FVR SKILLS v. SEVA G.R. No. 200857 October 22, 2014 - J!"tor- re#$%r or &ro'ect( FA)*S+ *e te!t-e"#t /28 re&o!e!t "! t" ce ere e3&%oee o &et"t"o!er FVR S"%% ! Serv"ce E6&o!e!t, I!c. / petitioner , , ! "!e&e!e!t co!trctor e!##e "! te b$"!e o &rov""!# '!"tor"% ! oter oter 3!&oer 3!&oer erv"ce erv"ce to "t c%"e!t. c%"e!t. As early as 1998, some of the respondents had already been under the petitioner's employ. e mploy. O! A&r"% 21, 2008, 2008, &et"t"o!e &et"t"o!err e!tere e!tere "!to )o!trct )o!trct o J!"tor" J!"tor"%% Serv"ce Serv"ce /erv"ce co!trct co!trct "t Rob"!o! Rob"!o! L! )or&ort"o! )or&ort"o!.. ot #ree tt te &et"t"o!er &et"t"o!er %% $&&% '!"tor"%, '!"tor"%, 3!&oer 3!&oer ! !"tt"o! erv"ce to Rob"!o! %ce Er3"t 9%% or &er"o o o!e er ro3 J!$r 1, 2008 to :ece3ber ;1, 2008. $r$!t to t", te re&o!e!t ere e&%oe to Rob"!o!. <% <% tro$# tro$# te erv"ce co!trct, co!trct, &et"t"o!er &et"t"o!er e te re&o!e!t re&o!e!t to e6ec$te e6ec$te "!"v"$ "!"v"$% % co!trct co!trct "c "c t"&$%t t"&$%te e tt te"r re&ect"v re&ect"vee e3&%o3e!t e3&%o3e!t %% e! o! :ece3ber :ece3ber ;1, 2008, 2008, $!%e $!%e er%"er er%"er ter3"!te. *e &et"t"o!er ! Rob"!o! !o %o!#er e6te!e te"r co!trct o '!"tor"% erv"ce. )o!e=$e!t% )o!e=$e!t%,, te &et"t"o!er "3"e te re&o!e!t te ere &ro'ect e3&%oee oe $rt"o! o e3&%o3e!t e 3&%o3e!t e&e!e!t o! te &et"t"o!er> erv"ce co!trct "t Rob"!o!. *e re&o!e!t re&o!e to te ter3"!t"o! o te"r e3&%o3e!t b "%"!# co3&%"!t or "%%e#% "3" " 3" %% "t "t te NLR NLR). ). *e *e r# r#$e $e t ttt te te er eree !ot &ro &ro'ec 'ectt e3& e3&%o %oee ee?? te te er eree re# re#$% $%r r e3&%oee o 3 o!% be "3"e or '$t or $tor"@e c$e. *e re&o!e!t %o e or &3e!t o te"r $!&" #e #e "ere!t"%, 1; t 3o!t & "ere!t"%, erv"ce "!ce!t"ve %eve &, o%" & ! e&rt"o! &. &. Lbor Arb"ter r$%e "! te &et"t"o!er vor.
ISSDE+ eter or !ot te re&o!e!t ere re#$%r e3&%oee ! tt te bee! "%%e#%% "3"e(
D!er t" &rov""o!, tere re to "! o re#$%r e 3&%oee, !3e%+ /1 toe o ere e!##e to &eror3 ct"v"t"e "c re $$%% !ecer or e"rb%e "! te $$% b$"!e or tre o te e3&%oer? ! /2 toe c$% e3&%oee o bec3e re#$%r ter o!e er o erv"ce, eter co!t"!$o$ or broe!, b$t o!% "t re&ect to te ct"v"t or "c te ve bee! "re. e "t"!#$" tee to t&e o re#$%r e3&%oee ro3 &ro'ect e3&%oee, or o!e oe e3&%o3e!t "6e or &ec""c &ro'ect or $!ert"!#, oe co3&%et"o! or ter3"!t"o! bee! eter3"!e t te t"3e o e!##e3e!t. A *areful loo+ at the fa*tual *ir*umstan*es of this *ase leads us to the leal *on*lusion that the respondents are reular and not pro-e*t employees.
*e primary standard in determinin reular employment " te reasonable *onne*tion betee! te &rt"c$%r ct"v"t &eror3e b te e3&%oee ! te e3&%oer> b$"!e or tre. *" co!!ect"o! c! be cert"!e b co!"er"!# te !t$re o te or &eror3e ! "t re%t"o! to te ce3e o te &rt"c$%r b$"!e, or te tre "! "t e!t"ret. G$"e b t" tet, e co!c%$e that the respondents' or+ as -anitors, ser/i*e *res and sanitation aides, are ne*essary or desirable to the petitioner's business o &rov""!# '!"tor"% ! 3!&oer erv"ce to "t c%"e!t ! "!e&e!e!t co!trctor. A%o, te re&o!e!t %re bee! or"!# or te &et"t"o!er er% 1BB8. E/en before the ser/i*e *ontra*t ith Robinsons, the respondents ere already under the petitioner's employ. They had been doin the same type of or+ and o**upyin the same positions from the time they ere hired and until they ere dismissed in (anuary 09. *e &et"t"o!er " !ot &ree!t ! ev"e!ce to re$te te re&o!e!t> c%"3 tt ro3 te t"3e o te"r "r"!# $!t"% te t"3e o te"r "3"%, tere !o #& "! betee! te &ro'ect ere te ere "#!e to. *e &et"t"o!er co!t"!$o$% v"%e o te"r erv"ce b co!t!t% e&%o"!# te3 to "t c%"e!t. &astly, under #epartment !rder 2 DO3 1840, the appli*able labor issuan*e to the petitioner's *ase, the *ontra*tor or sub*ontra*tor is *onsidered as the employer of the *ontra*tual employee for purposes of enfor*in the pro/isions of the &abor )ode and other so*ial leislation.
:O 18-02 #r!t co!trct$% e3&%oee %% te r"#t ! &r"v"%e#e $e reular employee, "!c%$"!# te o%%o"!#+ / e ! e%t$% or"!# co!"t"o!? 2b3 labor standards su*h as ser/i*e in*enti/e lea/e, rest days, o/ertime pay, holiday pay, 15th month pay and separation pay? /c oc"% ec$r"t ! e%re be!e"t? / e%-or#!"@t"o!, co%%ect"ve br#"!"!# ! &ece$% co!certe ct"o!? ! 2e3 se*urity of tenure. By law, the petitioner must bear the legal consequences of its violation of the respondents' right to security of tenure. The facts of this case show that since the respondents' hiring, they had been under the petitioner's employ as janitors, service crews and sanitation aides. Their services had been continuously provided to the petitioner without any gap. Notably, the petitioner never refuted this allegation of the respondents. Further, there was no allegation that the petitioner went out of business
after the non-renewal of the Robinsons' service contract. Thus, had it not been for the respondents' dismissal, they would have been deployed to the petitioner's other existing clients. On the other hand, we already found that the respondents are the petitioner's regular employees. Therefore, their illegal dismissal entitles them to bacwages and reinstatement or separation pay, in case reinstatement is no longer feasible.
6n this liht, e thus *on*lude that althouh the respondents ere assined as *ontra*tual employees to the petitioner's /arious *lients, under the la, they remain to be the petitioner's reular employees, ho are entitled to all the rihts and benefits of reular employment.
