Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DAMIAN AKLAN v. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR Nos. 173254-55 & 173263 2016-01-13	DIAMOND FARMS v. SPFL-WORKERS SOLIDARITY JARDELEZA, J.
A finding that a contractor is a labor-only contractor is equivalent to a declaration that there is an employer-employee relationship between the principal, and the workers of the labor-only contractor; the labor-only contractor is deemed only as the agent of the principal.[85] Thus, in this case, respondent-contractors are the labor-only contractors and either DFI or DARBMUPCO is their principal.
	GR No. 172349 2012-06-13	POLYFOAM-RGC INTERNATIONAL v. EDGARDO CONCEPCION PERALTA, J.
A finding that a contractor is a "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.[53] In this case, Polyfoam is the principal employer and Gramaje is the labor-only contractor. Polyfoam and Gramaje are, therefore, solidarily liable for the rightful claims of respondent.[54]
	GR No. 160506 2011-06-06	JOEB M. ALIVIADO v. PROCTER DEL CASTILLO, J.
Therefore, the "control test" is merely one of the factors to consider. This is clearly deduced from the above-provision which states that labor-only contracting exists when any of the two elements is present. In our March 9, 2010 Decision, it was established that SAPS has no substantial capitalization and it was performing merchandising and promotional activities which are directly related to P&G's business. Since SAPS met one of the requirements, it was enough basis for us to hold that it is a labor-only contractor. Consequently, its principal, P&G, is considered the employer of its employees. This is pursuant to our ruling in Aklan v. San Miguel Corporation [27] where we held that "[a] finding that a contractor isa`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."
	GR No. 175532 2010-04-19	ROMEO BASAY v. HACIENDA CONSOLACION DEL CASTILLO, J.
As for petitioner Abueva, he is not entitled to his claims. The NLRC excluded Abueva in its judgment award, ruling that he is not an employee but a mere contractor. The existence of an employer-employee relationship is ultimately a question of fact.[25] Settled is the rule that only errors of law are generally reviewed by this Court.[26] Factual findings of administrative and quasi-judicial agencies specializing in their respective fields, especially when affirmed by the CA, must be accorded high respect, if not finality.[27]