Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 640 views

    30 45 Del Rosario vs. NLRC, 135 SCRA 669

    Uploaded by

    Emmanuel C. Dumayas
    The Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC ruling that held Del Rosario and Sons Logging Enterprises jointly and severally liable with the security agency Calmar Security Agency for unpaid wages and benefits owed to security guards. While there were formal defects in the security agency's appeal, these were not fatal and did not invalidate the appeal. As the company that contracted services from the agency, Del Rosario became an indirect employer of the guards per the Labor Code and was thus also responsible for their wages and benefits. However, Del Rosario could still seek reimbursement from the agency for amounts paid to the guards.

    Copyright:

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

    30 45 Del Rosario vs. NLRC, 135 SCRA 669

    Uploaded by

    Emmanuel C. Dumayas
    640 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC ruling that held Del Rosario and Sons Logging Enterprises jointly and severally liable with the security agency Calmar Security Agency for unpaid wages and benefits owed to security guards. While there were formal defects in the security agency's appeal, these were not fatal and did not invalidate the appeal. As the company that contracted services from the agency, Del Rosario became an indirect employer of the guards per the Labor Code and was thus also responsible for their wages and benefits. However, Del Rosario could still seek reimbursement from the agency for amounts paid to the guards.

    Original Description:

    h

    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 affirmed the NLRC ruling that held Del Rosario and Sons Logging Enterprises jointly and severally liable with the security agency Calmar Security Agency for unpaid wages and benefits owed to security guards. While there were formal defects in the security agency's appeal, these were not fatal and did not invalidate the appeal. As the company that contracted services from the agency, Del Rosario became an indirect employer of the guards per the Labor Code and was thus also responsible for their wages and benefits. However, Del Rosario could still seek reimbursement from the agency for amounts paid to the guards.

    Copyright:

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

    30 45 Del Rosario vs. NLRC, 135 SCRA 669

    Uploaded by

    Emmanuel C. Dumayas
    The Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC ruling that held Del Rosario and Sons Logging Enterprises jointly and severally liable with the security agency Calmar Security Agency for unpaid wages and benefits owed to security guards. While there were formal defects in the security agency's appeal, these were not fatal and did not invalidate the appeal. As the company that contracted services from the agency, Del Rosario became an indirect employer of the guards per the Labor Code and was thus also responsible for their wages and benefits. However, Del Rosario could still seek reimbursement from the agency for amounts paid to the guards.

    Copyright:

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

    Del

    GR

    Rosario
    L-64204,

    &
    31

    May

    Sons
    1985

    v.
    (135

    NLRC
    SCRA

    669)

    Facts: On 1 February 1978, Del Rosario and Sons Logging Enterprises, Inc.
    entered into a Contract of Services with Calmar Security Agency whereby the
    latter undertook to supply the former with security guards at the rate of P300.00
    per month for each guard. Thereafter, Paulino Mabuti, Napoleo Borata and
    Silvino Tudio filed a Complaint against the Security Agency and petitioner, for
    underpayment of salary, non-payment of living allowance, and 13th month pay.
    Thereafter, five other guards filed their complaint for the same causes of action.
    Petitioner contended that complainants have no cause of action against it due to
    absence of employer-employee relationship between them. They also denied
    liability alleging that due to the inadequacy of the amounts paid to it under the
    Contract of Services, it could not possibly comply with the payments required
    by labor laws.
    Assigned for compulsory arbitration, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision
    dismissing the complaint for want of employer-employee relationship. When
    the case was appealed to the NLRC, the decision was modified by holding that
    petitioner is liable to pay complainants, jointly and severally, with the Security
    Agency on the ground that the petitioner is an indirect employer pursuant to
    Articles 106 and 107. Hence, the appeal. The petitioner contended that NLRC
    erred in giving due course to the appeal despite the fact that it was not under
    oath and the required appeal fee was not paid; in holding it jointly and severally
    liable with the Security Agency; and in refusing to give due course to its Motion
    for Reconsideration.
    Issue(s):
    Whether the formal defects of the appeal of the security agency invalidate the
    appeal.
    Whether the security guards from the agency are entitled to benefits claimed
    from the company
    Held: The formal defects in the appeal of the Security Agency were not fatal
    defects. The lack of verification could have been easily corrected by requiring
    an oath. The appeal fee had been paid although it was delayed. Failure to pay
    the docketing fees does not automatically result in the dismissal of the appeal.
    Dismissal is discretionary with the Appellate Court and discretion must be
    exercised wisely and prudently, never capriciously, with a view to substantial
    justice. Failure to pay the appeal docketing fee confers a directory and not a
    mandatory power to dismiss an appeal and such power must be exercised with

    sound discretion and with a great deal of circumspection, considering all


    attendant circumstances. Moreover, as provided for by Article 221 of the Labor
    Code in any proceeding before the Commission or any of the Labor Arbiters,
    the rules of evidence prevailing in Courts of law or equity shall not be
    controlling and it is the spirit and intention of this Code that the Commission
    and its members and the Labor Arbiters shall use every and all reasonable
    means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively and without
    regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process.
    Further, Articles 106 of the Labor Code provides that in the event that the
    contractor or subcontractor fails to pay the wages of his employees in
    accordance with this Code, the employer shall be jointly and severally liable
    with his contractor or subcontractor to such employees to the extent of the work
    performed under the contract, in the same manner and extent that he is liable to
    employees directly employed by him, and Article 107 provides that the
    provisions of the immediately preceding Article shall likewise apply to any
    person, partnership, association or corporation which, not being an employer,
    contracts with an independent contractor for the performance of any work, task,
    job or project. In the case at bar, petitioner became an indirect employer of
    respondents-complainants when petitioner entered into a Contract of Services
    with the Security Agency and the latter hired the complainants to work as
    guards for the former. However, the petitioners liability should be without
    prejudice to a claim for reimbursement against the Security Agency for such
    amounts as petitioner may have to pay to complainants. The Security Agency
    may not seek exculpation by claiming that petitioners payments to it were
    inadequate. As an employer, it is charged with knowledge of labor laws and the
    adequacy of the compensation that it demands for contractual services is its
    principal concern and not any others.
    The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment under review, without prejudice to
    petitioners right to seek reimbursement from Calmar Security Agency for such
    amounts as petitioner may have to pay to complainants. Costs against the
    private respondent.

    You might also like