LABOR LAW (September 14, 2019)

Case Agencies Industry Labor Arbiter NLRC CA Supreme Court

(Principally
engaged in)
Aliviado v. Proctor Promm-Gemm / Manufacture & Dismissed saying Affirmed Affirmed whether P&G is the employer of petitioners
and Gamble SAPS production of there’s no ER-EE
different consumer Rel. and that they YES. Under A106, SOL may define labpr on;ly
and health are employees of contracting.
products the agencies using
(Merchandisers. 4 fold test First circumstance of Labor only contracting –
Filed complaint PromGEM-independent contractor, SAPS, Labor Only
against P&G for Contracting
not payment of
benefits) and To prevent circumvention of labor Code, in LOC, the
ldismissa; employees are to be considered as employees of the
principal, as EE ER is established.

As to dismissal (Prm Gemm followed the Procedural

due processs but has no valid ground for
termination.

P&G has not proven the validity of the dismissal of

the employees ‘contracted under SAPS’ considering
that they are the employer of such employees.
(entitled to moral damages since there’s bad faith
and attorney fees)