SECOND DIVISION nothing changed with Conjusta's employment — he continued to be PPI's messenger in

its accounting department until CBMI sent him, along with other coworkers, a
[G.R. No. 252720. August 22, 2022.] Letter 5 dated August 1, 2016 terminating his services with PPI. Conjusta then filed an
illegal dismissal case with money claims against PPI, CBMI, and their owners, arguing
that he was PPI's regular employee for having worked with it for 14 years, and that
RICO PALIC CONJUSTA, petitioner, vs. PPI HOLDINGS, INC.
there was no just cause for his dismissal. 6
(formerly PHILIPPINE PIZZA, INC.), JORGE L. ARANETA
(OWNER), ATALIAN GLOBAL SERVICES PPI, meanwhile, denied having an employer-employee relationship with
(formerly CONSOLIDATED BUILDING MAINTENANCE, Conjusta. It posited that Conjusta was merely assigned to it by CBMI, a legitimate job
INC./CBMI), and JUAN/MANOLO ORTAÑEZ contractor that had rendered janitorial, sanitation, warehousing services, and allied
(OWNER), respondents. services to PPI until the termination of their latest Contract of Services Agreement on
September 1, 2016. 7 Invoking the service agreement with CBMI, PPI averred that it
was CBMI which relayed the company rules, regulations, and working terms and
DECISION conditions upon Conjusta's engagement, and which paid Conjusta's salary, Social
Security System, Pag-IBIG, and PhilHealth contributions. 8

For its part, CBMI acknowledged Conjusta as its employee assigned to PPI. It
M.V. LOPEZ, J p: asserted that it is a legitimate job contractor engaged in the business of providing
Previous declarations that a company is an independent job contractor cannot janitorial, kitchen, elevator maintenance, and allied services to various entities,
validly be the basis in concluding its status as such in another case involving a including PPI. However, while it recognized Conjusta's employment, CBMI denied
different employee. The totality of the facts and surrounding circumstances, distinct in having terminated his services. Instead, it alleged that Conjusta, along with his other
every case, must be assessed in determining whether an entity is a legitimate job coemployees, was merely placed on floating status when it decided to terminate its
contractor or a labor-only contractor. 1 HCaDIS latest service contract with PPI effective September 1, 2016 due to certain
disagreements on financial matters. Hence, for CBMI, the Complaint filed on October
This resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari 2 assailing the 21, 2016 should be dismissed for being prematurely filed. 9 aCIHcD
Decision 3 dated October 30, 2019 and the Resolution 4 dated March 6, 2020 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 158667. In a Decision 10 dated August 31, 2017, the Labor Arbiter (LA) found the
following evidence sufficient to prove that CBMI is a legitimate contractor, to wit: (a)
Facts CBMI Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Registration; (b) CBMI Company
On October 2, 2002, PPI Holdings, Inc. (PPI), the sole franchisee of Pizza Profile; (c) Contracts of Services entered into with PPI for several years; (d) CBMI
Hut in the Philippines, hired petitioner Rico Palic Conjusta (Conjusta) as a messenger Certificates of Registration with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)
for its human resources department, and later on, for its accounting department. under Department Order (DO) No. 18-A, Series of 2011 and DO No. 18-02, Series of
Eventually, however, Conjusta's employment was transferred to a manpower agency, a 2002; and (e) Audited Financial Statement filed with the SEC showing substantial
certain Human Resources, Inc., and subsequently, to Consolidated Buildings capital or investment. The LA further found that, as stipulated in the service
Maintenance, Inc. (CBMI), now Atalian Global Services. Despite such transfer,
agreements, CBMI carried out its work/service independently from its principal in The complaint against [CBMI], Jorge L. Araneta[,] and
accordance with its own means, method, and manner. 11 Juan Manolo O. Orta[ñ]ez is hereby DISMISSED.

