SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 210961. January 24, 2018.]

LEO V. MAGO and LEILANIE E. COLOBONG , petitioners, vs.

SUN POWER MANUFACTURING LIMITED, respondent.

DECISION

REYES, JR., J : p

This is a petition for review on certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of

Court, seeking the review of the Decision 2 dated October 8, 2013 and
Resolution 3 dated January 13, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
SP No. 131059. In these assailed issuances, the CA reversed the decision 4 of
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) declaring Leo V. Mago (Leo)
and Leilanie E. Colobong (Leilanie) (petitioners) as employees of Sunpower
Philippines Manufacturing Limited (Sunpower) and consequently, holding
that Jobcrest Manufacturing, Incorporated (Jobcrest) was a labor-only
contractor. The NLRC in turn reversed the ruling 5 of the labor arbiter (LA)
dismissing the petitioners' complaint for illegal dismissal.

Factual Antecedents

The petitioners are former employees of Jobcrest, a corporation duly

organized under existing laws of the Philippines, engaged in the business of
contracting management consultancy and services. 6 Jobcrest was licensed
by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) through Certificate of
Registration No. NCR-MUNTA-64209-0910-087-R. 7 During the time material
to this case, the petitioners co-habited together. 8
On October 10, 2008, Jobcrest and Sunpower entered into a Service
Contract Agreement, in which Jobcrest undertook to provide business
process services for Sunpower, a corporation principally engaged in the
business of manufacturing automotive computer and other electronic parts. 9
Jobcrest then trained its employees, including the petitioners, for purposes of
their engagement in Sunpower. 10 After the satisfactory completion of this
training, the petitioners were assigned to Sunpower's plant in Laguna
Technopark. Leo was tasked as a Production Operator in the Coinstacking
Station on July 25, 2009, 11 while Leilanie was assigned as a Production
Operator, tasked with final visual inspection in the Packaging Station on June
27, 2009. 12 Jobcrest's On-site Supervisor, Allan Dimayuga (Allan),
supervised the petitioners during their assignment with Sunpower. 13 HESIcT

It was alleged that sometime in October 2011, Sunpower conducted an

operational alignment, which affected some of the services supplied by
Jobcrest. Sunpower decided to terminate the Coinstacking/Material Handling
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 segment and the Visual Inspection segment. 14 Meanwhile, Leo and Leilanie
were respectively on paternity and maternity leave because Leilanie was
due to give birth to their common child. 15
When Leo reported for work to formally file his paternity leave, Allan
purportedly informed Leo that his employment was terminated due to his
absences. Leo, however, further alleged that he was asked to report to
Jobcrest on December 14, 2011 for his assignment to Sunpower. 16 In their
defense, both Jobcrest and Allan denied terminating Leo's employment from
Jobcrest. 17
Leo complied with the directive to go to Jobcrest's office on December
14, 2011. While he was there, Jobcrest's Human Resource Manager, Noel J.
Pagtalunan (Noel), served Leo with a "Notice of Admin Charge/Explanation
Slip." 18 The notice stated that Leo violated the Jobcrest policy against
falsification or tampering because he failed to disclose his relationship with
Leilanie. Leo denied the charges and explained that he already filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC. 19
Leilanie, on the other hand, alleged that when she reported for work at
Jobcrest on November 29, 2011, she was informed by one of the Jobcrest
personnel that she will be transferred to another client company. She was
likewise provided a referral slip for a medical examination, pursuant to her
new assignment. 20
Instead of complying with Jobcrest's directives, Leo and Leilanie filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal and regularization on December 15, 2011, with
the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch No. IV. Leo alleged that he was
dismissed on October 30, 2011, while Leilanie alleged that she was
dismissed from employment on December 4, 2011. 21 Despite the filing of
the complaint, Leilanie returned to Jobcrest on December 16, 2011, where
she was served with a similar "Notice of Admin Charge/Explanation Slip,"
requiring her to explain why she failed to disclose her co-habitation status
with Leo. 22
During the mandatory conference, Jobcrest clarified that the petitioners
were not dismissed from employment and offered to accept them when they
report back to work. The petitioners refused and insisted that they were
regular employees of Sunpower, not Jobcrest. 23
There being no amicable settlement of the matter among the parties,
they proceeded to file their respective position papers. 24

