AGC Flat Glass Philippines, Inc. v. Arellano

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 226936. October 6, 2021.]

AGC FLAT GLASS PHILIPPINES, INC. AND EMMANUEL Y. GO, petitioners, vs.MICHELLE S. ARELLANO, CONNIE M. MARINAS, CATALINA C. LEAL AND SUZETTE R. CELESTINO, respondents.

[G.R. No. 226980. October 6, 2021.]

9R MANPOWER SERVICES, INC. AND REYNALDO CRUZ, petitioners, vs.MICHELLE S. ARELLANO, CONNIE M. MARINAS, CATALINA C. LEAL AND SUZETTE R. CELESTINO, respondents.

[G.R. No. 234722. October 6, 2021.]

UNITED TERMINALS SERVICES, INC., petitioner, vs.JERMEN JUYCO BOLIVAR, ET AL., *respondents.

[G.R. No. 234955. October 6, 2021.]

AGC FLAT GLASS PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs.JERMEN BUYCO BOLIVAR, ET AL., respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 6, 2021, which reads as follows: HTcADC

"G.R. No. 226936 (AGC Flat Glass Philippines, Inc. and Emmanuel Y. Go, Petitioners, vs. Michelle S. Arellano, Connie M. Marinas, Catalina C. Leal and Suzette R. Celestino, Respondents), G.R. No. 226980 (9R Manpower Services, Inc. and Reynaldo Cruz, Petitioners vs. Michelle S. Arellano, Connie M. Marinas, Catalina C. Leal and Suzette R. Celestino, Respondents), G.R. No. 234722 (United Terminals Services, Inc., Petitioner, vs. Jermen Juyco Bolivar, et al., Respondents), and G.R. No. 234955 (AGC Flat Glass Philippines, Inc., Petitioner, vs. Jermen Buyco Bolivar, et al., Respondents.) — Before the Court are four consolidated petitions for review where the pivotal issue is whether AGC Flat Glass Philippines, Inc. (AGC Flat Glass) is the employer of respondent employees.

In G.R. Nos. 226936 and 226980, petitioners AGC Flat Glass and 9R Manpower Services, Inc. (9R Manpower) assail the Decision 1 dated 07 June 2016 and Resolution 2 dated 05 September 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 132227, which reversed and set aside the Decision and Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC Case No. NCR-05-08090-12/NLRC LAC No. 01-000257-12. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:

"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the Petition for Certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated May 20, 2013 and the Resolution dated July 31, 2013 rendered by the First Division of the National Labor Relations Commission are hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The Petitioners should be reinstated without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and should be granted full backwages from the time that they were no longer allowed to work on March 15, 2012 up to actual reinstatement or finality of this Decision as the case may be. If reinstatement is no longer feasible, Petitioners are entitled to receive separation pay equivalent to one month salary for every year of service. Lastly, the Private Respondents are solidarily liable to the Petitioners.

SO ORDERED. 3

In G.R. Nos. 234722 and 234955, petitioners AGC Flat Glass and United Terminal Services, Inc. (United Terminal) assail the Decision 4 dated 17 May 2017 and Resolution 5 dated 02 October 2017 of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 137363, which reversed and set aside the Decision 6 dated 30 May 2014 and Resolution 7 dated 16 July 2014 of the NLRC in NLRC LAC 03-000749-14. The dispositive portion of the Decision dated 17 May 2017 reads:

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED. The NLRC's May 30, 2014 Decision and July 16, 2014 Resolution in NLRC LAC 03-000749-14 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the December 23, 2013 Decision of Labor Arbiter Romelita N. Rioflorido, REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED. 8

Antecedents

G.R. Nos. 226936 and 226980

In gist, respondents Michelle S. Arellano (Arellano), Connie M. Marinas (Marinas), Catalina C. Leal (Leal) and Suzette Celestino (Celestino; collectively, Arellano, et al.) were purportedly employees of 9R Manpower. However, Arellano, et al., claimed that their employer was AGC Flat Glass considering that it engaged in labor-only contracting activities along with Primus Inter-Pares Multipurpose Cooperative (Primus), United Terminal and 9R Manpower. 9

