SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 231579, June 16, 2021
RONALD O. MARTINEZ, JUSTINO D. BUCAY, EDUARDO D. CANLAS, EDWIN Q. CANSINO, REYNALDO C. CAPILI, EMERITO D. CAPILI, DAVID L. CAYANAN, ROMEO C. CORTEZ, RENATO T. FRANCO, JERWIN P. GADIA, FREDERICK V. ILANO, ERNESTO C. IÑOSA, JUANITO A. LOBARDIO, ERNESTO L. MANGIO, GARRY L. MAÑACOP, GELICO A. MARZAN, BIENVENIDO D. MILLAN, JR., BENEDICTO O. MIRANDA, AARON T. OLIQUINO, EDGAR C. PANGILINAN, ARNOLD B. PEREZ, GERARDO S. ROXAS, ROBERT LAXAMANA,* ALBERT SANTOS, EDGARDO ABAGAT, EDGARDO VILLAVICENCIO (HEREIN REPRESENTED BY HIS NOW WIDOW ELNOR C. PANGILINAN), JANNEL LORD M. BONDOC (NOW HEREIN REPRESENTED BY JAZMIN ALFONSO), AND ROEL M. GUTIERREZ, Petitioners, v. MAGNOLIA POULTRY PROCESSING PLANT (MPPP), NOW NAMED SAN MIGUEL FOODS, INC., (SMFI) - MPPP, Respondent.
[G.R. NO. 231636]
SAN MIGUEL FOODS, INC., Petitioner, v. RONALD O. MARTINEZ, JUSTINO D. BUCAY, EDUARDO D. CANLAS, EDWIN Q. CANSINO, REYNALDO C. CAPILI, EMERITO D. CAPILI, DAVID L. CAYANAN, ROMEO C. CORTEZ, RENATO T. FRANCO, JERWIN P. GADIA, FREDERICK V. ILANO, ERNESTO C. IÑOSA, JUANITO A. LOBARDIO, ERNESTO L. MANGIO, GARRY L. MAÑACOP, GELICO A. MARZAN, BIENVENIDO D. MILLAN, JR., BENEDICTO O. MIRANDA, AARON T. OLIQUINO, EDGAR C. PANGILINAN, ARNOLD B. PEREZ, GERARDO S. ROXAS, ROBERT LAXAMANA, ALBERT SANTOS, EDGARDO ABAGAT, EDGARDO VILLAVICENCIO (HEREIN REPRESENTED BY HIS NOW WIDOW ELNOR C. PANGILINAN), JANNEL LORD M. BONDOC (NOW HEREIN REPRESENTED BY JAZMIN ALFONSO), AND ROEL M. GUTIERREZ, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:
THE CASES
1) Decision3 dated April 29, 2016 declaring Romac as a labor-only contractor, and Martinez, et al. as regular employees of SMFI-MPPP, but denying their claim for CBA benefits and damages; and 2)Resolution4 dated May 9, 2017 denying the respective motions for reconsideration of Martinez, et al., SMFI-MPPP, and Romac.
Antecedents
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered DECLARING that respondent ROMAC SERVICES AND TRADING, INC. is a labor-only contractor and that respondent SAN MIGUEL FOODS, INC. (MAGNOLIA POULTRY PROCESSING PLANT) is the true employer of the complainants.
It is also DECLARED that complainants are deemed regular employees of the respondent San Miguel Foods, Inc. Consequently, complainants are within the scope of coverage of Magnolia Poultry Processing Plant Daily Union (PTGWO) Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with SMFI.
IT IS FURTHER DECLARED that complainants were illegally dismissed by respondents. Accordingly, respondent SAN MIGUEL FOODS, INC. (MAGNOLIA PROCESSING PLANT) is hereby ORDERED to reinstate the complainants to their former job positions without loss of seniority rights and benefits.
Moreover, respondents ROMAC SERVICES AND TRADING, INC. and SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, INC. are jointly and severally DIRECTED [to] pay the complainants their full backwages and other benefits from the date of dismissal until they are reinstated, the grand total amount at present is Four Million Six Hundred Eighty One Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Two and Seventy Six Centavos (Php4,681,772.76).