Ruling of the LA

In a Decision 25 dated July 3, 2012, the LA held that Jobcrest is a

legitimate independent contractor and the petitioners' statutory employer:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the complaint for illegal
dismissal against [Sunpower] and Dwight Deato is DISMISSED for lack
of employer-employee relationship. [Jobcrest] is declared as the
statutory employer and is ordered to reinstate complainants sans
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 backwages to substantially equivalent positions within ten (10) days
from receipt hereof.
SO ORDERED. 26

The LA found the capital of Jobcrest substantial enough to comply with

the requirements for an independent contractor, and that Jobcrest exercised
control over the petitioners' work. 27 The LA likewise rejected the petitioners'
claim that they were illegally dismissed, ruling that the petitioners failed to
establish the fact of dismissal itself. 28
Jobcrest partially appealed the LA's Decision dated July 3, 2012. Among
its arguments is the assertion that the petitioners refused to be reinstated.
Hence, they were considered constructively resigned from their employment
with Jobcrest, especially because they obtained a job somewhere else. As an
alternative relief, Jobcrest prayed that it be directed to pay the petitioners'
separation pay instead of reinstating them to their former positions. 29
The petitioners, on the other hand, attributed serious error on the LA
for ruling against their complaint. 30

Ruling of the NLRC

The NLRC reversed the LA's findings in its Decision 31 dated April 24,
2013 and ruled favorably for the petitioners, viz.:
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby SET ASIDE
and a NEW ONE ENTERED declaring that [the petitioners] are regular
employees of respondent [Sunpower], respondent [Jobcrest] being a
mere labor-only contractor that [petitioners] were illegally dismissed;
hence, respondent [Sunpower] is hereby ordered to reinstate them to
their former position with full backwages, from the time they were
refused to work on October 31, 2011 until reinstated, within ten (10)
days from notice plus 10% of the total monetary awards as and for
attorney's fees.
SO ORDERED. 32

According to the NLRC, the contract between Jobcrest and Sunpower

was for the sole supply of manpower. The tools and equipment for the
performance of the work were for the account of Sunpower, which
supposedly contradicted the claim that Jobcrest has the required capital for a
legitimate contractor. 33 The NLRC also disagreed that Jobcrest exercised
control over the petitioners and likewise gave more credence to the
petitioners' sworn statements, which narrate that Sunpower employees
allegedly supervised their work. 34 Lastly, on the basis of the "Notice of
Administrative Charge/Explanation Slip" furnished to the petitioners, the
NLRC reversed the LA's ruling and held that the petitioners were illegally
dismissed from employment. 35
Sunpower moved for the reconsideration of the NLRC's Decision dated
April 24, 2013. 36 Unconvinced, the NLRC denied this motion in its Resolution
37 dated May 28, 2013 as follows:

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 WHEREFORE, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby
DENIED for lack of merit.
No further motion of this nature shall be entertained.
SO ORDERED. 38

As a result of the NLRC's ruling, Sunpower filed a petition forcertiorari

with the CA, with a prayer for the issuance of an injunctive writ. 39 Sunpower
attributed grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, on the NLRC for holding that the petitioners were regular
employees of Sunpower despite evidence to the contrary. 40 Sunpower also
disagreed that Jobcrest is a labor-only contractor, and further submitted that
the NLRC misinterpreted its Service Contract Agreement with Jobcrest. 41 caITAC

Ruling of the CA

In a Decision 42 dated October 8, 2013, the CA granted Sunpower's

petition for certiorari and enjoined the implementation of the assailed NLRC
ruling:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is GRANTED.
The Decision dated 24 April 2013 and Resolution dated 28 May 2013
of the [NLRC] (Second Division) in NLRC-LAC No. 09-002582-12; NLRC
RAB-IV-12-01978-11-B are NULLIFIED. All the respondents and/or
persons acting for and on their behalf are ENJOINED from enforcing or
implementing the same. The Decision dated 03 July 2012 of LA Renell
Joseph R. Dela Cruz is hereby REINSTATED. No pronouncement as to
costs.
SO ORDERED. 43

