Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ABOITIZ HAULERS v. MONAORAI DIMAPATOI

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 182255 2015-06-15	PETRON CORPORATION v. ARMZ CABERTE DEL CASTILLO, J.
From the foregoing, it is clear that Petron failed to discharge its burden of proving that ABC is not a labor-only contractor. Consequently, and as warranted by the facts, the Court declares ABC as a mere labor-only contractor. "A finding that a contractor is a 'labor-only' contractor is equivalent to declaring that there is an employer-employee relationship between the principal and the employees of the supposed contractor, and the 'labor-only' contractor is considered as a mere agent of the principal, the real employer."[52] Accordingly in this case, Petron is declared to be the true employer of respondents who are considered regular employees in view of the fact that they have been regularly performing activities which are necessary and desirable to the usual business of Petron for a number of years.
	GR No. 167622 2011-01-25	GREGORIO V. TONGKO v. MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO. BRION, J.
In Social Security System, Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes, Dealco Farms, and South Davao Development, the issue that repeats itself is whether complainants were employees or independent contractors; the legal relationships involved are both labor law concepts and make no reference to the Civil Code (or even the Insurance Code). The provisions cited in the Dissent -- Articles 1458-1637 of the Civil Code[31] and Articles 1713-1720 of the Civil Code [32] -- do not even appear in the decisions cited.
	GR No. 179546 2009-02-13	COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS. v. ALAN M. AGITO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The contractor, not the employee, has the burden of proof that it has the substantial capital, investment, and tool to engage in job contracting.[43] Although not the contractor itself (since Interserve no longer appealed the judgment against it by the Labor Arbiter), said burden of proof herein falls upon petitioner who is invoking the supposed status of Interserve as an independent job contractor. Noticeably, petitioner failed to submit evidence to establish that the service vehicles and equipment of Interserve, valued at P510,000.00 and P200,000.00, respectively, were sufficient to carry out its service contract with petitioner. Certainly, petitioner could have simply provided the courts with records showing the deliveries that were undertaken by Interserve for the Lagro area, the type and number of equipment necessary for such task, and the valuation of such equipment. Absent evidence which a legally compliant company could have easily provided, the Court will not presume that Interserve had sufficient investment in service vehicles and equipment, especially since respondents' allegation - that they were using equipment, such as forklifts and pallets belonging to petitioner, to carry out their jobs - was uncontroverted.
	GR No. 168537 2008-12-11	DAMIAN AKLAN v. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION REYES, R.T., J.
A finding that a contractorisa"labor-only"contractor,as opposed to permissible job contracting, is equivalent to declaring that there is an employer-employee relationship between the principal and the employees of the supposed contractor, and the "labor-only" contractor is considered as a mere agent of the principal, the real employer.[15]
	GR No. 146408 2008-02-29	PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. ENRIQUE LIGAN CARPIO MORALES, J.
Respondents having performed tasks which are usually necessary and desirable in the air transportation business of petitioner, they should be deemed its regular employees and Synergy as a labor-only contractor.[32]