Nonetheless, the LA ruled that Conjusta was PPI's regular employee as there All other claims are DISMISSED for lack of merit.
was nothing on record that would show the existence of an employer-employee
SO ORDERED. 13 (Emphasis in the original)
relationship between CBMI and Conjusta. Rather, Conjusta's 14 years of service with
PPI, performing tasks which are usually necessary or desirable to PPI's main business PPI filed a partial appeal 14 from the LA's Decision, insisting that Conjusta
as messenger, proved that Conjusta was PPI's employee. Since PPI failed to present was not its employee but that of CBMI, which is a legitimate job contractor as found
any just or authorized cause in terminating his employment, 12 the LA disposed: by the LA. 15

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby In a Decision 16 dated May 31, 2018, the National Labor Relations
rendered declaring [Conjusta] to have been ILLEGALLY Commission (NLRC) ruled that CBMI is a labor-only contractor. The NLRC found
DISMISSED. that, despite proof of substantial capitalization, there is no showing that CBMI carries
on an independent business or undertakes the performance of its service contracts
Accordingly, [PPI] is hereby ordered to pay [Conjusta] the
according to its own manner and method, free from the control and supervision of PPI.
following:
The contracts of services between PPI and CBMI clearly show that CBMI undertook
a.) Full backwages from the time he was illegally to merely supply manpower. The NLRC explained that the registration with the DOLE
dismissed on September 30, 2016 up to the finality of the decision, as an independent contractor is not conclusive of such status. cHaCAS
tentatively computed in the amount of One Hundred Fifty[-]Four
Further, Conjusta's job as a messenger is necessary and vital to PPI's business
Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Four Pesos and 93/100
as the only franchisee of Pizza Hut, which requires food and kitchen services,
([PHP]154,934.93);
sanitation, delivery, warehousing, commissary, and related services for its various
b.) Separation pay of one (1) month pay for every year of restaurants. The NLRC also took note of Conjusta's 14 years of uninterrupted service
service ([PHP]491.00 x 15 years) in the amount of One Hundred with PPI. In view of these circumstances, the NLRC agreed with the LA that Conjusta
Ninety[-]One Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Pesos was PPI's regular employee. Finally, the NLRC upheld the LA's finding that PPI failed
([PHP]191,490.00); to adduce evidence that Conjusta's dismissal was for a just or authorized cause, and
that procedural due process was observed in the dismissal, 17 thus:
c.) 13th Month Pay in the amount of Thirty[-]Seven
Thousand Five Hundred Eighteen Pesos ([PHP]37,518.00); WHEREFORE, [PPI and Araneta's] partial appeal
and AHCETa is DENIED for lack of merit. Nonetheless, [the
LA's] Decision dated 31 August 2017 is hereby MODIFIED as
[d.)] Attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total
follows:
monetary awards, in the amount of Thirty[-]Eight Thousand Three
Hundred Ninety[-]Four Pe[s]os and 29/100 ([PHP]38,394.29). 1.) That [CBMI] is declared as a labor-only contractor in this
case;
The Computation of [Conjusta's] monetary awards is here
attached to form an integral part of the Decision.
 2.) That [PPI] is ordered to reinstate [Conjusta] to his former In its assailed Resolution 27 dated March 6, 2020, the CA denied both
position without loss of seniority rights and Conjusta's and CBMI's MR on one hand, and PPI's partial MR on the other. Hence,
privileges; and this Petition, 28 taking issue only on the CA's ruling that CBMI is a legitimate job
contractor, and as such is Conjusta's employer. Conjusta maintains that CBMI is
3.) That [PPI] and [CBMI] are jointly and severally liable to
engaged in labor-only contracting, and that he was PPI's regular employee for 14 years
pay [Conjusta] his full backwages from the time he
up to the time that he was illegally dismissed. PPI and CBMI were required to
was illegally dismissed up to the finality of this
comment on the Petition, but only CBMI filed its Comment 29 — its only argument:
decision, 13th month pay, and attorney's fees
PPI should not be held liable with it for the illegal dismissal and for Conjusta's other
equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the aforesaid
claims. 30 Notably, no question was raised as to the finding of illegal dismissal, order
money judgment award.
of reinstatement, and the payment of backwages and 13th month pay.
The rest of the assailed decision STANDS.
Issues
See attached computation which forms part of this
I. Whether the CA erred in ruling that CBMI was a legitimate job
Decision.
contractor and, consequently, was Conjusta's direct employer;
SO ORDERED. 18 (Emphasis in the original) and
PPI's Motion for Reconsideration 19 (MR) was denied by the NLRC in a II. Whether the CA erred in ruling that PPI and CBMI should be held
Resolution 20 dated August 31, 2018. ScHADI solidarily liable for the monetary awards. DACcIH
On certiorari, 21 the CA, in a Decision 22 dated October 30, 2019, reverted Ruling
to the LA's ruling that CBMI is a legitimate job contractor. Based solely on the
We note that the issues presented before us involve factual matters, which are
doctrine of stare decisis, the CA applied the Court's findings in Consolidated Building
generally beyond the scope of this review. The conflicting findings of the LA, NLRC,
Maintenance, Inc. v. Asprec, Jr. 23 (Asprec) and Philippine Pizza, Inc. v.
and CA, however, give us basis to take cognizance of this case to finally put the issues
Cayetano 24 (Cayetano) that CBMI is a legitimate job contractor. On that premise, the
to rest. 31 Nevertheless, in doing so, we are mindful of the distinct approach in
CA concluded that Conjusta was CBMI's direct employer. Nevertheless, the CA
reviewing a CA ruling in labor cases, i.e., our examination is limited to the correctness
sustained the LA and NLRC's uniform ruling that Conjusta was illegally
of the CA's determination of the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion on
dismissed. 25 The CA disposed:
the part of the NLRC. When the NLRC ruling has basis in evidence and the applicable
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated May 31, 2018 and law and jurisprudence, no grave abuse of discretion exists for the CA to overturn it. 32
Resolution [dated] August 31, 2018 of [the] NLRC are MODIFIED,
PPI and CBMI were engaged in the
in that [CBMI] is declared a legitimate job contractor and is ordered
proscribed labor-only contracting
to reinstate him to his former position without loss of seniority rights
and privileges. In all other respects, said Decision and Labor contracting or outsourcing of services is not totally prohibited in our
Resolution STAND. jurisdiction. Articles 106 to 109 of the Labor Code and DOLE DO No. 18-02, Series
of 2002 33 and DO No. 18-A, Series of 2011, 34 the implementing rules in force at the
SO ORDERED. 26 (Emphasis in the original)
time of Conjusta's employment, provide legal basis for service contracting, but also
clearly delineate when it is not permitted. Section 4 of DO No. 18-A considers workers to perform job, work or service for a principal, and any of
contracting or subcontracting legitimate if all of the following circumstances concur: the following elements are present:

