This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2015-10-07 |
PERALTA J. |
||||
| As to its capital, there is no dispute that SJS generated an income of P1,523,575.81 for the year 2004.[35] In Neri v. National Labor Relations Commission,[36] this Court held that a business venture which had a capitalization of P1,000,000.00 was considered as highly capitalized and cannot be deemed engaged in labor-only contracting. In the present case, while SJS' income of more than P1,500,000.00 was not shown to be equivalent to its authorized capital stock, such income is an indication of how much capital was put into its business to generate such amount of revenue. Thus, the Court finds no sufficient reason to disturb the findings of the LA and the NLRC that SJS had substantial capital. | |||||
|
2012-02-08 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| On the other hand, there is labor-only contracting where: (a) 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 (b) the workers recruited and placed by such person are performing activities which are directly related to the principal business of the employer.[16] | |||||
|
2010-03-09 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| "Where `labor-only' contracting exists, the Labor Code itself establishes an employer-employee relationship between the employer and the employees of the `labor-only' contractor."[39] The statute establishes this relationship for a comprehensive purpose: to prevent a circumvention of labor laws. The contractor is considered merely an agent of the principal employer and the latter is responsible to the employees of the labor-only contractor as if such employees had been directly employed by the principal employer.[40] | |||||
|
2009-02-13 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As to the supposed substantial capital and investment required of an independent job contractor, petitioner calls the attention of the Court to the authorized capital stock of Interserve amounting to P2,000,000.00.[35] It cites as authority Filipinas Synthetic Fiber Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission[36] and Frondozo v. National Labor Relations Commission,[37] where the contractors' authorized capital stock of P1,600,000.00 and P2,000,000.00, respectively, were considered substantial for the purpose of concluding that they were legitimate job contractors. Petitioner also refers to Neri v. National Labor Relations Commission[38] where it was held that a contractor ceases to be a labor-only contractor by having substantial capital alone, without investment in tools and equipment. | |||||
|
2008-02-29 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Petitioner asserts, however, that mere compliance with substantial capital requirement suffices for Synergy to be considered a legitimate contractor, citing Neri v. National Labor Relations Commission.[18] Petitioner's reliance on said case is misplaced. | |||||
|
2007-02-05 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| The Court agrees with the finding of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that the circumstances of this case show that no employer-employee relationship exists between the parties. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC correctly found that petitioner company lacked the power of control over the performance by respondent of his duties. The Labor Arbiter reasoned that the Comprehensive Medical Plan, which contains the respondent's objectives, duties and obligations, does not tell respondent "how to conduct his physical examination, how to immunize, or how to diagnose and treat his patients, employees of [petitioner] company, in each case." He likened this case to that of Neri v. National Labor Relations Commission,[19] which held:In the case of petitioner Neri, it is admitted that FEBTC issued a job description which detailed her functions as a radio/telex operator. However, a cursory reading of the job description shows that what was sought to be controlled by FEBTC was actually the end result of the task, e.g., that the daily incoming and outgoing telegraphic transfer of funds received and relayed by her, respectively, tallies with that of the register. The guidelines were laid down merely to ensure that the desired end result was achieved. It did not, however, tell Neri how the radio/telex machine should be operated. In effect, the Labor Arbiter held that petitioner company, through the Comprehensive Medical Plan, provided guidelines merely to ensure that the end result was achieved, but did not control the means and methods by which respondent performed his assigned tasks. | |||||
|
2003-12-11 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In Neri v. NLRC,[13] we held that the labor contractor which sufficiently proved that it had substantial capital was not engaged in labor-only contracting. Thus: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. | |||||
|
2003-07-10 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| leaving MAERC to shoulder all the obligations to the workers. Petitioner also ascribes as error the failure of the Court of Appeals to apply the ruling in Neri v. NLRC.[28] In that case, it was held that the law did not require one to possess both substantial capital and investment in the form of tools, | |||||