Arellano, et al., claimed that they were employed by Primus between 2003 and 2012 and were assigned to United Terminal as quality control inspectors. United Terminal, in turn, had an existing contractorship agreement with AGC Flat Glass, which exercised control over the means and methods by which they performed their work. It was AGC Flat Glass which provided them the tools, equipment and facilities they used in their work. Primus was a labor-only contractor which had no substantial capital or investments in the form of tools and equipment. 10

Sometime on 04 March 2012, Primus informed them that 9R Manpower would take over the sub-contracting arrangement. They were allegedly instructed to submit their respective resignation so that they would be absorbed by 9R Manpower, to which they agreed. Thus, they were absorbed by 9R Manpower and they continued their work at AGC Flat Glass. However, several days after or on 15 March 2012, they were no longer allowed to work on the ground that they failed to submit the necessary clearance from Primus. 11 Hence, they filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal, backwages, damages and attorney's fees.

In his Decision 12 dated 22 November 2012, Labor Arbiter Joel Lustria (LA Lustria) held that Arellano, et al., were not illegally dismissed. They voluntarily resigned, received their final pays and signed the Quitclaim and Release Agreement. LA Lustria held that United Terminal, Primus and 9R Manpower were not engaged in labor-only contracting based on documents that they submitted. He concluded that Arellano, et al., were simply out of jobs due to their failure to submit their respective Clearances as required by 9R Manpower. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered, directing complainants, namely as follows: MICHELLE ARELLANO, CATALINA LEAL, SUZETTE CELESTINO, and CONNIE MARINAS to report back to work but without the payment of backwages, within the ten (10) days period upon receipt hereof.

Other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED." 13

Unperturbed, Arellano, et al., filed a partial appeal, 14 which the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) denied in its Decision 15 dated 20 May 2013. It held that Primus and 9R Manpower are legitimate job contractors given that they have substantial capital and investment in terms of tools, equipment and machinery to engage in subcontracting arrangements with United Terminal and AGC Flat Glass. Arellano, et al., filed a Motion for Reconsideration 16 which was denied by the NLRC in its Resolution 17 dated 31 July 2013. Hence, a Petition for Certiorari18 was filed before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 132227.

In its assailed Decision, the CA annulled and set aside the NLRC Decision. It held that although based on the documents submitted it would appear that Primus, United Terminal and 9R Manpower have sufficient capital, investment, tools and equipment to run their respective businesses, the "totality of circumstances surrounding this case" must be considered. 19

Consequently, it noted that Primus' office is located at the compound of AGC Flat Glass in Brgy. Pinagbuhatan, Pasig City, which makes the status of Primus as an independent contractor dubious since the offices of both the principal and the contractor are situated in the same compound. Secondly, it noted that the resignation letters of Arellano and Marinas were identical, including the date, except for their names. The resignation letters of Celestino and Leal, meanwhile, were different. However, these resignation letters lend credence to Arellano, et al.'s allegation that they were asked to resign so that they could be absorbed by 9R Manpower. 20

The CA also observed that the Clearances only lacked the portion on "Facilities and Maintenance." The appellate court found it hard to believe that Primus released a Computation of Final Pay for Arellano, et al., despite the fact that their clearances were incomplete, contrary to the common practice of a company not to release an employee's final pay if the clearance is incomplete. 21

On the other hand, while 9R Manpower was able to show that it was registered with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) pursuant to a Certificate of Registration secured on 12 February 2010 which was valid until 11 February 2013. Meanwhile, the Certification issued by the Office of the Treasurer of Pasig City indicated that it "retired" on 14 April 2011, a year before Arellano, et al., were supposedly illegally dismissed. 22

It also did not escape the attention of the CA that the supposed resignation from Primus and the subsequent acceptance to 9R Manpower happened immediately after the other which suggested that Primus and 9R Manpower had an internal arrangement which affected the status of the employees. 23

The CA further observed:

"Not only that, but it seemed that Petitioners were subjected to fixed-term contracts and that when these expired, they had to execute Quitclaims for every corresponding expired contract. If this practice has been going on for years, or from February 2009 until 2012 as Petitioners claimed to have been employees, then such situation could be interpreted as a circumvention of the Labor Code's provision on security of tenure, especially if their work is necessary to [AGC Flat Glass]'s operations.