(a) The contractor must be registered in accordance with i) [t]he contractor or subcontractor does not have substantial
these Rules and carries a distinct and independent business and capital or investment which relates to the job, work
undertakes to perform the job, work or service on its own or service to be performed and the employees
responsibility, according to its own manner and method, and free recruited, supplied or placed by such contractor or
from control and direction of the principal in all matters connected subcontractor are performing activities which are
with the performance of the work except as to the results thereof; directly related to the main business of the principal;
or
(b) The contractor has substantial capital and/or investment;
and ii) the contractor does not exercise the right to control over the
performance of the work of the contractual
(c) The Service Agreement ensures compliance with all the
employee. HSCATc
rights and benefits under Labor Laws.
xxx xxx xxx
On the other hand, Article 106 of the Labor Code defines the prohibited
labor-only contracting, viz.: aICcHA "Substantial capital or investment" refers to capital stocks
and subscribed capitalization in the case of corporations, tools,
Article 106. Contractor or Subcontractor. —
equipment, implements, machineries and work premises, actually
xxx xxx xxx and directly used by the contractor or subcontractor in the
There is "labor-only" contracting where the person performance or completion of the job, work or service contracted
supplying workers to an employer does not have substantial capital out.
or investment in the form of tools, equipment, machineries, work The "right to control" shall refer to the right reserved to the
premises, among others, and the workers recruited and placed by person for whom the services of the contractual workers are
such person are performing activities which are directly related to performed, to determine not only the end to be achieved, but also the
the principal business of such employer. In such cases, the person or manner and means to be used in reaching that end.
intermediary shall be considered merely as an agent of the employer
The latest applicable amendment to the implementing rules under Section 6
who shall be responsible to the workers in the same manner and
of DO No. 18-A enumerates the following elements of labor-only contracting, to wit:
extent as if the latter were directly employed by him.
(a) The contractor does not have substantial capital or
Section 5 of DO No. 18-02 further explains the concept of labor-only
investments in the form of tools, equipment, machineries, work
contracting as follows:
premises, among others, and the employees recruited and placed are
Section 5. Prohibition against labor-only contracting. — performing activities which are usually necessary or desirable to the
Labor-only contracting is hereby declared prohibited. For this operation of the company, or directly related to the main business of
purpose, labor-only contracting shall refer to an arrangement where the principal within a definite or predetermined period, regardless of
the contractor or subcontractor merely recruits, supplies or places
 whether such job, work or service is to be performed or completed blindly rely upon the contractual declarations depicting CBMI as a legitimate job
within or outside the premises of the principal; or contractor. As we have held in Daguinod v. Southgate Foods, Inc., 40 the true nature
of the relationship between the principal, contractor, and employee cannot be dictated
(b) The contractor does not exercise the right to control
by mere expedience of a unilateral declaration in a contract. 41 Thus, we quote with
over the performance of the work of the employee.
approval the NLRC's assessment on the totality of attendant circumstances vis-à-
In fine, the following must be considered in determining whether CBMI is a vis the criteria set by the statute: DaIAcC
legitimate job contractor or is engaged in labor-only contracting: (1) registration with
We consider several factors in concluding that CBMI was [a] labor-
the proper government agencies; (2) existence of substantial capital or investment; (3)
only contract[or].
service agreement that ensures compliance with all the rights and benefits under labor
laws; (4) nature of the activities performed by the employees, i.e., if they are usually First, there is want of evidence that CBMI carries on an
necessary or desirable to the operation of the principal's company or directly related to independent business or undertake[s] the performance of its service
the main business of the principal within a definite predetermined period; and (5) the contracts according to its own manner and method, free from the
exercise of the right to control the performance of the employees' work. 35 IDTSEH control and supervision of PPI. While the various service agreements
between PPI and CBMI contained the latter's undertaking for the
Considering these specific conditions or elements, the CA gravely erred when
employees' qualification and training, hiring and payroll, as well as