The CA ruled that Sunpower was able to overcome the presumption

that Jobcrest was a labor-only contractor, especially considering that the
DOLE Certificate of Registration issued in favor of Jobcrest carries the
presumption of regularity. In contrast with the NLRC ruling, the CA found that
the Service Contract Agreement between Sunpower and Jobcrest specifically
stated the job or task contracted out by stating that it was for the
performance of various business process services. 44 The CA also held that
Jobcrest has substantial capital and as such, it was no longer necessary to
prove that it has investment in the form of tools, equipment, machinery, and
work premises. 45
Also, the CA found that there is an employer-employee relationship
between Jobcrest and the petitioners under the four-fold test. The CA
appreciated the affidavits of Jobcrest employees, as well as the sworn
statements of Sunpower employees who the petitioners claim to supervise
their work. In these statements, the Sunpower employees categorically
denied under oath that they supervised the manner of the petitioners' work.
Taken together with other pieces of evidence, the CA ruled that there was
no employer-employee relationship between Sunpower and the petitioners.
Finally, the CA held that any form of supervision, which Sunpower exercised
over the results of the petitioners' work, was necessary and allowable under
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 the circumstances. 46

Consequently, the CA rejected the claim that the petitioners were

illegally dismissed from employment, especially in light of Jobcrest's earlier
offer to accept the petitioners' return to work. 47
Following their receipt of the CA's Decision dated October 8, 2013, the
petitioners filed their Motions for Reconsideration and to Investigate the
Reviewer Who Recommended the Palpably Erroneous Decision. 48 The CA
firmly denied these motions in its Resolution 49 dated January 13, 2014 for
failure to raise any substantial argument that would warrant the
reconsideration of its decision:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motions for
Reconsideration and to Investigate the Reviewer Who Recommended
the Palpably Erroneous Decision are DENIED for sheer lack of merit.
SO ORDERED. 50

The petitioners are now before this Court, seeking to reverse and set
aside the CA's issuances, and to reinstate the NLRC's decision. 51 The
petitioners insist that Jobcrest is a labor-only contractor, and that the DOLE
Certificate of Registration is not conclusive of Jobcrest's legitimate status as
a contractor. 52 They further argue that, aside from lacking substantial
capital, Jobcrest only supplied manpower to Sunpower. 53 These services, the
petitioners allege, are directly related and necessary to Sunpower's
business. 54
Furthermore, the petitioners submit that it was Sunpower that
controlled their work. They refute the evidentiary weight and value of the
sworn statements of Jobcrest and Sunpower employees. 55 The petitioners
assert that the NLRC was correct in ruling that Sunpower was their statutory
employer, and in ordering their reinstatement with payment of full
backwages and attorney's fees. 56 The petitioners thus pray that this Court
reverse and set aside the Decision dated October 8, 2013 and Resolution
dated January 13, 2014 of the CA. 57

Ruling of the Court

The Court resolves to deny the petition.

Jobcrest is a legitimate and

independent contractor.

