Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 170 views

    Abella Vs PLDT (2005) G.R. 159469

    Uploaded by

    Joseph Gabutina
    The Supreme Court ruled that no employer-employee relationship existed between the 65 security guards and PLDT based on four factors: 1) PSI selected and engaged the security guards, had control over their wages and benefits, and had the power to dismiss them. PLDT only evaluated guards to ensure they met standards. 2) PSI, not PLDT, determined and paid the security guards' wages, salaries, and compensation. 3) The security guards received benefits from and were reported as employees of PSI with the SSS, not PLDT. 4) Guards terminated from PLDT could still be assigned to other PSI clients, showing PSI had power over

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Abella Vs PLDT (2005) G.R. 159469

    Uploaded by

    Joseph Gabutina
    170 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that no employer-employee relationship existed between the 65 security guards and PLDT based on four factors: 1) PSI selected and engaged the security guards, had control over their wages and benefits, and had the power to dismiss them. PLDT only evaluated guards to ensure they met standards. 2) PSI, not PLDT, determined and paid the security guards' wages, salaries, and compensation. 3) The security guards received benefits from and were reported as employees of PSI with the SSS, not PLDT. 4) Guards terminated from PLDT could still be assigned to other PSI clients, showing PSI had power over

    Original Title

    Abella vs PLDT (2005) G.R. 159469

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that no employer-employee relationship existed between the 65 security guards and PLDT based on four factors: 1) PSI selected and engaged the security guards, had control over their wages and benefits, and had the power to dismiss them. PLDT only evaluated guards to ensure they met standards. 2) PSI, not PLDT, determined and paid the security guards' wages, salaries, and compensation. 3) The security guards received benefits from and were reported as employees of PSI with the SSS, not PLDT. 4) Guards terminated from PLDT could still be assigned to other PSI clients, showing PSI had power over

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    170 views2 pages

    Abella Vs PLDT (2005) G.R. 159469

    Uploaded by

    Joseph Gabutina
    The Supreme Court ruled that no employer-employee relationship existed between the 65 security guards and PLDT based on four factors: 1) PSI selected and engaged the security guards, had control over their wages and benefits, and had the power to dismiss them. PLDT only evaluated guards to ensure they met standards. 2) PSI, not PLDT, determined and paid the security guards' wages, salaries, and compensation. 3) The security guards received benefits from and were reported as employees of PSI with the SSS, not PLDT. 4) Guards terminated from PLDT could still be assigned to other PSI clients, showing PSI had power over

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Abella vs PLDT (2005) G.R.

    159469
     
    Facts:

    Respondent People’s Security Incorporated entered into an agreement with the PLDT to provide the latter with
    such number of qualified uniformed and properly armed security guards for the purpose of
    guarding and protecting PLDT’s installations and properties from theft, pilferage, intentional
    damage, trespass or other unlawful acts. Under the agreement, it was expressly provided that
    there shall be no employer-employee relationship between the PLDT and the security guards,
    which may be supplied to it by PSI, and that the latter shall have the entire charge, control and
    supervision over the work and services of the supplied security guards. It was likewise
    stipulated therein that PSI shall also have the exclusive authority to select, engage, and discharge its security
    guards, with full control over their wages, salaries or compensation. Consequently, respondent PSI
    deployed security guards to the PLDT. The sixty-five (65) security guards supplied by
    respondent PSI filed a Complaint for regularization against the PLDT alleging that petitioner
    security guards
    have been employed by the company through the years and that PSI acted as the middleman in
    the payment of the minimum pay to the security guards, but no premium for work rendered
    beyond eight hours was paid to them nor were they paid their 13th month pay. In sum, the
    Complaint states that inasmuch as the complainants are under the direct control and
    supervision of PLDT. Hence they should be considered as regular employees by the latter.

    Issue: WON an employer- employee relationship exists between petitioners and respondent


    PLDT.

    Held:
    We considered the following factors in considering the existence of an employer-employee
    relationship: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3)
    the power to dismiss; and (4) the power to control the employee’s conduct. Testimonies during the
    trial reveal that interviews and evaluation were conducted by PLDT to ensure that the standards
    it set are met by the security guards. In fact, PLDT rarely failed to accept security guards
    referred to by PSI but on account of height deficiency. The referral is nothing but for
    possible assignment in a designated client which has the inherent prerogative to accept and
    reject the assignee for justifiable grounds or even arbitrarily. We are thus convinced that the
    employer-employee relationship is deemed perfected even before the posting of
    the complainants with the PLDT, as assignment only comes after employment. PSI is a legitimate
    job contractor pursuant to Section 8, Rule VII, Book II of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. It
    is a registered corporation duly licensed by the Philippine National Police to engage in
    security business. It has substantial capital and investment in the form of guns, ammunitions,
    communication equipments, vehicles, office equipments like computer, typewriters,
    photocopying machines, etc., and above all, it is servicing clients other than PLDT like PCI
    Bank, Crown Triumph, and Philippine Cable, among others. Here, the security guards which PSI
    had assigned to PLDT are already the former’s employees prior to assignment and if the
    assigned guards to PLDT are rejected by PLDT for reasons germane to the security agreement,
    then the rejected or terminated guard may still be assigned to other clients of PSI as in the case
    of Jonathan Daguno who was posted at PLDT on 21February 1996 but was subsequently
    relieved therefrom and assigned at PCIBank Makati Square effective 10 May 1996. Therefore,
    the evidence as it stands is at odds with petitioners’ assertion that PSI is an‚ in house‛ agency of
    PLDT so as to call for a piercing of veil of corporate identity It is PSI that determined and paid
    the petitioners’ wages, salaries, and compensation. As elucidated by the Labor Arbiter,
    petitioners’ witness testified that his wages were collected and withdrawn at the office of PSI
    and PLDT pays PSI for the security services on a lump-sum basis and that the wages of
    complainants are only a portion of the total sum. The signature of the PLDT supervisor in the
    Daily Time Records does not ipso facto make PLDT the employer of complainants inasmuch as
    the Labor Arbiter had found that the record is replete with evidence showing that some of the
    Daily Time Records do not bear the signature of a PLDT supervisor yet no complaint was
    lodged for nonpayment of the guard’s wages evidencing that the signature of the PLDT’s
    supervisor is not a condition precedent for the payment of wages of the guards. Notably, it was
    not disputed that complainants enjoy the benefits and incentives of employees of PSI and that
    they are reported as employees of PSI with the SSS. Lastly, petitioners capitalize on the
    delinquency reports prepared by PLDT personnel against some of the security guards as well
    as certificates of participation in civil disturbance course, certificates of attendance in first
    aid training, certificate of completion in fire brigade training seminar and certificate of completion
    on restricted land mobile radiotelephone operation to show that the petitioners are under the
    direct control and supervision of PLDT and that the latter has, in fact, the power to dismiss
    them. The Labor Arbiter found from the evidence that the delinquency reports were nothing but
    reminders of the infractions committed by the petitioners while on duty which serve as basis for
    PLDT to recommend the termination of the concerned security guard from PLDT. As already
    adverted to earlier, termination of services from PLDT did not ipso facto mean dismissal from
    PSI inasmuch as some of those pulled out from PLDT were merely detailed at the other clients of
    PSI as in the case of Jonathan Daguno, who was merely transferred to PCI Bank Makati.

    You might also like