it determined CBMI's character as a legitimate job contractor solely on the basis of the
their supervision, discipline, suspension or termination, said clauses
Court's pronouncements in Asprec and Cayetano. The principle of stare decisis cannot
are still but empty words that would hardly help PPI's case, in
be applied in determining whether one is engaged in the permissible job contracting or
absence of concrete proof that CBMI indeed carries on an
otherwise since such characterization should be based on the distinct features of the
independent business. In San Miguel Corporation v. Semillano [637
relationship between the parties, and the totality of the facts and attendant
Phil. 115 (2010)], the Supreme Court instructed, to wit:
circumstances of each case, 36 measured against the terms of and criteria set by the
statute. 37 Specifically, while Asprec and Cayetano also involved PPI and CBMI, the "Despite the fact that the service contracts
nature of work and treatment of employment of the employees in those cases may be contain stipulations which are earmarks of
different from Conjusta's. Hence, an independent determination of Conjusta's case is independent contractorship, they do not make it
necessary, which was aptly undertaken by the NLRC in this case. legally so. The language of a contract is neither
determinative nor conclusive of the relationship
As correctly observed by the NLRC, the only evidence on record to support
between the parties. Petitioner SMC and AMPCO
PPI and CBMI's claim of legitimate job contracting are the certificates of registration,
cannot dictate, by a declaration in a contract, the
financial statements, and service agreements. But we have consistently ruled that a
character of AMPCO's business, that is, whether as
certificate of registration as an independent contractor is not conclusive evidence of
labor-only contractor, or job contractor. AMPCO's
such status. Such registration merely prevents the legal presumption of being a labor-
character should be measured in terms of, and
only contractor from arising. 38 The financial statements presented to prove that
determined by, the criteria set by statute. At a
CBMI has substantial capital likewise do not suffice to classify it as an independent
closer look, AMPCO's actual status and
contractor. It is settled that, despite proof of substantial capital, a contractor is still
participation regarding respondents' employment
considered engaged in labor-only contracting whenever it is established that the
principal actually controls the manner of the employee's work. 39 Finally, we cannot
 clearly belie the contents of the written service right reserved to the person for whom the services of the contractual
contract." SICDAa workers are performed, to determine not only the end to be achieved,
but also the manner, and means to be used in reaching that
Further, in the Polyfoam-RGC International [Corporation,
end. TAacHE
687 Phil. 173 (2012)], the Supreme Court observed, thus:
Second, a perusal of the various contract of services
"Gramaje did not carry on an independent
executed between PPI and CBMI, which spanned for several years
business or undertake the performance of its
from 1999 to 2012, would show that CBMI undertook to supply
service contract according to its own manner and
manpower only. Said undertaking, which contained the scope of
method, free from the control and supervision of
contracted services which are similarly worded with the other
its principal, Polyfoam, its apparent role having
contracts, are hereby reproduced as follows:
been merely to recruit persons to work for
Polyfoam. It is undisputed that respondent had "1. CONTRACTED SERVICES
performed his task of packing Polyfoam's foam
The CONTRACTOR shall render, undertake and
products in Polyfoam's premises. As to the
perform in the CLIENT's places of business the
recruitment of respondent, petitioners were able to
following services (hereinafter referred to as
establish only that respondents' application was
"Contracted Service"):
referred to Gramaje, but that is all. Prior to his
termination, respondent had been performing the a. Waitering services
same job in Polyfoam's business for almost six (6) b. Food and kitchen services
years."
c. Rider/Delivery services
Similarly in this case, there is want of evidence that it
d. Sanitation services
was CBMI who hired [Conjusta]. In fact, there was no contract
of employment showing that [Conjusta] was an employee of e. Warehousing services
CBMI, nor were there records submitted in evidence to show
f. Commissary Services/Cashiering
such relationship. It is likewise undisputed that as a messenger,
[Conjusta] had been performing his task[s] at PPI's premises for g. Other allied services as may be required by the
about fourteen (14) years. x x x [A]ll those times, all the tools and CLIENT
equipment which he used in the performance of his work are The CONTRACTOR shall deploy its
owned by PPI and the latter's managers and supervisors employees at the designated place of operation
controlled his work inside the company premises. subject to prior consultation and agreement with
xxx xxx xxx the CLIENT." DHIcET