Additionally, respondents are jointly and severally ORDERED to pay the complainants ten percent (10%) of their monetary award as attorney's fees, in the sum of Four Hundred Sixty Eight Thousand One Hundred Seventy Seven and Twenty Seven Centavos (Php 468,177.27).
The Report of the Fiscal Examiner on the computation of the complainants' monetary awards is hereto attached as Annex "A" and made an integral part of this decision.
Finally, the reinstatement aspect of this Decision is immediately executory. Hence, respondent San Miguel Foods, Inc. is DIRECTED to submit Compliance Report to this Office as regards the reinstatement of complainants within twenty (20) days from receipt of this decision. Claims for moral and exemplary damages are dismissed for lack of merit. Claims for monetary benefits under the present CBA is also denied for lack of basis.
SO ORDERED.
x x x Romac x x x is a legitimate labor contractor. Respondent Romac is the complainants' employer, and not San Miguel.The motion for reconsideration of Martinez, et al., was subsequently denied per Resolution25 dated January 25, 2013.
Complainants were assigned to San Miguel pursuant to two contracts of: 1) Sanitation[,] Maintenance[,] Janitorial[,] and Housekeeping Services, and 2) Reliever Services. The services they rendered were maintenance and janitorial services, a job not necessary or desirable to the poultry business of San Miguel. x x x
Considering that there is absence of employer-employee relationship, San Miguel cannot be held guilty of illegal dismissal. Neither can it accord regular employment status to complainants, nor pay their backwages and attorney's fees. Complainants are the contractual employees of Romac, as shown in the employment contracts for fixed periods. When the contracts of services entered in by and between San Miguel and Romac expired, the assignment of the complainants to San Miguel also ended. x x x x Thus, there is no illegal dismissal to speak of. The complainants are not entitled to backwages, damages[,] nor attorney's fees. Romac was transferring them to CCPI-SFD, but complainants refused. x x x x WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeals of San Miguel and Romac Services are GRANTED. The appeal of the complainants is DISMISSED.The Decision appealed from is VACATED, and a new one issued DISMISSING the complaint. SO ORDERED.24
x x x As correctly found by the Labor Arbiter, respondent Romac was a labor-only contractor. x x x xFirst, respondent Romac had no substantial capital. x x x xSecond, respondent Romac supplied petitioners to respondent SMFI, to perform activities which were directly related to respondent SMFI's main business. Petitioners' work in ensuring the sanitation and maintenance of the equipment, was directly related to the chicken poultry business of respondent SMFI. Petitioners' jobs of sanitation and maintenance, were necessary and desirable in the day-to-day operations of respondent SMFI's business. Notably, petitioners had been performing the same tasks regularly, within respondent SMFI's plant, for long periods of time. This was sufficient evidence of the indispensability of petitioners' jobs to respondent SMFI's business.Third, respondent Romac did not exercise the right to control over the performance of work of the petitioners. Rather, it was respondent SMFI that exercised the power of control over the petitioners in the performance of their work. x x x x With respect to the final issue, we rule in the affirmative. Petitioners were entitled to their money claims. x x x x We SET ASIDE the Decision dated 13 September 2012, and the Resolution dated 25 January 2013, both issued by the National Labor Relations Commission, and we REINSTATE the Decision dated 4 August 2011 issued by the Labor Arbiter.IT IS SO ORDERED.27The Court of Appeals denied reconsideration on May 9, 2017.28
ARTICLE 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 and Employment may, by appropriate regulations, restrict or prohibit the contracting-out of labor to protect the rights of workers established under this 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.32As a general rule, a contractor is presumed to be a labor-only contractor, unless such contractor overcomes the burden of proving that it has substantial capital, investment, tools, and the like.33 As a regulated industry, the law requires registration of labor contractors with the DOLE. Failure to register shall give rise to the presumption that the contractor is engaged in labor-only contracting. Section 5 in relation to Section 11 of DO 18-0234 governed the registration of labor contractors at the time material to the cases at bar, thus:
