal.
27. Vide Neri v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra note 18; Aurora Land Projects
Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 334 Phil. 44, 48 (1997); Escario v.
National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 124055, June 8, 2000, 333 SCRA 257;
Vinoya v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 126586, February 2, 2000, 324
SCRA 469; National Power Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119121, August 14,
1998, 294 SCRA 209.
28. Acevedo v. Advanstar Company, Inc., G.R. No. 157656, November 11, 2005, 474 SCRA 656,
668 citing New Golden City Builders and Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals,
463 Phil. 821 (2003); San Miguel Corporation v. Aballa, supra note 24 at 421.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 29. Rollo, p. 170.
30. NLRC records, Vol. 1, p. 6.
31. Id. at 477.
32. Aboitiz Haulers, Inc. v. Dimapatoi, G.R. No. 148619, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 271, 287
citing Guinnux Interiors, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 339 Phil. 75, 78-79
(1997); Manila Water Company Inc. v. Peña, G.R. No. 158255, July 8, 2004, 434 SCRA 53,
60-61.

33. San Miguel Corporation v. Aballa, supra note 24 at 422-423 (citation omitted).
34. NLRC records, Vol. 1, p. 185.
35. Floren Hotel v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 155264, May 6, 2005, 458
SCRA 128, 144; Masagana Concrete Products v. NLRC, 372 Phil. 459 (1999).
36. Northwest Tourism Corp. v. Court of Appeals, Former Special Third Division, G.R. No.
150591, June 27, 2005, 461 SCRA 298, 309; ACD Investigation Security Agency, Inc. v.
Daquera, G.R. No. 147473, March 30, 2004, 426 SCRA 494; Premier Development Bank v.
NLRC, 354 Phil. 851 (1998).
37. Vide Cinderella Marketing Corporation v. NLRC, 353 Phil. 284 (1998); ABS-CBN
Broadcasting Corporation v. Nazareno, G.R. No. 164156, September 2006, 503 SCRA
204; Kimberly-Clark (Phils.), Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 156668, November 23,
2007 for jurisprudence on regularization differential.

38. Star Paper Corporation v. Espiritu, G.R. No. 154006, November 2, 2006, 506 SCRA 556, 568;
Tan v. Lagrama, G.R. No. 151228, August 15, 2002, 387 SCRA 393, 406; Prudential Bank
and Trust Co. v. Reyes, G.R. No. 141093, February 20, 2001, 352 SCRA 316, 332.
39. Gold City Integrated Port Service, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No.
103560, July 6, 1995, 245 SCRA 627, 641; Panday v. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 67664, May 20, 1992, 209 SCRA 122.
40. Northwest Tourism Corp. v. Court of Appeals, Former Special Third Division, G.R. No.
150591, June 27, 2005, 461 SCRA 298, 311; F.F. Marine Corporation v. National Labor
Relations Commission, Second Division, G.R. No. 152039, April 8, 2005, 455 SCRA 154,
174.

41. Rollo, p. 53.

42. Id. at 54; vide Annexes "B"-"B-12" inclusive, pp. 453-465.

43. Vide rollo, pp. 382-396.

44. Rollo, pp. 327-341.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com