Article 106 of the Labor Code defines labor-only contracting as a

situation "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." 58
DOLE Department Order (DO) No. 18-02, the regulation in force at the
time of the petitioners' assignment to Sunpower, reiterated the language of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 the Labor Code:
Section 5. Prohibition against labor-only contracting .
— x x x [L]abor-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:
1) 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.
Thus, in order to become a legitimate contractor, the contractor must
have substantial capital or investment, and must carry a distinct and
independent business free from the control of the principal. In addition, the
Court requires the agreement between the principal and the contractor or
subcontractor to assure the contractual employees' entitlement to all labor
and occupational safety and health standards, free exercise of the right to
self-organization, security of tenure, and social welfare benefits. 59
Furthermore, the Court considers job contracting or subcontracting as
permissible when the principal agrees to farm out the performance of a
specific job, work or service to the contractor, for a definite or
predetermined period of time, regardless of whether such job, work, or
service is to be performed or completed within or outside the premises of
the principal. 60 Ordinarily, a contractor is presumed to be a labor-only
contractor, unless the contractor is able to discharge the burden of
overcoming this presumption. In cases when it's the principal claiming the
legitimacy of the contractor, then the burden is borne by the principal. 61
Preliminarily, the Court finds that there is no such burden resting on
either Sunpower or Jobcrest in this case. It is true that Sunpower maintained
its position that Jobcrest is a legitimate and independent contractor. 62 But
since the petitioners do not dispute that Jobcrest was a duly-registered
contractor under Section 11 of DOLE DO No. 18-02, 63 there is no operative
presumption that Jobcrest is a labor-only contractor. 64
Conversely, the fact of registration with DOLE does not necessarily
create a presumption that Jobcrest is a legitimate and independent
contractor. The Court emphasizes, however, that the DOLE Certificate
of Registration issued in favor of Jobcrest is presumed to have been
issued in the regular performance of official duty . 65 In other words,
the DOLE officer who issued the certificate in favor of Jobcrest is presumed,
unless proven otherwise, to have evaluated the application for registration in
accordance with the applicable rules and regulations. 66 The petitioners must
overcome the presumption of regularity accorded to the official act of DOLE,
which is no less than the agency primarily tasked with the regulation of job
contracting. 67 ICHDca

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 For the reasons discussed below, the Court is constrained to give more
weight to the substantiated allegations of Sunpower, as opposed to the
unfounded self-serving accusations of the petitioners.
Jobcrest has substantial capital.

The law and the relevant regulatory rules require the contractor to
have substantial capital or investment, in order to be considered a
legitimate and independent contractor. Substantial capital or investment
was defined in DOLE DO No. 18-02 as "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." DOLE initially did not provide a specific amount as to what
constitutes substantial capital. It later on specified in its subsequent
issuance, DOLE DO No. 18-A, series of 2011, that substantial capital refers to
paid-up capital stocks/shares of at least Php3,000,000.00 in the case of
corporations. 68 Despite prescribing a threshold amount under DO No. 18-A,
certificates of registration issued under DO No. 18-02, such as that of
Jobcrest, remained valid until its expiration. 69
The records show that as early as the proceedings before the LA,
Jobcrest established that it had an authorized capital stock of
Php8,000,000.00, Php2,000,000.00 of which was subscribed, and a paid-up
capital stock of Php500,000.00, in full compliance with Section 13 of the
Corporation Code. 70 For the year ended December 31, 2011, the paid-
up capital of Jobcrest increased to Php8,000,000.00, 71 notably more
than the required capital under DOLE DO No. 18-A. 72
The balance sheet submitted by Jobcrest for the year ending on
December 31, 2010 also reveals that its total assets for the year 2009
amounted to Php11,280,597.94, and Php16,825,271.30 for the year
2010, which were comprised of office furniture, fixtures and
equipment, land, building, and motor vehicles, among others. 73 As
of December 31, 2012, the total assets for the years 2011 and 2012 also
increased to Php35,631,498.58 and Php42,603,167.16, respectively. 74
Evidently, Jobcrest had substantial capital to perform the business
process services it provided Sunpower. It has its own office, to which the
petitioners admittedly reported to, possessed numerous assets for the
conduct of its business, and even continuously earned profit as a result. 75
The Court can therefore reasonably conclude from Jobcrest's financial
statements that it carried its own business independent from and distinctly
outside the control of its principals.
The petitioners argue that the amount of substantial capital is
irrelevant because Sunpower provided the tools and owned the work
premises. These supposedly negate the claim that Jobcrest has substantial
capital. 76
The Court does not agree with the petitioners.
DOLE DO No. 18-02 and DO No. 18-A, as well as Article 106 of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Labor Code itself, all use the conjunctive term "or" in prescribing that the
contractor should have substantial capital or investment. Having established
that Jobcrest had substantial capital, it is unnecessary for this Court to
determine whether it had sufficient investment in the form of tools,
equipment, machinery and work premises.
In Neri v. NLRC , 77 the Court rejected the same argument put forward
by the petitioners, and ruled that proof of either substantial capital or
investment is sufficient for purposes of determining whether the first
element of labor-only contracting is absent:
Based on the foregoing, BCC cannot be considered a "labor-
only" contractor because it has substantial capital. While there may
be no evidence that it has investment in the form of tools,
equipment, machineries, work premises, among others, it is enough
that it has substantial capital, as was established before the Labor
Arbiter as well as the NLRC. In other words, the law does not require
both substantial capital and investment in the form of tools,
equipment, machineries, etc. This is clear from the use of the
conjunction "or." If the intention was to require the contractor
to prove that he has both capital and the requisite
investment, then the conjunction "and" should have been
used. But, having established that it has substantial capital, it was no
longer necessary for BCC to further adduce evidence to prove that it
does not fall within the purview of "labor-only" contracting. There is
even no need for it to refute petitioners' contention that the activities
they perform are directly related to the principal business of
respondent bank. 78 (Emphasis Ours)
The agreement between Jobcrest and Sunpower also complied with the
statutory requirement of ensuring the observance of the contractual
employees' rights under the law. Specifically, paragraph 7 of the Service
Contract Agreement obligates Jobcrest to observe all laws, rules and
regulations pertaining to the employment of its employees. 79
Suncrest does not control the
manner by which the petitioners
accomplished their work.

