Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. MAERC INTEGRATED SERVICES

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 160278 2012-02-08	GARDEN OF MEMORIES PARK v. NLRC MENDOZA, J.
Under these circumstances, there is no doubt that Requiño is engaged in labor-only contracting, and is considered merely an agent of Garden of Memories. As such, the workers she supplies should be considered as employees of Garden of Memories. Consequently, the latter, as principal employer, is responsible to the employees of the labor-only contractor as if such employees have been directly employed by it.[22]
	GR No. 164257 2010-07-05	SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. VICENTE B. SEMILLANO MENDOZA, J.
Thus, petitioner SMC, as principal employer, is solidarily liable with AMPCO, the labor-only contractor, for all the rightful claims of respondents. Under this set-up, AMPCO, as the "labor-only" contractor, is deemed an agent of the principal (SMC). The law makes the principal responsible over the employees of the "labor-only" contractor as if the principal itself directly hired the employees.[25]
	GR No. 179546 2009-02-13	COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS. v. ALAN M. AGITO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
A legitimate job contract, wherein an employer enters into a contract with a job contractor for the performance of the former's work, is permitted by law. Thus, the employer-employee relationship between the job contractor and his employees is maintained. In legitimate job contracting, the law creates an employer-employee relationship between the employer and the contractor's employees only for a limited purpose, i.e., to ensure that the employees are paid their wages. The employer becomes jointly and severally liable with the job contractor only for the payment of the employees' wages whenever the contractor fails to pay the same. Other than that, the employer is not responsible for any claim made by the contractor's employees.[30]
	GR NO. 162833 2007-06-15	LAKAS SA INDUSTRIYA NG KAPATIRANG HALIGI NG ALYANSA-PINAGBUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWANG PROMO NG BURLINGAME v. BURLINGAME CORPORATION QUISUMBING, J.
Under this circumstance, there is no doubt that F. Garil was engaged in labor-only contracting, and as such, is considered merely an agent of Burlingame. In labor-only contracting, the law creates an employer-employee relationship 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.[21] Since F. Garil is a labor-only contractor, the workers it supplied should be considered as employees of Burlingame in the eyes of the law.
	GR NOS. 164302-03 2007-01-24	SANTA ROSA COCA-COLA PLANT EMPLOYEES UNION v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS. CALLEJO, SR., J.
It bears stressing that this is a finding made by the Labor Arbiter which was affirmed by the NLRC[28] and the CA.[29] The settled rule is that the factual findings and conclusions of tribunals, as long as they are based on substantial evidence, are conclusive on this Court.[30] The raison d'etre is that quasi-judicial agencies, like the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, have acquired a unique expertise since their jurisdictions are confined to specific matters. Besides, under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the factual issues raised by the petitioner are inappropriate in a petition for review on certiorari. Whether petitioners staged a strike or not is a factual issue.
	GR No. 157656 2005-11-11	ARNULFO C. ACEVEDO v. ADVANSTAR COMPANY INC. CALLEJO, SR., J.
In such case, the law creates an employee-employer relationship so that labor laws may not be circumvented. The principal employer becomes solidarily liable with the labor-only contractor for all the rightful claims of the employees.[18] The labor-only contractor is considered merely as an agent of the employer, the employer having been made, by law, responsible to the employees of the labor-only contractor as if such employees had been directly employed by it.
	GR No. 158255 2004-07-08	MANILA WATER COMPANY v. HERMINIO D. PENA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Under this factual milieu, there is no doubt that ACGI was engaged in labor-only contracting, and as such, is considered merely an agent of the petitioner. In labor-only contracting, the statute creates an employer-employee 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.[20] Since ACGI is only a labor-only contractor, the workers it supplied should be considered as employees of the petitioner.
	GR No. 147125 2004-01-14	SHOPPES MANILA v. NLRC CALLEJO, SR., J.
We must stress that only errors of law are generally reviewed by this Court in petitions for review on certiorari of the CA decisions.[16] Questions of fact are not entertained.[17] The Court is not a trier of facts, and in labor cases; this doctrine applies with greater force. Factual questions are for labor tribunals to resolve.[18] The findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies, like the NLRC, are accorded with respect, even finality, if supported by substantial evidence. Particularly, when passed upon and upheld by the CA, they are binding and conclusive upon the Court and will not normally be disturbed.[19]
	GR No. 154715 2003-12-11	NEW GOLDEN CITY BUILDERS v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In legitimate job contracting, the law creates an employer-employee relationship for a limited purpose, i.e., to ensure that the employees are paid their wages. The principal employer becomes jointly and severally liable with the job contractor only for the payment of the employees' wages whenever the contractor fails to pay the same. Other than that, the principal employer is not responsible for any claim made by the employees.[15]