Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 201 views

    Tabas Case

    Uploaded by

    Jesse Myl Marcia
    Petitioners were employed by Livi Manpower Services and assigned to work for respondent California Manufacturing Company as promotional merchandisers. California claimed the petitioners were not its employees based on their contract with Livi. However, the court found that California and Livi had an employer-employee relationship despite the contract terms, as Livi was simply a labor contractor and the petitioners' work was integral to California's manufacturing business. The court determined California was liable as the employer and ordered the petitioners reinstated with back pay.

    Copyright:

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

    Tabas Case

    Uploaded by

    Jesse Myl Marcia
    201 views6 pages
    Petitioners were employed by Livi Manpower Services and assigned to work for respondent California Manufacturing Company as promotional merchandisers. California claimed the petitioners were not its employees based on their contract with Livi. However, the court found that California and Livi had an employer-employee relationship despite the contract terms, as Livi was simply a labor contractor and the petitioners' work was integral to California's manufacturing business. The court determined California was liable as the employer and ordered the petitioners reinstated with back pay.

    Original Description:

    labor

    Original Title

    tabas case

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioners were employed by Livi Manpower Services and assigned to work for respondent California Manufacturing Company as promotional merchandisers. California claimed the petitioners were not its employees based on their contract with Livi. However, the court found that California and Livi had an employer-employee relationship despite the contract terms, as Livi was simply a labor contractor and the petitioners' work was integral to California's manufacturing business. The court determined California was liable as the employer and ordered the petitioners reinstated with back pay.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    201 views6 pages

    Tabas Case

    Uploaded by

    Jesse Myl Marcia
    Petitioners were employed by Livi Manpower Services and assigned to work for respondent California Manufacturing Company as promotional merchandisers. California claimed the petitioners were not its employees based on their contract with Livi. However, the court found that California and Livi had an employer-employee relationship despite the contract terms, as Livi was simply a labor contractor and the petitioners' work was integral to California's manufacturing business. The court determined California was liable as the employer and ordered the petitioners reinstated with back pay.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 6

    TABAS

    v.
    CALIFORNIA
    MANUFACTURING
    COMPANY INC.
    G.R. No. L-80680
    -MARCIA
    FACTS
     Petitioners were the employees of Livi Manpower Services. They were
    assigned to the respondent pursuant to a manpower supply agreement
    as “promotional merchandisers”.
     It was provided in the agreement that:
    1) California would have no control or supervision over the workers
    as to how they perform or accomplish their work,
    2) Livi is an independent contractor and that it has the sole
    responsibility of complying with all the existing as well as future
    laws, rules and regulations pertinent to employment of labor,
    3) the assignment to California was “seasonal and contractual”, and
    4) payroll, including COLA and holiday pay shall be delivered Livi at
    California’s premises.
     Petitioners were made to sign 6-month employment
    contracts which were renewed for the same period.
    Unlike regular employees of California, they did not
    receive fringe benefits and bonuses and were paid only a
    daily allowance.
     Petitioners contend that they have become regular
    employees of California. Subsequent to their claim for
    regularization, California no longer re-hired them. Livi, on
    the other hand, claims the workers as its employees and
    that it is an independent contractor.
     Labor Arbiter found that no employer-employee
    relationship existed. The NLRC affirmed the ruling
    ISSUE
    Is there an employer-employee relationship
    between California and the petitioners?
    HELD
    YES. The existence of an employer-employee relationship is a
    question of law and cannot be made subject to agreement. The
    stipulations in the manpower supply agreement will not erase either
    party’s obligations as an employer. Livi is a labor-only contractor,
    notwithstanding the provisions in the agreement. The nature of one’s
    business is not determined by self-serving appellations but by test
    provided by statute and the prevailing case law.
    California’s contention that the workers are not performing
    activities which are directly related to its general business of
    manufacturing is untenable. The promotion or sale of products,
    including the task of occasional price tagging, is an integral part of the
    manufacturing business. Livi as a placement agency had simply
    supplied the manpower necessary for California to carry out its
    merchandising activities, using the latter’s premises and equipment.
    Merchandising is likewise not a specific project because it is an activity
    related to the day-to-day operations of California. Based on Article 106
    of the Labor Code, the labor-only contractor is considered merely an
    agent of the employer and liability must be shouldered by either one
    or by both. Petitioners are ordered reinstated as regular employees.
    THANK YOU!!!

    You might also like