In most cases, despite proof of substantial capital, the Court declared a

contractor as a labor-only contractor whenever it is established that the
principal-not the alleged legitimate contractor-actually controls the manner
of the employees' work. 80 The element of control was defined under DOLE
DO No. 18-02 as:
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. 81
In other words, the contractor should undertake the performance of the
services under its contract according to its own manner and method, free
from the control and supervision of the principal. 82 Otherwise, the
contractor is deemed an illegitimate or labor-only contractor.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 The control over the employees' performance of the work is, as the
Court ruled in some cases, usually manifested through the power to hire,
fire, and pay the contractor's employees, 83 the power to discipline the
employees and impose the corresponding penalty, 84 and more importantly,
the actual supervision of the employees' performance. 85 On this point, the
petitioners claim that Sunpower employees supervised their work while in
the premises of Sunpower's own plant. They also disclaim the affidavits of
Sunpower employees, which denied exercising any form of supervision over
the petitioners, 86 by alleging that these are self-serving assertions. The
petitioners also refute the veracity of the sworn statements of Jobcrest's
employees. 87
Upon review of the records, the Court finds that the evidence clearly
points to Jobcrest as the entity that exercised control over the petitioners'
work with Sunpower. Upon the petitioners' assignment to Sunpower, Jobcrest
conducted a training and certification program, during which time, the
petitioners reported directly to the designated Jobcrest trainer. 88 The
affidavit of Jobcrest's Operations Manager, Kathy T. Morales (Kathy), states
that operational control over Jobcrest employees was exercised to make sure
that they conform to the quantity and time specifications of the service
agreements with Jobcrest's clients. She narrated that manager and shift
supervisors were assigned to the premises of Sunpower, with the task to
oversee the accomplishment of the target volume of work. She also
mentioned that there is administrative control over Jobcrest employees
because they monitor the employees' attendance and punctuality, and the
employees' observance of other rules and regulations. 89
The affidavit of Kathy was markedly corroborated by the sworn
statement of Jobcrest's On-site Supervisor, Allan, in which he affirmed that
he directly supervised the petitioners while they were stationed in Sunpower.
He also confirmed that during this period, he issued several memoranda to
the petitioners for violating rules and regulations, and provided their hourly
output performance assessment, which "determine[s] their fitness to
continue their employment with Jobcrest." 90
The petitioners' very own sworn statements further establish
this point. In his statement, Leo averred that when he reported for work to
file his application for paternity leave, he reported to Allan, Jobcrest's
supervisor, who then approved his leave application. He likewise narrated
that it was Jobcrest's Human Resource Manager, Noel, who informed Leo
about the disciplinary charge against him for allegedly violating the Jobcrest
Code of Conduct. 91
The same conclusion holds for Leilanie. In her statement, Leilanie
narrated that she reported for work to the Jobcrest office on November 29,
2011 after giving birth to her second child. She also alleged in her affidavit
that similar to Leo, it was Noel who informed her of the disciplinary action
against her, through the service of a copy of the "Notice of Admin
Charge/Explanation Slip." 92 TCAScE

