Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 30 views

    Abella Vs PLDT

    Uploaded by

    Sean Anderson
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding whether an employer-employee relationship existed between security guards and PLDT. The Court considered 4 factors: (1) who selected and engaged the employees, (2) who paid wages, (3) who had the power to dismiss, and (4) who had the power to control conduct. It found that a third party company, PSI, selected, paid, and had power over the security guards. Thus, no employer-employee relationship existed between PLDT and the guards, so their complaint against PLDT for regularization was dismissed.

    Copyright:

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

    Abella Vs PLDT

    Uploaded by

    Sean Anderson
    30 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding whether an employer-employee relationship existed between security guards and PLDT. The Court considered 4 factors: (1) who selected and engaged the employees, (2) who paid wages, (3) who had the power to dismiss, and (4) who had the power to control conduct. It found that a third party company, PSI, selected, paid, and had power over the security guards. Thus, no employer-employee relationship existed between PLDT and the guards, so their complaint against PLDT for regularization was dismissed.

    Original Description:

    labor law case

    Original Title

    10. Abella vs PLDT

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding whether an employer-employee relationship existed between security guards and PLDT. The Court considered 4 factors: (1) who selected and engaged the employees, (2) who paid wages, (3) who had the power to dismiss, and (4) who had the power to control conduct. It found that a third party company, PSI, selected, paid, and had power over the security guards. Thus, no employer-employee relationship existed between PLDT and the guards, so their complaint against PLDT for regularization was dismissed.

    Copyright:

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

    Abella Vs PLDT

    Uploaded by

    Sean Anderson
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding whether an employer-employee relationship existed between security guards and PLDT. The Court considered 4 factors: (1) who selected and engaged the employees, (2) who paid wages, (3) who had the power to dismiss, and (4) who had the power to control conduct. It found that a third party company, PSI, selected, paid, and had power over the security guards. Thus, no employer-employee relationship existed between PLDT and the guards, so their complaint against PLDT for regularization was dismissed.

    Copyright:

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

    Labor Law I | Atty. Balino (AY.

    2023-2024)
    Arellano University School of Law

    G.R. No. 159469               June 8, 2005 Forthwith, after filing the complaint, the security guards formed
    the PLDT Company Security Personnel Union with petitioner Zaldy Abella
    ZALDY G. ABELLA and the Members of the PLDT SECURITY as union president. A month later, PLDT allegedly ordered PSI to terminate
    PERSONNEL union LISTED IN ANNEX "D" OF THIS about 25 members of said union who participated in a protest picket in front
    PETITION, Petitioners, of the PLDT Office at the Ramon Cojuangco Building in Makati City.
    vs.
    PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY (PLDT The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. On appeal, the
    CO.) and PEOPLE'S SECURITY INC. (PSI), Respondents. NLRC affirmed in toto the Labor Arbiter’s decision. The Court of Appeals,
    in turn, affirmed the NLRC’s disquisition.
    Part II: Employment Relationship; Topic: Elements of the Relationship
    Issue: Whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists between
    Doctrine: We considered the following factors in considering the petitioners and respondent PLDT.
    existence of an employer-employee relationship: (1) the selection and
    engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power to Ruling: No. Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations
    dismiss; and (4) the power to control the employee’s conduct. Commission provides the legal yardstick in addressing this issue. 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
    Facts: Respondent PSI entered into an agreement with the PLDT to provide
    power to control the employee’s conduct. On the first factor, the Labor
    the latter with qualified uniformed and properly armed security guards for
    Arbiter, the NLRC and the Court of Appeals rendered a consistent finding
    the purpose of guarding and protecting PLDT’s installations and properties
    that it was the PSI, the security provider of the PLDT, which selected,
    from theft, pilferage, intentional damage, trespass or other unlawful acts.
    engaged or hired and discharged the security guards. The referral of PSI to
    Under the agreement, it was expressly provided that there shall be no
    PLDT is nothing but for possible assignment in a designated client which
    employer-employee relationship between the PLDT and the security guards,
    has the inherent prerogative to accept and reject the assignee for justifiable
    which may be supplied to it by PSI, and that the latter shall have the entire
    grounds or even arbitrarily.
    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, On the second factor, it is PSI that determined and paid the
    with full control over their wages, salaries or compensation. 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 05 June 1995, sixty-five security guards supplied by
    on a lump-sum basis and that the wages of complainants are only a portion
    respondent PSI filed a Complaint for regularization against the PLDT with
    of the total sum. The signature of the PLDT supervisor in the Daily Time
    the Labor Arbiter. The Complaint alleged that petitioner security guards
    Records does not ipso facto make PLDT the employer of complainants.
    have been employed by from 1982 and that all of them served PLDT
    directly for more than 1 year. It was further alleged that PSI or other
    agencies supply security to PLDT, which entity controls and supervises the Anent the third and fourth factors, petitioners capitalize on the
    complainants’ work through its Security Department. delinquency reports prepared by PLDT personnel against some of the
    security guards as well as certificates of participation in trainings. The
    Labor Arbiter found that the delinquency reports were nothing but
    reminders of the infractions committed by the petitioners while on duty

    1
    Labor Law I | Atty. Balino (AY. 2023-2024)
    Arellano University School of Law

    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 PCIBank Makati.

    Furthermore, petitioners’ logic that the certificates of appreciation


    and/or commendations for good performance issued by PLDT to select
    security guards are proof that the latter are under the control and
    supervision of PLDT is indeed non sequitur. As the Labor Arbiter has
    found, similar certificates are also issued as a matter of practice to non-
    PLDT personnel like members of the Philippine National Police (PNP) and
    military officers who have rendered exemplary support and assistance to
    PLDT.

    WHEREFORE, petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of our Resolution


    dated 16 March 2005 is hereby DENIED with Finality no compelling
    reason having been adduced by petitioners to warrant the reversal thereof.
    Accordingly, the Decision dated 31 January 2003 and the

    Resolution dated 06 August 2003 of the Court of Appeals are


    hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.

    SO ORDERED.

    Separate Opinion/s:
    Name, concurring/dissenting:

    You might also like