In connection with that, We found that Petitioners' work as Quality Control Inspectors is necessary and desirable to the business of [AGC Flat Glass]. Based on the Job Description, a Quality Control Inspector shall ensure that "all glass transfer to Quality Assurance are in good condition and without defects." Surely, such function is important to [AGC Flat Glass]'s business because this would ensure that the company would produce glass which passed the standard of quality that the company has established.

All the same, the period in which Petitioners worked for the benefit of [AGC Flat Glass] is also telling, as "the repeated and continuing need for the performance of the job is sufficient evidence of the necessity, if not indispensability of the activity to the business." As found by the LA and the NLRC, the Petitioners have been working since 2009 until 2012 (when the alleged illegal dismissal happened), a telling indicator that their jobs were relevant to [AGC Flat Glass]'s business.

x x x. However, the positions of Quality Control Inspector and Quality Assurance Inspector, do not seem to have a marked difference as 9R Manpower suggested. Both positions would most likely entail the same tasks albeit worded differently. Stating otherwise appeared to be a ploy by 9R Manpower to mislead the courts. Besides, 9R Manpower did not even explain what the difference is between the two positions, if any.

The Job Description likewise stated that the worker reports to a Shift Coordinator and coordinates with the Quality Control Head, Quality Control Supervisor, and Operations Supervisor. It is not clear as to whom the Petitioners directly reported to [sic] whenever they were at work, although [United Terminal] and [Primus] insisted that [AGC Flat Glass] took no part in the supervision of the Petitioners. This is in addition to the fact that the Petitioners worked within [AGC Flat Glass]'s premises. In the same vein, We noticed that the Organizational Charts of [United Terminal] and [Primus] have similar formats, as the structure and the boxes used in identifying different positions were identical. This suggests that the format came from one source.

Regardless of these observations, this Court also noted that there is ambiguity regarding the matter of who actually exercised the right to control the performance of the Petitioners' duties. x x x

Simply, the main indications of being a labor-only contractor are the company's lack of sufficient capital, the necessity of the employee's work to the principal's business, and the absence of control of the contractor over the means and methods in which the employee performs the work. On this account, this Court has earlier established that the Private Respondents had sufficient capital. Yet, the issue on control remained to be vague due to the lack of adequate evidence presented by both parties. Even if We were to rule that [Primus], [United Terminal] and 9R Manpower had sufficient capital and had the power of control over the Petitioners which would make them legitimate contractors, the totality of circumstances suggests otherwise. It should not be forgotten that D.O. No. 18-A not only prohibits the more common "labor-only contracting" practices (as provided in Section 6 of D.O. 18-A), as the same issuance lists other prohibitions such as those in Section 7, thereof[.]

xxx xxx xxx

Ergo, even if the Private Respondents were not strictly engaged in labor-only contracting (Section 6 of D.O. 18-A), they would still be liable for violating provisions of Section 7 of D.O. 18-A. x x x 24

The Motion for Reconsideration 25 was denied in the Resolution 26 dated 05 September 2016.

