Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

7K CORPORATION v. NLRC

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 208451 2016-02-03	MANILA MEMORIAL PARK CEMETERY v. EZARD D. LLUZ CARPIO, J.
For failing to register as a contractor, a presumption arises that one is engaged in labor-only contracting unless the contractor overcomes the burden of proving that it has substantial capital, investment, tools and the like.[21]
	GR No. 182255 2015-06-15	PETRON CORPORATION v. ARMZ CABERTE DEL CASTILLO, J.
Petron contends that the CA erred in ruling that ABC is a labor-only contractor since respondents failed to prove that ABC is not an independent contractor. The contention, however, is incorrect. The law presumes a contractor to be a labor-only contractor and the employees are not expected to prove the negative fact that the contractor is a labor-only contractor.[42] Thus, it is not respondents but Petron which bears the burden of establishing that ABC is not a labor-only contractor but a legitimate independent contractor. As held in Alilin v. Petron Corporation,[43] "where the principal is the one claiming that the contractor is a legitimate contractor, the burden of proving the supposed status of the contractor rests on the principal."
	GR No. 177592 2014-06-09	AVELINO S. ALILIN v. PETRON CORPORATION DEL CASTILLO, J.
Generally, the contractor is presumed to be a labor-only contractor, unless such contractor overcomes the burden of proving that it has the substantial capital, investment, tools and the like. However, where the principal is the one claiming that the contractor is a legitimate contractor, as in the present case, said principal has the burden of proving that supposed status.[47] It is thus incumbent upon Petron, and not upon petitioners as Petron insists, [48] to prove that RDG is an independent contractor.
	GR No. 186732 2013-06-13	ALPS TRANSPORTATION v. ELPIDIO M. RODRIGUEZ SERENO, C.J.
As a labor-only contractor, therefore, Contact Tours is deemed to be an agent of ALPS Transportation. [55] Thus, the latter is responsible to Contact Tours' employees in the same manner and to the same extent as if they were directly employed by the bus company.[56]
	GR No. 172349 2012-06-13	POLYFOAM-RGC INTERNATIONAL v. EDGARDO CONCEPCION PERALTA, J.
First, Gramaje has no substantial capital or investment. The presumption is that a contractor is a labor-only contractor unless he overcomes the burden of proving that it has substantial capital, investment, tools, and the like. The employee should not be expected to prove the negative fact that the contractor does not have substantial capital, investment and tools to engage in job-contracting.[47]
	GR No. 160278 2012-02-08	GARDEN OF MEMORIES PARK v. NLRC MENDOZA, J.
Generally, the presumption is that the contractor is a labor-only contracting unless such contractor overcomes the burden of proving that it has the substantial capital, investment, tools and the like.[17] In the present case, though Garden of Memories is not the contractor, it has the burden of proving that Requiño has sufficient capital or investment since it is claiming the supposed status of Requiño as independent contractor. [18] Garden of Memories, however, failed to adduce evidence purporting to show that Requiño had sufficient capitalization. Neither did it show that she invested in the form of tools, equipment, machineries, work premises and other materials which are necessary in the completion of the service contract.
	GR No. 184977 2009-12-07	COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES v. RICKY E. DELA CRUZ BRION, J.
On the matter of capitalization, the CA invoked our ruling in 7K Corporation v. NLRC[18] presuming a contractor supplying labor to be engaged in prohibited labor-only contracting, unless the contractor can show that it has substantial capital, investment, and tools to undertake the contract. The CA found no proof in the records showing the required capitalization and tools; thus, the CA concluded that Peerless and Excellent were engaged in "labor-only" contracting.
	GR No. 159668 2008-03-07	MANDAUE GALLEON TRADE v. VICENTE ANDALES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Second, MGTI was unable to present any proof that its contractors had substantial capital. There was no evidence pertaining to the contractors' capitalization; nor to their investment in tools, equipment or implements actually used in the performance or completion of the job, work, or service that they were contracted to render. The law casts the burden on the contractor to prove that it has substantial capital, investment, tools, etc. Employees, on the other hand, need not prove that the contractor does not have substantial capital, investment, and tools to engage in job-contracting.[28]