Notably, other documentary evidence plainly show that Leo's paternity

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 leave application was indeed filed with Jobcrest, 93 and the respective
notices of disciplinary action against the petitioners were prepared and
signed by the Jobcrest Human Resource Manager. 94 These are clear
indications that Jobcrest exercised control over the petitioners' work.
The fact that the petitioners were working within the premises of
Sunpower, by itself, does not negate Jobcrest's control over the means,
method, and result of the petitioners' work. 95 Job contracting is permissible
"whether such job, work, or service is to be performed or completed within
or outside the premises of the principal" 96 for as long as the elements of a
labor-only contractor are not present. Since Jobcrest was a provider of
business process services, its employees would necessarily work within the
premises of its client companies in order for Jobcrest to perform its
contractual undertaking. Mere physical presence in Sunpower's plant does
not necessarily mean that Sunpower controlled the means and method of
the petitioners' work. The petitioners, despite working in Sunpower's plant
for most of the time, admit that whenever they file their leave application, or
whenever required by their supervisors in Jobcrest, they report to the
Jobcrest office. Designated on-site supervisors from Jobcrest were the ones
who oversaw the performance of the employees' work within the premises of
Sunpower.
Besides, while the Court repeatedly recognizes that there are
employers who abuse the system of subcontracting, we also acknowledge
that contracts for services does not necessarily provide
"untrammeled freedom" to the contractor in undertaking the
engagement. 97 What is important, as incontrovertibly established in this
case, is that the principal's right to control is limited to the results of the
work of the contractor's employees.
The petitioners were regular
employees of Jobcrest.

The four-fold test is the established standard for determining the

existence of an employer-employee relationship: 98 (a) the selection and
engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of
dismissal; and (d) the power of control over the employee's conduct. Of the
four elements, the power of control is the most important. 99 Having found
that Jobcrest exercised control over the petitioners' work, the Court is
constrained to determine whether the petitioners were regular employees of
Jobcrest by virtue of the three other elements of the four-fold test.
The petitioners themselves admit that they were hired by Jobcrest. 100
In their subsequent engagement to Sunpower, it was Jobcrest that selected
and trained the petitioners. 101 Despite their assignment to Sunpower,
Jobcrest paid the petitioners' wages, including their contributions to the
Social Security System (SSS), Philippine Health Insurance Corporation
(Philhealth), and Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF, also known as
Pag-IBIG). 102 The power to discipline the petitioners was also retained by
Jobcrest, as evidenced by the "Notice of Admin Charge/Explanation Slip"
furnished the petitioners through Jobcrest's Human Resource department.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 103