G.R. Nos. 234722 and 234955

Jermen B. Bolivar (Bolivar), et al., were hired either as glass handlers, box finish crew, set-up crew, vacuum chuck operator, branchman, FTC cleaner, cutter, overhead crane operator, solite glass cutter, janitor, forklift operator, and box tagger in various years from 1995 to 2011. They were assigned at AGC Flat Glass. 27

On 09 April 2012, AGC Flat Glass issued a master list of employees sans Bolivar, Severino S. Ajon, Ernie M. Caligagan, Ray G. Zapanta, Levy D. Merioles, Rayson G. Zapanta, Ronnie D. Dela Cruz, Oliver D. Sanchez, Joel O. Tayaban, Noel V. Evangelista, Dranrev V. Divino, Erwin P. Vince Cruz, Joselito Daos and Boylee Reynoso (Bolivar, et al.). Consequently, on 15 February 2013, Joselito Daos and Boylee Reynoso were terminated without just or authorized cause. 28

Aside from the complaint for illegal dismissal, 29 four (4) complaints for regularization were also filed. 30 They argued that although they were hired under contracts of short durations, they should be considered regular employees of AGC Flat Glass as they performed their jobs within the premises of AGC Flat Glass and their functions were directly related to its business. While they were deployed to work by United Terminal and Primus, their real employer was AGC Flat Glass. United Terminal and Primus were engaged in labor-only contracting in violation of D.O. No. 18-A, series of 2011. 31

In her Decision 32 dated 23 December 2013, Labor Arbiter Romelita N. Rioflorido (LA Rioflorido) disposed:

WHEREFORE, a decision is hereby rendered:

a. Dismissing the complaints filed by Ricardo B. Valerio, Jr., Rod John S. Delos Santos, Joel De Chaves, Rokem F. Raule and Larry F. Demano without prejudice;

b. Declaring the rest of the complainants regular employees of AGC Flat Glass Philippines;

c. Directing the reinstatement of complainants JERMEN B. BOLIVAR, SEVERINO S. AJON, ERNIE M. CALIGAGAN, RAY G. ZAPANTA, LEVY D. MERIOLES, RAYSON G. ZAPANTA, RONNIE D. DELA CRUZ, OLIVER D. SANCHEZ, JOEL O. TAYABAN, NOEL V. EVANGELISTA, DRANREV V. DIVINO, ERWIN P. VINCE CRUZ, BOYLEE S. REYNOSO and JOSELITO R. DAOS to their former positions or equivalent positions without loss of seniority rights, without backwages; and

d. AGC Flat Glass Philippines, United Terminal Services, Inc. and Primus Inter-Pares are jointly and severally held liable for the satisfaction of this decision.

SO ORDERED. 33

AGC Flat Glass and United Terminal appealed to the NLRC which granted the appeal and modified the Decision of LA Rioflorido. In its Decision 34 dated 30 May 2014, it declared that Primus, being the employer of the complainants, was solely liable for the reinstatement of Bolivar, et al. On the other hand, the dismissal without prejudice of the complaints filed by Ricardo B. Valerio, Jr., Rod John S. Delos Santos, Joel De Chaves, Rokem F. Raule and Larry F. Demano was affirmed. The NLRC denied the Motion for Reconsideration 35 in its Resolution 36 dated 16 July 2014.

Bolivar, et al., filed a Petition for Certiorari37 which seeks to challenge the NLRC ruling that they were employees of Primus and not of AGC, Flat Glass.

The CA held that the documents submitted by United Terminal and Primus, such as their certificates of registration with the DOLE and the corresponding independent auditor's reports for the years 2011 and 2012, with the accompanying notes for properties and equipment, standing alone, do not irrefutably prove that they were indeed legitimate contractors. It considered the totality of facts and the surrounding circumstances and concluded that United Terminal and Primus were labor-only contractors. 38 Thus:

First. Both [United Terminal] and Primus failed to present evidence that they were already registered labor contractors prior to 2006.

It must be stressed that solve of the petitioners were hired as early as in the 1990's. Primus, which claims to be petitioners' employer, has never denied this fact.

Record shows that Primus was registered as a labor contractor only from July 2006 to July 2009, and from October 2012 to October 2015. From the first time Primus supplied services or workers for AGC [Flat Glass] in the 1990s up to the year 2006, Primus was not registered as an independent job contractor. Primus likewise failed to show proof that it was registered as an independent job contractor from August 2009 to September 2012.

