Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 176240 2008-10-17	ROLANDO SASAN v. NLRC 4TH DIVISION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Considering the foregoing, plus taking judicial notice of the general practice in private, as well as in government institutions and industries, of hiring an independent contractor to perform special services,[56] ranging from janitorial, security and even technical services, we can only conclude that HI is a legitimate job contractor. As such legitimate job contractor, the law creates an employer-employee relationship between HI and petitioners[57] which renders HI liable for the latter's claims.
	GR NO. 148490 2006-11-22	7K CORPORATION v. NLRC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Even granting en arguendo that Universal is a legitimate job contractor and not a labor-only contractor, still petitioner cannot escape liability because even without a direct employer-employee relationship between the principal employer and the employees, the former is still jointly and severally liable with the job contractor for the employees' monetary claims[32] following Arts. 106, 107 and 109 of the Labor Code, to wit:Art. 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 the latter's subcontractor, if any, shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of this Code.