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 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. The foregoing provisions shall be without prejudice to the application of Article 248 (c) of the Labor Code, as amended. "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 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.35 x x x xSECTION 11. Registration of Contractors or Subcontractors. — Consistent with the authority of the Secretary of Labor and Employment to restrict or prohibit the contracting out of labor through appropriate regulations, a registration system to govern contracting arrangements and to be implemented by the Regional Offices is hereby established. The registration of contractors and subcontractors shall be necessary for purposes of establishing an effective labor market information and monitoring.Failure to register shall give rise to the presumption that the contractor is engaged in labor-only contracting.36 (Emphases supplied)Here, there is no dispute that Romac held the Certificate of Registration No. III-O93-0502-00637 as a legitimate and independent labor contractor per DO 18-02, viz.:
As the primary agency tasked to regulate job contracting, DOLE is presumed to have regularly performed its official duty when it declared that Romac had complied with the requirements of the Labor Code and its implementing rules, and based thereon, conferred upon it the corresponding certificate of registration as a legitimate and independent labor contractor.38Republic of the Philippines
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
Regional Office No. III
City of San Fernando, PampangaThisCERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION
No. III-O93-0502-006
TIN: 000-267-578-000is issued to For having complied with the requirements as provided in the Labor Code, as amended, and its Implementing Rules and having paid the registration fee in the amount of ONE HUNDRED PESOS (P 100.00) per Official Receipt No. 5226437 dated 23 May 2008.
ROMAC SERVICES & TRADING CO., INC.
776 Sto. Rosario St., Sto. Domingo, Angeles City
In witness whereof, and by the authority vested in me by the Labor Code, as amended, its Implementing Rules[,] specifically Department Order No. 18-02, Series of 2002 entitled Rules Implementing Articles 106 to 109 of the Labor Code[,] as amended, I have hereto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of Department of Labor and Employment, Regional Office No. Ill, City of San Fernando, Pampanga on this 23rd day of May 2008. This Certificate of Registration shall be valid until 07 May 2011 subject for renewal every three (3) years pursuant to Section 17 of DO 1802, Series of 2002 unless, sooner cancelled by the Regional Director.Signed
NATHANIEL V. LACAMBRA
Regional Director
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; orSubstantial 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."42 As to how much or what constitutes substantial capital, DO 18-A, series of 2011 dated November 14,2011 defines substantial capital as paid-up capital stocks/shares of at least P3,000,000.00 in the case of corporations.
ii) the contractor does not exercise the right to control over the performance of the work of the contractual employee.41
SECTION 5. CONTRACTOR'S COVENANTS – CONTRACTOR further covenants and agrees to:True to its undertaking, Romac paid the monthly salary and labor standard benefits to Martinez, et al. and effected the statutory deductions on their salaries, as shown by the employees' payslips bearing the logo of Romac.
x x x
(i) While this Agreement, or any extension thereof, is in effect, pay the wages or salaries of its employees, personnel[,] and agents, as well as all benefits, premiums [,] and protection, in accordance with all applicable laws, rules[,] and regulations, and DOLE DO's, and furnish CLIENT, on or before the tenth (10th ) day of every month, a sworn certification stating that: (i) CONTRACTOR has paid all wages and salaries due to the workers for all services rendered by them during the immediately preceding month, including overtime, if any, and such other payments and benefits as are required under the Labor Code of the Philippines, SSS Law [sic], and other laws or regulations relating to the Home Development Mutual Fund, PhilHealth, [sic] Employees Compensation Commission, and the like, (ii) that such payments were all in accordance with the requirements of law, and (iii) that remittances required to be made to the Bureau of Internal Revenue on behalf of its employees have been made for the subject reporting period; x x x x x x x
In his explanation letter. Miranda denied the charge:Romac Services & Trading Company, Inc. Violator's Name: Benedicto O. Miranda
Disciplinary Action Form
Dept./Project: SMFI-MPPP
x x x
Nature of Offense: Negligence
Date of Commission: October 16, 2007
Date Served: October 19, 2007
Due to your violation of the company Rules & Regulations x x x : Acts of Negligence in the performance of duties or in the care and use of the company property, equipment[,] or device. (Simple Negligence: Failure to observe diligence demand[ed] by the situation thereby exposing the company to unnecessary risk.)