[United Terminal], on the other hand, was Only registered as a job contractor from January 2005 to January 2008, and August 2008 to August 2011. Prior to these periods, [United Terminal] was not registered as a job contractor. Further, the certificates of registration which [United Terminal] submitted for March 2013 to February 2016, merely show that it was registered in a certain "AJA Registrars," but does not prove that [United Terminal] was registered with DOLE as a job contractor. What the record clearly shows is that [United Terminal] applied for registration in 2012. There was no showing, however, that [United Terminal]'s application was indeed approved and registered as an independent job contractor for 2012.

xxx xxx xxx

Second. In its attempt to prove that [United Terminal] and Primus complied with the requirement of capital and investment, private respondents offered the so-called independent auditor's reports. [United Terminal] also submitted an accountant's certification as to its supposed assets pertaining to the work it contracted to render for AGC [Flat Glass].

xxx xxx xxx

Here, aside from the independent auditor's reports and accountant's certification, [United Terminal] and Primus did not offer anything else to show that they, in fact, have substantial capital and investment required for the business and services they undertook to render. More, neither [United Terminal] nor Primus presented [its] Articles of Incorporation showing [its] authorized capital stock or paid-up capital stock. x x x

xxx xxx xxx

More important, the documents which private respondents presented below referred only to years 2011 and 2012. Nothing was ever presented to prove that both [United Terminal] and Primus had enough capital and investment as independent job contractor prior to 2011 or 2012. x x x

xxx xxx xxx

Additionally, based on Primus' certificates of registration, Primus' address is indicated as:

Asahi Glass Compound

Clearly Primus' office itself is located inside AGC [Flat Glass]'s compound. It shows that Primus does not have enough means to maintain its own office space. Worse, it gives the impression that Primus actually belongs to AGC [Flat Glass].

It must also be emphasized that [United Terminal] had no other known client, only AGC [Flat Glass]. In its application for registration of job/service contractor, [United Terminal] has only AGC [Flat Glass] as its client. x x x

xxx xxx xxx

Third. The service contract between [United Terminal] and AGC [Flat Glass] was executed only on May 29, 2012. To repeat, some of the petitioners were hired as early as in 1995. There was an absolute lack of evidence to show that [United Terminal] was registered as an independent job contractor in 2012. Surely, [United Terminal] could not have validly entered into a service contract as an independent contractor with AGC [Flat Glass] in 2012.

xxx xxx xxx

Fourth. There was no showing that [United Terminal] posted a bond as an independent contractor in accordance with Section 108 of the Labor Code[.]

xxx xxx xxx

Fifth. Some of the petitioners were hired as glass handlers, box finish crew, branchman, FTC cleaner, quality assurance officer, cutter, helper cutter, crane operator, solite glass QCI cutter, cutting center machine operator, and forklift operator. AGC [Flat Glass] is engaged in glass manufacturing. Undoubtedly, the work which petitioners rendered is directly related to AGC [Flat Glass]'s business.

xxx xxx xxx

Sixth. As for the concept of control, Section 4 of DOLE Order No. 18-A states that a legitimate job contractor undertakes to perform the job, work or service on its own responsibility, according to its own manner and method, and free from control and direction of the principal in all matters connected with the performance of the work except as to the results thereof.

xxx xxx xxx

Claiming to exercise control over petitioners' work, Primus refers to 3 organizational charts purportedly showing that petitioners are directly supervised by shift coordinators under the employ of [United Terminal] and Primus. But, these charts, are at best, self-serving. Too, they do not indicate how petitioners' work is actually being controlled or supervised, and by whom. Even the service contract between [United Terminal] and AGC [Flat Glass] does not reflect how control shall be exercised insofar as petitioners' work is concerned. x x x

xxx xxx xxx

Seventh. From the time petitioners were initially hired, they were continuously re-hired by private respondents until the filing of the cases below. All the employment contracts submitted by [United Terminal] below, show that petitioners were hired for merely 30 days per contract. Yet, after each 30-day contract, petitioners would be re-hired for the same positions. This is a positive proof that the work petitioners do, is necessary to AGC [Flat Glass]'s business.