That PPI exercised the right of control over [Conjusta's] "I. SCOPE OF SERVICES
work is clear and unmistakable. Said right to control refers to the
 The INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR agrees to petitioner did not identify the work needed to be
provide the following services to the CLIENT at performed and the final result required to be
the CLIENT's places of business listed in ANNEX accomplished. x x x Interserve did not obligate
A of the Contract: itself to perform an identifiable job, work, or
service for petitioner, but merely bound itself to
i. Kitchen Services
provide the latter with specific types of employees
ii. Busing Services x x x performing tasks directly related to
iii. Rider/Delivery Services [petitioner's] principal business."

iv. Sanitation Services xxx xxx xxx

The INDEPENDEDENT CONTRACTOR shall Third, the fact that CBMI was registered as an independent
also provide the tools and equipment necessary for contractor with DOLE would not prevent it from becoming [a] labor-
the rendition of said services." only contractor in this case. Once again, in the San Miguel
Corporation v. Semillano case, the High Court elucidated, thus:
xxx xxx xxx
"Petitioner cannot rely either on
"I. SCOPE OF SERVICES
AMPCO's Certificate of Registration as an
The INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR agrees to Independent Contractor issued by the proper
provide the following services to the CLIENT at Regional Office of the DOLE to prove its claim. It
the CLIENT's places of business listed in ANNEX is not conclusive evidence of such status. The fact
A of the Contract: of registration simply prevents the legal
presumption of being a mere labor-only contractor
i. Delivery Riders
from arising. In distinguishing between
ii. Commissary drivers permissible job contracting and prohibited labor-
iii. Warehouse service personnel only contracting, the totality of the facts and the
surrounding circumstances of the case are to be
The INDEPENDEDENT CONTRACTOR shall
considered." ASTcaE
also provide the tools and equipment necessary for
the rendition of said services." HcDSaT Fourth, it is without any doubt that [Conjusta's] job as [a]
messenger is necessary and vital to PPI's business as the Philippine
Verily, by supplying manpower only, CBMI cannot be
franchisee of Pizza Hut which requires waitering, food and kitchen
considered as, an independent contractor. The High Court's
services, sanitation, delivery, warehousing, commissary and related
observation in Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. Agito [598 Phil. 909
services for its various restaurants. Otherwise, [Conjusta] would not
(2009)] is worthy of mention, viz.:
have been repeatedly and continuously hired by PPI for fourteen (14)
"As the Court previously observed, the years. It has been held that such repeated and continuing need for the
Contract of Services between Interserve and performance of the job is sufficient evidence of the necessity, if not
 indispensability[,] of the activity to the business. 42 (Emphasis The principal shall be deemed the employer of the
supplied; citations omitted) contractual employee in any of the following cases, as declared by a
competent authority:
Contrastingly, the CA merely made inference from previous cases without
reference to the evidence on hand in concluding that CBMI was a legitimate job (a) Where there is labor-only contracting; x x x
contractor, and as such was Conjusta's direct employer. We emphasize that the Court
xxx xxx xxx
has been consistent in ruling that the totality of the facts and the surrounding
circumstances of the case must be considered in distinguishing prohibited labor-only Consequently, PPI and CBMI are solidarily liable for Conjusta's illegal
contracting from permissible job contracting. 43 In fact, in Cayetano relied upon by dismissal and monetary claims, 49 consistent with our ruling in San Miguel
the CA, we accentuated the need for an independent consideration of the attending Corporation v. MAERC Integrated Services, Inc., 50 viz.:
circumstances of a case in determining the legality or illegality of a contractor's In legitimate job contracting, the law creates an employer-employee
undertaking. 44 DTCSHA relationship for a limited purpose, i.e., to ensure that the employees
Notably, even the LA, which found CBMI to be a legitimate job contractor, are paid their wages. The principal employer becomes jointly and
ruled that Conjusta is not one of those deployed by CBMI to PPI. The LA ruled that severally liable with the job contractor only for the payment of the
Conjusta is PPI's regular employee since Conjusta started working directly with PPI, employees' wages whenever the contractor fails to pay the same.
continuously did so for 14 years without any intervention from CBMI, and there is no Other than that, the principal employer is not responsible for any
documentary proof that shows any connection between Conjusta and claim made by the employees. cDSAEI
CBMI. 45 Indeed, the element of control is a strong indicator of the nature of a On the other hand, in labor-only contracting, the statute
contractor's activity and its relationship with the employee. Whenever it is established, creates an employer-employee relationship for a comprehensive
as in this case, that the principal, not the contractor, actually controls the manner of the purpose: to prevent a circumvention of labor laws. The
employee's work, such contractor is considered as engaged in labor-only contractor is considered merely an agent of the principal
contracting. 46 Besides, these uniform factual findings of the LA and the NLRC, employer and the latter is responsible to the employees of the
which are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their respective labor-only contractor as if such employees had been directly
jurisdiction, should not be disturbed and are binding upon the reviewing court, being employed by the principal employer. The principal employer
supported by substantial evidence. 47 therefore becomes solidarily liable with the labor-only
PPI and CBMI are solidarily liable contractor for all the rightful claims of the employees.