"Ako po si Benedicto Miranda, janitor[-]sweeper sa [building] B. Kinuha ko yung basura sa holding return na nasa anim na crates po [ijyon itinaob ko langpo sa drum. Hindi ko po alam na may manokpo yung mga basura na nasa crates. Itinapon ko na po sa may basurahan. Ang mali ko lang po[J hindi ako nakapag[-]log bookRomac eventually suspended Miranda for fourteen (14) working days. In another instance, Bienvenido Millan, Jr. was caught punching in another employee's timecard. He reasoned out:Signed
Benedicto Miranda[48
Ako si Bienvenido Millan, Jr., sumulat po ako para humingi ng tawad sa nagawa kong kamalian. [H]indi na po mauulit [i]yon. Sa totoo lang p[o, napag-utusan lang po ako ng [l]eadman ko na i-[punch] ang time card nya. [S}umunod naman ako dahil siya ang leadman ko at saka baka pag-initan niya ako kung hindi ako susunod sa kanya. [M]ahal ko po ang trabaho ko. [D]ito ko po binubuhay ang pamilya ko. Kaya lang nagkamali ako sa pagsunod sa leadman ko. Pero ipangako ko sa inyo na hindi na mauulit [i]yon. Pagbutihan ko ang trabaho ko hanggang sa makakaya ko.Romac, too, eventually suspended Bienvenido and even instructed him to first report to Romac Corporate Office after serving his suspension for further instruction:Signed
Bienvenido Millan49
Significantly, Martinez, et al. invariably recognized and respected the authority of Romac to impose disciplinary sanctions on them for their individual infractions for the entire duration of their employment with the latter, specifically during their assignment at SMFI-MPPP.The ROMAC GROUP To: Bienvenido D. Millan, Jr.
Romac Services & Trading Co., Inc.
Utility
From: Human Resources Department
Date: June 10, 2009
Re: Suspension
We would like to inform you that in relation to your suspension regarding the punching log in of other employees[,] we would extend your suspension starting June 8 up to June 14, 2009.
We would also like to inform you that after the exclusive dates of your suspension, you should first report to Romac Corporate office on june 15, 2009 for farther instruction.
For your strict compliance.Received
Bienvenido Millan, Jr.
June 11, 20 0950
The management cannot be denied the faculty of promoting efficiency and attaining economy by a study of what units are essential for its operation. It has the ultimate determination of whether services should be performed by its personnel or contracted to outside agencies. While there should be mutual consultation, eventually deference is to be paid to what management decides. Contracting out of services is an exercise of business judgment or management prerogative. Absent proof that management acted in a malicious or arbitrary manner, the Court will not interfere with the exercise of judgment by an employer. x x x (Emphasis added) x x x xWe further clarified in BPI Employees Union-Davao City-FUBU v. Bank of the Philippine Islands55 that it is within the prerogative of management to farm out any of its activities, regardless whether such activity is peripheral or core in nature. What is primordially important is that the service agreement does not violate the employee's right to security of tenure and payment of benefits to which he or she is entitled under the law. So long as the outsourcing does not fall squarely as labor-only contracting, the arrangement does not ripen into an employer-employee relationship between the principal and the employees of the legitimate labor contractor.