Be that as it may, it is clear that the fixed-term contract was resorted to only to [sic] avoid petitioners from obtaining regular employment status a prohibited practice under DOLE Order No. 18-A[.] 39

Meanwhile, the CA agreed with LA Rioflorido that Bolivar, et al., were not illegally dismissed. It noted that they were given letters directing them to return to work and requiring them to explain their failure to report for work. The lack of intent to dismiss was further manifested by the fact that even up to the conciliation conferences, they were still offered work. 40

Thus, the CA reinstated the 23 December 2013 Decision of LA Rioflorido. The Motion for Partial Reconsideration 41 was denied by the CA in its 02 October 2017 Resolution. 42

Issues

From the pleadings submitted by the parties, the Court is tasked to pass upon the following issues:

(1) Whether the Resolution dated 13 December 20017 n of the Court in G.R. No. 233065, "Noel L. Guereno, et al. vs. AGC Flat Glass Philippines, Inc., et al." is a binding precedent under the doctrine of stare decisis; and

(2) Whether AGC Flat Glass is the real employer of herein employees.

Ruling of the Court

The consolidated petitions lack merit.

The Resolution in G.R. No. 233065 is

In the Resolution 43 dated 13 December 2017, the Court denied the petition for review for failure of the petitioners to show that the CA committed any reversible error which would warrant the exercise of the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction. It affirmed the Decision dated 06 March 2017 and Resolution dated 04 July 2017 of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 146068, which held that United Terminal and Primus were legitimate job contractors and AGC Flat Glass was not the employer of the petitioners therein. 44

The Court denied the motion for reconsideration with finality in its 23 April 2018 Resolution 45 and directed that no further pleadings or motions shall be entertained.

AGC Flat Glass thus invokes the doctrine of stare decisis and prays that the consolidated petitions be decided to the effect that it is not the real employer of the concerned employees.

We do not agree.

The aforementioned Resolution dated 13 December 2017 is a minute resolution. In the recent case of ABS-CBN Corporation vs. Concepcion, 46 the Court discussed the binding effect of a minute resolution:

While this Court affirmed the CA Decision in Jalog, it was not a sided decision or resolution, but a Minute Resolution promulgated on 05 October 2011. In the said Minute Resolution, this Court dismissed the petition filed by various workers who were members of the Internal Job Market, for lack of verification and for failure of the petition to show reversible error in the assailed judgment.

In the case of Read-Rite Philippines, Inc. v. Francisco, then Associate Justice (later Chief Justice) Teresita Leonardo-de Castro discussed:

As to the final ruling in Zamora, the same is a minute resolution of the Court dated November 12, 2007 in G.R. No. 179022 that affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. In Alonso v. Cebu Country Club, Inc., we declared that a minute resolution may amount in a final action on a case, but the same cannot bind non-parties to the action. Further, in Philippine Health Care Providers, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, we expounded on the consequence of issuing a minute resolution in this wise:

It is true that, although contained in a minute resolution, our dismissal of the petition was a disposition of the merits of the case. When we dismissed the petition, we effectively affirmed the CA ruling being questioned. As a result, our ruling in that case has already become final. When a minute resolution denies or dismisses a petition for failure to comply with formal and substantive requirements, the challenged decision, together with its findings of fact and legal conclusions, are deemed sustained. But what is its effect on other cases?