With the finding that CBMI is a labor-only contractor, it is considered as a This distinction between job contractor and labor-only
mere agent of PPI, which in turn is deemed to be Conjusta's employer. 48 Section 7 of contractor x x x will not discharge [the principal] from paying the
DO No. 18-02 provides: separation benefits of the workers, inasmuch as [the contractor] was
shown to be a labor-only contractor; in which case, [the principal's]
Section 7. Existence of an employer-employee relationship.
liability is that of a direct employer and thus solidarily liable with
—xxx
[the contractor]. 51 (Emphasis supplied)

ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The

Decision dated October 30, 2019 and the Resolution dated March 6, 2020 of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 158667 are MODIFIED. Consolidated Building 13. Id. at 378-379.
Maintenance, Inc. is declared as a labor-only contractor, and PPI Holdings, Inc. is Rico
14. See Memorandum of Partial Appeal dated December 18, 2017; id. at 381-406.
Palic Conjusta's employer. The Decision dated May 31, 2018 and the Resolution dated
August 31, 2018 of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC LAC No. 01- 15. Id. at 388-404.
000394-18 are REINSTATED. CScTED
16. Id. at 413-432. Signed by Presiding Commissioner Grace M. Venus, with the
SO ORDERED. concurrence of Commissioner Leonard Vinz O. Ignacio, Commissioner Mary
Leonen, Lazaro-Javier, J.Y. Lopez and Kho, Jr., JJ., concur. Ann P. Daytia took no part.

17. Id. at 421-429.

Footnotes 18. Id. at 430.

1. Manila Cordage Company-Employees Labor Union-Organized Labor Union in Line 19. Dated June 28, 2018. Id. at 448-473.
Industries and Agriculture v. Manila Cordage Company, G.R. Nos. 242495-96,
20. Id. at 500-503.
September 16, 2020, <https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/19070/> [Per J. Leonen, Third
Division]. 21. Id. at 504-542.

2. Rollo, pp. 3-24. 22. Id. at 29-52.

3. Id. at 29-52. Penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, with the 23. 832 Phil. 630 (2018) [Per J. Reyes, Jr., Second Division].
concurrence of Associate Justices Danton Q. Bueser and Ronaldo Roberto B.
24. 839 Phil. 381 (2018) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].
Martin.
25. Rollo, pp. 39-51.
4. Id. at 54-55.
26. Id. at 51.
5. Id. at 71-73.
27. Id. at 54-55. Penned by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta, with the
6. Id. at 30-31, 366-368, and 415.
concurrence of Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser and Ronaldo Roberto B.
7. See Notice of Termination dated August 1, 2016, id. at 262. Martin.