In the case under consideration, it was sufficiently found by both the LA and the NLRC that the respondents applied with and were hired by ICSI, as evidenced by their individual Personal Information Sheets, employment contracts and Letters of Appointment. Concomitantly, ICSI issued them their individual identification cards asborne by the records. Even the payment of respondents' wages and other labor standard benefits were also made by ICSI, as shown by their payrolls and disbursement vouchers. More so, ICSI itself reported the respondents as its employees with the SSS, Philhealth, PAG-IBIG, and BIR. Also, ICSI was the one that made the necessary deductions on the respondents' salaries for their contributions (their premium share) thereto, which were all; properly remitted to the said agencies. As to the power of dismissal and to discipline, it was also ICSI that exercised the same. This is evident from the Notice to Explain and Memorandum it issued to its erring employees who violated its rules and regulations. Contrary to the claim of the respondents, which the CA affirmed, this Court holds that the controverted letter dated May 22, 2009 issued by the petitioner to ICSI contained no instruction from the former for the latter to transfer or even terminate the respondents. This Court finds satisfactory the petitioner's explanation that such letter merely informed ICSI of the changes in their agreement regarding the invoicing services that the invoicing operations at its head office would be discontinued and would be transferred to San Fernando, Pampanga. At the same time, the petitioner was just reminding ICSI to ensure that in the event there will be employees un willing to comply with the new ternis and conditions of their agreement, they should be properly dealt with in accordance with law. Stated differently, the petitioner only wanted to make sure that ICSI would not renege on its obligations to its employees. Lastly, the power of control similarly rests upon ICSI. As previously stated, it was ICSI's officers who have direct supervision over the respondents. ICSI's Base Controller and OIC were the ones who gave the respondents their work schedule and monitored their attendance, respectively. It is worthy to note this Court's pronouncement in Royale Homes Marketing Corporation v. Alcantara, citing Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. v. National Labor Relations Commission, viz.:While Rivera involves a different contractor in the person of ICSI and a different kind of contracted service (invoicing), there appears to be a uniform corporate standard or set of rules followed by SMFI in contracting out the invoicing service in Rivera and the janitorial services here, to wit: in both cases, the company chose only those legitimate contractors duly registered with SEC and DOLE, substantially capitalized, and servicing other A-list clients, as well; clothed with the power to hire and fire and discipline employees and most importantly, the power of control over the result of the tasks performed and the means and methods used to accomplish the same; and required the tasks to be performed in the company premises.Not every form of control, is indicative of employer-employee relationship. A person wrho performs work for another and is subjected to its rules, regulations, and code of ethics does not necessarily become an employee. As long as the level of control does not interfere with the means and methods of accomplishing the assigned tasks, the rules imposed by the hiring party on the hired party do not amount to the labor law concept of control that is indicative of employer-employee relationship. x x xx x x x With all the foregoing, this Court holds that no employer-employee relationship exists between the petitioner and the respondents. It is an error, therefore, on the part of the CA to order the petitioner to reinstate the respondents and to grant them all the benefits and privileges of regular employees. Not being petitioner's employees, thus, they cannot attain the regular status. Along side, the petitioner cannot be charged of constructive illegal dismissal for it is beyond its power to dismiss the respondents as they were never its employees. x x x x
Endnotes:
* Sometimes spelled as Roberto in the records.
** Designated Additional member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021.
1 Justino D. Bucay, Eduardo D. Canlas, Edwin Q. Cansino, Reynaldo C. Capili, Emerito D. Capili, David L. Cayanan, Romeo C. Cortez, Renato T. Franco, Jerwin P. Gadia, Frederick V. Ilano, Ernesto C. Iñosa, Juanito A. Lobardio, Ernesto L. Mangio, Garry L. Mañacop, Gelico A. Marzan, Bienvenido D. Millan, Jr., Benedicto O. Miranda, Aaron T. Oliquino, Edgar C. Pangilinan, Arnold B. Perez, Gerardo S. Roxas, Robert Laxamana, Albert Santos, Edgardo Abagat, Edgardo Villavicencio, Jannel Lord M. Bondoc, and Roel M. Gutierrez.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, concurred in by Associate Justices Manuel M. Barrios and Agnes Reyes Carpio, all members of the Special Sixth Division.
3Rollo, G.R. 231636, Vol. I, pp. 34-53.
4Id. at 55-57.
5Rollo, G.R. 231579, Vol. I, pp. 375-380.
6 Justino D. Bucay, Eduardo D. Canlas, Edwin Q. Cansino, Reynaldo C. Capili, Emerito D. Capili, David L. Cayanan, Romeo C. Cortez, Renato T. Franco, Jerwin P. Gadia, Ernesto C. Iñosa, Juanito A. Lobardio, Ernesto L. Mangio, Garry L. Mañacop, Gelico A. Marzan, Bienvenido D. Millan, Jr., Benedicto O. Miranda, Aaron T. Oliquino, Edgar C. Pangilinan, Arnold B. Perez, Gerardo S. Roxas, Robert Laxamana, Albert Santos, Edgardo Abagat, Edgardo Villavicencio, and Jannel Lord M. Bondoc.