With respect to the same subject matter and the same issues concerning the same parties, it constitutes res judicata. However, if other parties or another subject matter (even with the same parties and issues) is involved, the minute resolution is not binding precedent. x x x (Emphasis supplied)

Even assuming that Jalog has a binding effect, this Court is not precluded from revisiting doctrines and precedents. Abaria v. National Labor Relations Commission expounds on stare decisis in this wise:

Under the doctrine of stare decisis, once a court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases where the facts are substantially the same, even though the parties may be different. It proceeds from the first principle of justice that, absent any powerful countervailing considerations, like cases ought to be decided alike. Thus, where the same questions relating to the same event have been put forward by parties similarly situated as in a previous case litigated and decided by a competent court, the rule of stare decisis is a bar to any attempt to relitigate the same issue.

The doctrine though is not cast in stone for upon a showing that circumstances attendant in a particular case override the great benefits derived by our judicial system from the doctrine of stare decisis, the Court is justified in setting it aside. For the Court, as the highest court of the land, may be guided but is not controlled by precedent. Thus, the Court, especially with a new membership, is not obliged to follow blindly a particular decision that it determines, after re-examination, to call for a rectification.

AGC Flat Glass is the real

Labor-only contracting, a prohibited act, is an arrangement where the contractor, who does not have substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment, machineries, work premises, among other things, supplies workers to an employer and the workers recruited are performing activities which are directly related to the principal business of such employer. The test of independent contractorship is whether one claiming to be an independent contractor has contracted to do the work according to his/her own methods and without being subject to the control of the employer, except only as to the results of the work. The burden to hurdle this test is cast upon the contractor. In cases where the principal also claims that the contractor is a legitimate contractor, as in this case, said principal similarly bears the burden of proving that supposed status. 47

A finding that a contractor is a labor-only contractor, as opposed to permissible job contracting, is equivalent to declaring that there is an employer-employee relationship between the principal and the employees of the supposed contractor, and the labor-only contractor is considered as a mere agent of the principal, the real employer. 48 In distinguishing between permissible job contracting and labor-only contracting, the totality of the facts and the surrounding circumstances of the case is to be considered, each case to be determined by its own facts, and all the features of the relationship assessed. 49

This is what the CA exactly did in arriving at the assailed Decisions and Resolutions. The appellate court painstakingly enumerated the totality of facts which establishes that United Terminal, Primus and 9R Manpower are mere labor-only contractors, as was already mentioned in this Resolution, and which we shall no longer belabor to discuss here.

To emphasize, this Court is not a trier of facts. It is not its function to analyze or weigh evidence all over again. This is in view of the corollary legal precept that findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on this Court. 50 Even granting that we proceed to review the same considering the conflicting findings of the labor tribunals and the CA, we find that the CA Decisions and Resolutions are supported by substantial evidence and jurisprudence. Hence, the CA did not commit any reversible error.

WHEREFORE, the consolidated petitions are DENIED. The Decision dated 07 June 2016 and Resolution dated 05 September 2016 in CA-G.R. SP No. 132227, and the Decision dated 17 May 2017 and Resolution dated 02 October 2017 in CA-G.R. SP No. 137363, of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED." (Dimaampao, J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2839.)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

* Severino S. Ajon, Ernie M. Caligagan, Ray G. Zapanta, Levy D. Merioles, Rayson G. Zapanta, Ronnie D. Dela Cruz, Oliver D. Sanchez, Joel O. Tayaban, Noel V. Evangelista, Dranrev V. Divino, Erwin P. Vince Cruz, Boylee S. Reynoso, Joselito R. Daos, Eduard R. Lazaro, Manolito P. Dela Cruz, Ferry Lloyd V. Quiton, Nemencio S. Lontoc, Florence R. Santos, Leonaordo C. Aprocio, Noel C. Rodriguez, Joel S. Collado, Clemen P. Valentino, Wilven A. Mapa, Romy S. Custodio, Ferdinand B. Martin, Edgar A. Callejo, Alvin M. Magalona, Leonilo R. Santos, Dante C. Basallote, Mark Andrew S. Lontoc, Albert F. Menodiado, Guillermo A. Caballero, Renato V. Fulgencio, Jessan T. Acorda, Sammy D. Angustia, William M. Dilao, Ernie B. Razote, Jason P. Perez, Wilfredo P. Comendador, Manuel S. Flores, Jr., Romel Licuanan, Mervin C. Inocencio, Jesus A. Callejo, Jr., James V. Layacan, Rodolfo C. Casaclang, Rene B. Bolanos, John Kenny B. Ricachonda, Jeffrey A. Aurelia, Johan I. Gregorio, Iginidio A. Santiago, Jr., Anselmo Javelosa, Jeremy B. Zacarias, Reginaldo Peñalosa, Dennis A. Hernandez, Arnold San Andres, Rosalio N. Lupera, Jr., and Carlito M. De Leon.

