Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 288 views

    FVR Skills V Jovert Seva GR 200857

    Uploaded by

    Michaela
    The Supreme Court ruled that 28 employees who provided janitorial services through an employment agency were considered regular employees rather than project employees. As regular employees, they were entitled to benefits such as job security, 13th month pay, and separation pay. The Court found that the employees' work of cleaning was necessary to the agency's business of providing janitorial services. They had also been performing the same job for the agency since 1998, before and after it entered contracts with clients.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    FVR Skills V Jovert Seva GR 200857

    Uploaded by

    Michaela
    288 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that 28 employees who provided janitorial services through an employment agency were considered regular employees rather than project employees. As regular employees, they were entitled to benefits such as job security, 13th month pay, and separation pay. The Court found that the employees' work of cleaning was necessary to the agency's business of providing janitorial services. They had also been performing the same job for the agency since 1998, before and after it entered contracts with clients.

    Original Description:

    FVR Skills v Jovert Seva GR 200857

    Original Title

    FVR Skills v Jovert Seva GR 200857

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that 28 employees who provided janitorial services through an employment agency were considered regular employees rather than project employees. As regular employees, they were entitled to benefits such as job security, 13th month pay, and separation pay. The Court found that the employees' work of cleaning was necessary to the agency's business of providing janitorial services. They had also been performing the same job for the agency since 1998, before and after it entered contracts with clients.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    288 views2 pages

    FVR Skills V Jovert Seva GR 200857

    Uploaded by

    Michaela
    The Supreme Court ruled that 28 employees who provided janitorial services through an employment agency were considered regular employees rather than project employees. As regular employees, they were entitled to benefits such as job security, 13th month pay, and separation pay. The Court found that the employees' work of cleaning was necessary to the agency's business of providing janitorial services. They had also been performing the same job for the agency since 1998, before and after it entered contracts with clients.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Doctrine: to December 31, 2008.

     Pursuant to this, the respondents were


    Rights of Contractual Employees deployed to Robinsons.

    G.R. No. 200857               October 22, 2014 Halfway through the service contract, the petitioner asked the
    respondents to execute individual contracts which stipulated that
    FVR SKILLS AND SERVICES EXPONENTS, INC. (SKILLEX), their respective employments shall end on December 31, 2008,
    FULGENCIO V. RANA and MONINA R. BURGOS, Petitioners,  unless earlier terminated.
    vs.
    JOVERT SEV A, et. al, Respondents. The petitioner and Robinsons no longer extended their contract of
    janitorial services. Consequently, the petitioner dismissed the
    Brief: respondents as they were project employees whose duration of
    employment was dependent on the petitioner's service contract
    with Robinsons.
    This is a petition for review on certiorari the challenging the
    December 22, 2011 decision and the March 2, 2012
    resolution (assailed CA rulings) of the Court of Appeals (CA) in The respondents responded to the termination of their
    CA-G.R. SP No. 120991. These assailed CA rulings affirmed the employment by filing a complaint for illegal dismissal with the
    April 28, 2011 decision and the June 16, 2011 resolution (NLRC NLRC. They argued that they were not project employees; they
    rulings) of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in were regular employees who may only be dismissed for just or
    NLRC LAC No. 08-001687-10 (NLRC NCR Case Nos. 08-11557- authorized causes. The respondents also asked for payment of
    09 and 08-11399-09). The NLRC rulings in turn reversed and set their unpaid wage differential, 13th month pay differential, service
    aside the June 4, 2010 decision of the labor arbiter (LA). incentive leave pay, holiday pay and separation pay.

    Facts: Issue:

    The twenty-eight (28) respondents in this case were employees Whether the respondents are regular employees.
    of petitioner FVR Skills and Services Exponents, Inc. (petitioner),
    an independent contractor engaged in the business of providing Held:
    janitorial and other manpower services to its clients. As early as
    1998, some of the respondents had already been under the Yes. The respondents are regular employees, not project
    petitioner's employ. employees. Article 280 (now Article 294) of the Labor Code
    governs the determination of whether an employee is a regular or
    On April 21, 2008, the petitioner entered into a Contract of a project employee.
    Janitorial Service (service contract) with Robinsons Land
    Corporation (Robinsons). Both agreed that the petitioner shall Under this provision, there are two kinds of regular employees,
    supply janitorial, manpower and sanitation services to Robinsons namely: (1) those who were engaged to perform activities which
    Place Ermita Mall for a period of one year - from January 1, 2008 are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade
    of the employer; and (2) those casual employees who became
    regular after one year of service, whether continuous or broken, service incentive leave, rest days, overtime pay, holiday pay,
    but only with respect to the activity for which they have been 13th month pay and separation pay; (c) social security and
    hired. welfare benefits; (d) self-organization, collective bargaining and
    peaceful concerted action; and (e) security of tenure.
    The primary standard in determining regular employment is the
    reasonable connection between the particular activity performed In this light, we thus conclude that although the respondents were
    by the employee and the employer's business or trade. This assigned as contractual employees to the petitioner's various
    connection can be ascertained by considering the nature of the clients, under the law, they remain to be the petitioner's regular
    work performed and its relation to the scheme of the particular employees, who are entitled to all the rights and benefits of
    business, or the trade in its entirety. regular employment.

    Guided by this test, we conclude that the respondents' work as WHEREFORE, in light of these considerations, we hereby DENY
    janitors, service crews and sanitation aides, are necessary or the petition. We AFFIRM with MODIFICATION the Court of
    desirable to the petitioner's business of providing janitorial and Appeals' decision dated December 22, 2011 and resolution dated
    manpower services to its clients as an independent contractor. March 2, 2012 in CAG.R. SP No. 120991, which also AFFIRMED
    the National Labor Relation Commission's decision dated April
    Also, the respondents had already been working for the petitioner 28, 2011 and resolution dated June 16, 2011. Petitioners
    as early as 1998. Even before the service contract with Fulgencio V. Rana and Monina R. Burgos are hereby absolved
    Robinsons, the respondents were already under the petitioner's from paying the respondents' monetary awards in their personal
    employ. They had been doing the same type of work and capacity. No costs.
    occupying the same positions from the time they were hired and
    until they were dismissed in January 2009.The petitioner did not
    present any evidence to refute the respondents' claim that from
    the time of their hiring until the time of their dismissal, there was
    no gap in between the projects where they were assigned to. The
    petitioner continuously availed of their services by constantly
    deploying them to its clients.

    Lastly, under Department Order (DO) 18-02, the applicable labor


    issuance to the petitioner's case, the contractor or subcontractor
    is considered as the employer of the contractual employee for
    purposes of enforcing the provisions of the Labor Code and other
    social legislation.

    DO 18-02 grants contractual employees all the rights and


    privileges due a regular employee, including the following: (a)
    safe and healthful working conditions;(b) labor standards such as

    You might also like