The Court further notes that on December 27, 2010 and January 25,
2011, Leilanie and Leo were respectively confirmed as regular employees of
Jobcrest. 104 Jobcrest did not even deny that the petitioners were their
regular employees. Consequently, the petitioners cannot be terminated from
employment without just or authorized cause. 105
A review of the petitioners' repeated submissions reveals that while
they claim to have been illegally dismissed from employment, 106 Jobcrest
actually intended to assign Leo again to Sunpower, and provide Leilanie with
another engagement with a different client company. The petitioners all
admitted to these facts in their sworn statement, heavily quoted in their
position paper filed with the LA: 107
41. Noong December 14, 2011, ako [Leo Mago] ay tinawagan
sa aking cellular phone ng nagpakilalang Julie at taga HR
ng JOBCREST at ang sabi sa akin ay magreport umano ako
sa opisina upang ipadala sa SUNPOWER;
xxx xxx xxx
44. Noong November 29, 2011, ako [Leilani Colobong] ay
nagreport sa JOBCREST at aking nakausap ang isa sa staff
ng JOBCREST na hindi ko alam ang pangalan at ang sabi
niya sa akin ay ililipat umano ako sa kompanyang FIRST
SUMIDEN dahil hindi na umano ako pwedeng m[a]gtrabaho sa
SUNPOWER na hindi niya sinabi kung anu ang dahilan;
45. Noong December 1, 2011, ako ay bumalik sa JOBCREST at ako
ay binigyan nila ng referral para magpamedical para sa aking
bagong requirements diumano sa aking bagong trabaho sa FIRST
SUMIDEN dahil hindi na talaga umano ako tatanggapin sa
SUNPOWER sa aking pagbabalik trabaho ng December 4, 2011
na hindi naman niya sinabi kung anu ang dahilan; Kalakip nito
ang nas[a]bing referral slip bilang Exhibit "S" 108 (Emphasis Ours)
It was also uncontroverted that Jobcrest offered to accept the
petitioners' return to work, but they refused this offer during the mandatory
conference. 109 Clearly, the petitioners were not illegally dismissed, much
less terminated from their employment. There is nothing on record that
established the dismissal of the petitioners in the first place.
In MZR Industries, et al. v. Colambot, 110 the employee claimed to have
been illegally dismissed through a verbal directive. The employer denied this
and alleged waiting for the employee to report for work, only to later find out
that a complaint for illegal dismissal was filed against them. The Court
recognized that while the employer is generally required to establish the
legality of the employee's termination, the employee should first establish
the fact of dismissal from service. Failing such, as in this case, the Court
cannot rule that the employee was illegally dismissed.
The "Notice of Admin Charge/Explanation Slip" is also insufficient proof
of the petitioners' termination from employment. The notice merely required
the petitioners to explain whether they violated Jobcrest's Code of Conduct.
No penalty was imposed on the petitioners yet when they were furnished
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 with a copy of the notices. 111 In fact, Jobcrest was unable to take the
appropriate action on the charge, considering that the petitioners
immediately filed their complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC the
following day, or on December 15, 2011. 112
All things considered, Sunpower is not the statutory employer of the
petitioners. The circumstances obtaining in this case, as supported by the
evidence on record, establish that Jobcrest was a legitimate and
independent contractor. There is no reason for this Court to depart from the
CA's findings.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present petition is hereby
DENIED for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated October 8,
2013 and Resolution dated January 13, 2014 in CA-G.R. SP No. 131059 are
AFFIRMED, which nullified the National Labor Relations Commission's
Decision dated April 24, 2013 and Resolution dated May 28, 2013, and
reinstated the Labor Arbiter's Decision dated July 3, 2012. No costs. cTDaEH

SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Peralta, Perlas-Bernabe and Caguioa, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1. Rollo , pp. 9-47.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, with Associate Justices

Franchito N. Diamante and Melchor Q. C. Sadang, concurring; id . at 385-412.

3. Id. at 439-442.

4. Id. at 229-252.
5. Id. at 164-190.

6. Id. at 145-151.
7. Id. at 139.

8. Id. at 13.

9. Id. at 140.
10. Id. at 404-405.

11. Id. at 88-94.

12. Id. at 96-102.

13. Id. at 404.

14. Id. at 445.

15. Id. at 14, 103.

16. Id. at 54.

17. Id. at 185.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 18. Id. at 54, 107.
19. Id. at 107.

20. Id. at 69.

21. Id. at 109-110.

22. Id. at 55, 108.

23. Id. at 237, 535.

24. Id. at 44-154.

25. Issued by LA Renell Joseph R. Dela Cruz; id . at 164-190.

26. Id. at 190.

27. Id. at 187-189.

28. Id. at 189-190.

29. Id. at 237-238.

30. Id. at 191-225.

31. Penned by Commissioner Erlinda T. Agus, with Presiding Commissioner Raul T.
Aquino and Commissioner Teresita D. Castillon-Lora, concurring; id . at 229-
252.