7 Wage and benefit differentials according to the CBA of the regular rank and file employees for the past 3 years of service with MPPP, sick leave, vacation leave, signing bonus, full backwages, moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and costs of suit.
8Rollo, G.R. 231579, Vol. I, p. 385.
9Id. at 388.
10Id. at 370.
11Id. at 372.
12Rollo, G.R. 231636, Vol. I, pp. 138-160.
13Rollo, G.R. 231579, Vol. I, p. 69.
14Rollo, G.R. 231579, Vol. II, pp. 534-560.
15Rollo, G.R. 231636, Vol. I, p. 182.
16Rollo, G.R. 231579, Vol. I, CA Decision, pp. 66-67.
17Rollo, G.R. 231636, Vol. I, pp. 76-112.
18Rollo, G.R. 231579, Vol. I, p. 432.
19Id. at 432.
20Rollo, G.R. 231579, Vol. III, pp. 1008-1041.
21 SECTION 6. Bond. — In case the decision of the Labor Arbiter or the Regional Director involves a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a bond, which shall either be in the form of cash deposit or surety bond equivalent in amount to the monetary award, exclusive of damages and attorney's fees. (The 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, May 31, 2011).
22Rollo, G.R. 231579, Vol. I, pp. 431-432.
23Id. at 430-440.
24Id. at 437-440.
25Rollo, G.R. 231636, pp. 71-74.
26Id. at 34-52.27Id. at 52.
28Rollo, G.R. 231579, Vol. I, pp. 60-62.
29Id. at 9-56.
30Rollo, G.R. 231636, pp. 9-24.
31 See General Milling Corp. v. Viajar, 2013, 702 Phil 532, 540 (2013).
32 Labor Code of the Philippines, Presidential Decree No. 442 (Amended & Renumbered), July 21, 2015.
33 See Allied Banking Corp. v. Calumpang, 823 Phil. 1143, 1156-1157, (2018).
34 Rules Implementing Articles 106 to 109 of the Labor Code, as Amended, DOLE Order No. 18-02, February 21, 2002.
35Id.
36Id.
37Rollo, G.R. No. 231636, Vol. I, p. 208.
38 See Consolidated Building Maintenance, Inc. v. Asprec, Jr., 832 Phil. 630, 642 (2018).
39Rollo, G.R. No. 231636, p. 459.
40Id. at 181.
41 Rules Implementing Articles 106 to 109 of the Labor Code, as Amended, DOLE Order No. 18-02, February 21, 2002.
42 See Mago v. Sun Power Manufacturing Limited, 824 Phil. 464, 477-478 (2018); citing DO No. 18-02.
43Rollo, G.R. No. 231579, Vol III, p. 1072.
44Id. at 1073-1074.
45 824 Phil. 961, 977 (2018).
46Rollo, G.R. 231636, Vol II, pp. 836-857.
47 See Felicilda v. Uy, 795 Phil. 408, 412 (2016).
48Rollo, G.R. No. 2316366, Vol. I, p. 284.
49Id. at 243.
50Id. at 245.
51 See Sara v. Agarrado, 248 Phil. 847, 852 (1988).
52 The Meat Inspection Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 9296, May 12,2004.
53SECTION 19. Solidary Liability. — The principal shall be deemed as the direct employer of the contractual employees and therefore, solidarily liable with the contractor or subcontractor for whatever monetary claims the contractual employees may have against the former in the case of violations as provided for in Sections 5 (Labor-Only contracting), 6 (Prohibitions), 8 (Rights of Contractual Employees) and 16 (Delisting) of these Rules. (Rules Implementing Articles 106 to 109 of the Labor Code, as Amended, DOLE Order No. 18-02, February 21, 2002).
54 383 Phil. 47, 60 (2000).
55 715 Phil. 35, 53 (2013).
56 Supra 45 at 979-981.cralawredlibrary