8. Id. at 32-33, 370-371, and 416. 28. Id. at 3-24.

9. Id. at 32, 369, and 415-416. 29. Id. at 616-621.

10. Id. at 366-380. Signed by Labor Arbiter Mary Ann F. Plata-Daytia. 30. Id. at 616.

11. Id. at 371-374. 31. Paredes v. Feed the Children Philippines, Inc., 769 Phil. 418, 433 (2015) [Per J.
Peralta, Third Division].
12. Id. at 374-376.
32. Philippine Pizza, Inc. v. Cayetano, 839 Phil. 381, 389 (2018) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, 46. See Ortiz v. Forever Richsons Trading Corporation, G.R. No. 238289, January 20,
Second Division]. 2021, <https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/20922/> [Per J. Lopez, Second Division];
and Vinoya v. NLRC, 381 Phil. 460, 481-482 (2000) [Per J. Kapunan, First
33. Entitled "RULES IMPLEMENTING ARTICLES 106 TO 109 OF THE LABOR
Division].
CODE, AS AMENDED"; approved on February 21, 2002.
47. Conqueror Industrial Peace Management Cooperative v. Balingbing, G.R. Nos.
34. Entitled "RULES IMPLEMENTING ARTICLES 106 TO 109 OF THE LABOR
250311 and 250501, January 5, 2022, <https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/27345/> [Per
CODE, AS AMENDED"; approved on November 14, 2011.
J. Inting, Second Division]; and PCL Shipping Philippines, Inc. v. NLRC, 502
35. See Baretto v. Amber Golden Pot Restaurant, G.R. Nos. 254596-97, November 24, Phil. 554, 562 (2005) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Second Division].
2021, <https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/27433/> [Per J. Carandang, Third Division].
48. See Daguinod v. Southgate Foods, Inc., G.R. No. 227795, February 20, 2019, 894
36. San Miguel Foods, Inc. v. Rivera, 824 Phil. 961, 975-976 (2018) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., SCRA 172, 191 [Per J. Caguioa, Second Division].
Third Division].
49. Daguinod v. Southgate Foods, Inc., id. at 202-203; Alilin v. Petron Corporation, 735
37. 7K Corporation v. NLRC, 537 Phil. 664, 677 (2006) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, First Phil. 509, 529 (2014) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division]; Garden of
Division]. Memories Park and Life Plan, Inc. v. NLRC, 681 Phil. 299, 308 (2012) [Per J.
Mendoza, Third Division]; 7K Corporation v. NLRC, 537 Phil. 664, 679 (2006)
38. Daguinod v. Southgate Foods, Inc., G.R. No. 227795, February 20, 2019, 894 SCRA
[Per J. Austria-Martinez, First Division]; and San Miguel Corporation v.
172, 192-193 [Per J. Caguioa, Second Division], citing San Miguel Corporation
MAERC Integrated Services, Inc., 453 Phil. 543, 566-567 (2003) [Per J.
v. Semillano, 637 Phil. 115, 130 (2010) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
Bellosillo, Second Division].
39. Mago v. Sun Power Manufacturing Limited, 824 Phil. 464, 480 (2018) [Per J. Reyes,
50. 453 Phil. 543 (2003) [Per J. Bellosillo, Second Division].
Jr., Second Division].
51. Id. at 566-567.
40. G.R. No. 227795, February 20, 2019, 894 SCRA 172 [Per J. Caguioa, Second
Division].

41. Id. at 194, citing Petron Corporation v. Caberte, 759 Phil. 353, 367 (2015) [Per J.
Del Castillo, Second Division].
 11
42. Rollo, pp. 422-428.
12
43. Philippine Pizza, Inc. v. Cayetano, 839 Phil. 381, 390-393 (2018) [Per J. Perlas-
 13
Bernabe, Second Division]; and San Miguel Food, Inc. v. Rivera, 824 Phil. 961,
975-976 (2018) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Third Division].

44. Philippine Pizza, Inc. v. Cayetano, id. at 390-391. ||| (Conjusta v. PPI Holdings, Inc., G.R. No. 252720, [August 22, 2022])

45. Rollo, pp. 374-375.