32. Id. at 252.

33. Id. at 241.

34. Id. at 242-246.

35. Id. at 249-251.

36. Id. at 271-283.

37. Id. at 287-289.

38. Id. at 288.

39. Id. at 290-322.

40. Id. at 300-308.

41. Id. at 296-300, 308-311.

42. Id. at 385-412.

43. Id. at 408.

44. Id. at 399-400, 406-407.

45. Id. at 401-402.

46. Id. at 402-405.

47. Id. at 406-407.

48. Id. at 413-437.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 49. Id. at 439-442.

50. Id. at 442.

51. Id. at 9-43.

52. Id. at 21-22.

53. Id. at 26-34.

54. Id. at 34-35.

55. Id. at 35-37.

56. Id. at 38-42.

57. Id. at 43.

58. Emphasis Ours.

59. Babas, et al. v. Lorenzo Shipping Corp. , 653 Phil. 421,432 (2010); See Vinoya v.
NLRC, 393 Phil. 441, 445 (2000).
60. Babas, et al. v. Lorenzo Shipping Corp., id .
61. Alilin, et al. v. Petron Corporation, 735 Phil. 509, 513 (2014).

62. Rollo , pp. 448-462.

63. Id. at 139, 166.

64. Cf. Rollo , p. 399; De Castro v. Court of Appeals , G.R. No. 204261, October 5,
2016, 805 SCRA 265.
65. Sasan, Sr., et al. v. NLRC 4th Division, et al., 590 Phil. 685, 707 (2008).

66. See DOLE DO No. 18-02, Section 12; Gallego v. Bayer Philippines, Inc., et al. ,
612 Phil. 250, 263 (2009).
67. LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Article 106.

68. DOLE DO No. 18-A, Section 3 (1).

69. Id. at Section 38.

70. Rollo , pp. 148-149, 514.

71. Id. at 334.

72. Id. at 139, 166.

73. Id. at 152, 523.

74. Id. at 332.

75. Id. at 326-345, 522-525. See also Sasan, et al. v. NLRC 4th Division, et al.,
supra note 65, at 704-705; Gallego v. Bayer Philippines, Inc., et al. , supra
note 66, at 263-264; Escario v. NLRC, 388 Phil. 929, 938-939 (2000).

76. Rollo , pp. 29-34.

77. 296 Phil. 610 (1993).
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 78. Id. at 616.

79. Rollo , p. 142.

80. Vinoya v. NLRC , supra note 59, at 444-445.

81. See DOLE DO No. 18-A, Section 6; See also Locsin, et al. v. Philippine Long
Distance Telephone Company , 617 Phil. 955, 964 (2009), citing Francisco v.
NLRC, 532 Phil. 399, 407 (2006).
82. Vinoya v. NLRC , supra note 59, at 445.
83. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. Agito, et al., 611 Phil. 327 (2009).

84. Manila Water Co., Inc. v. Pena, 478 Phil. 68, 81 (2004).
85. Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Ligan, et al. , 570 Phil. 497, 508 (2008); Lakas sa
Industriya ng Kapatirang Haligi ng Alyansa-Pinagbuklod ng Manggagawang
Promo ng Burlingame v. Burlingame Corporation, 552 Phil. 58, 61-62 (2007).
86. Rollo , pp. 247-248.
87. Id. at 35-40.

88. Id. at 403-404.

89. Id. at 404, 455-456.

90. Id. at 404-405, 455.

91. Id. at 54.

92. Id. at 54-55.

93. Id. at 103.

94. Id. at 107-108.

95. Escasinas, et al. v. Shangri-La's Mactan Island Resort, et al. , 599 Phil. 746, 755
(2009).

96. Babas, et al. v. Lorenzo Shipping Corp., supra note 59, at 432.
97. Gallego v. Bayer Philippines, Inc. , supra note 66, at 265.

98. Tongko v. The Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. (Phils.), Inc., et al. , 655 Phil.
384, 407 (2011).
99. Manila Water Co., Inc. v. Dalumpines, et al., 646 Phil. 383, 398-399 (2010).

100. Rollo , p. 51.

101. Id. at 88-102.

102. Id. at 95, 186-187, 492-504.

103. Id. at 107-108.

104. Id. at 94, 102.

105. LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Article 279.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 106. Rollo , p. 109.
107. Id. at 54-55.

108. Id.

109. Id. at 237, 535.

110. 716 Phil. 617, 624 (2013).

111. Rollo , pp. 107-108.

112. Id. at 109-110.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com