1. Rollo (G.R. No. 226956, Vol. I), pp. 46-70; Penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Stephen Cruz and Samuel H. Gaerlan (now also a member of this Court) of the Special Fifth (5th) Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.

2. Id. at 72-75; Penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Stephen Cruz and Samuel H. Gaerlan (now also a member of this Court) of the Special Fifth (5th) Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.

3. Id. at 69-70.

4. Rollo (G.R. No. 234955, Vol. I), pp. 87-136; Penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Pedro B. Corales of the Eight (8th) Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.

5. Id. at 162-163; Penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Pedro B. Corales of the Eight (8th) Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.

6. Rollo (G.R. No. 234955, Vol. I), pp. 188-210; Penned by Commissioner Perlita B. Velasco and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Gerardo C. Nograles and Commissioner Romeo L. Go.

7. Id. at 211-216; Penned by Commissioner Perlita B. Velasco and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Gerardo C. Nograles and Commissioner Roman L. Go.

8. Rollo (G.R. No. 234955, Vol. I), p. 135.

9. Rollo (G.R. No. 226936, Vol. I). pp. 359-360.

10. Id. at 360.

11. Id.

12. Id. at 283-300.

13. Id. at 300.

14. Id. at 301-315.

15. Id. at 359-366.

16. Id. at 367-375.

17. Id. at 409-410.

18. Id. at 411-431.

19. Id. at 61-62.

20. Id. at 63.

21. Id.

22. Id.

23. Id. at 64.

24. Id. at 64-67.

25. Rollo (G.R. No. 226936, Vol. II), pp. 1023-1047.

26. Rollo (G.R. No. 226936, Vol. I), pp. 72-75.

27. Rollo (G.R. No. 234722, Vol. I), pp. 229-230.

28. Id. at 230.

29. Docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 04-05655-13.

30. Docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 04-06043013; NLRC NCR Case No. 04-06354-13; NLRC NCR Case No. 04-06771-13 and NLRC NCR Case No. 04-06911-13.

31. Rollo (G.R. No. 234722, Vol. 1), pp. 239-241.

32. Rollo (G.R. No. 234955, Vol. 1), pp. 520-534.

33. Rollo (G.R. No. 234955, Vol. I), pp. 533-534.

34. Id. at 188-210; Penned by Commissioner Perlita B. Velasco and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Gerardo C. Nograles and Commissioner Romeo L. Go.

35. Id. at 217-226.

36. Id. at 211-216; Penned by Commissioner Perlita B. Velasco and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Gerardo C. Nograles and Commissioner Romeo L. Go.

37. Id. at 164-188.

38. Id. at 117-118.

39. Id. at 119-130.

40. Id. at 134.

41. Rollo (G.R. No. 234955, Vol. II), pp. 750-789.

42. Id. at 162-163.

43. Rollo (G.R. No. 234722, Vol. 1), pp. 285-288.

44. Id.

45. Id. at 479-480.

46. G.R. No. 230576, 05 October 2020 [Per J. Zalameda].

47. RNB Garments Philippines, Inc. v. Ranrol Multi-Purpose Cooperative, G.R. Nos. 236331 & 236332, 14 September 2020 [Per J. Delos Santos].

48. Id., citing Allied Banking Corporation vs. Calumpang, G.R. No. 219435, 823 Phil. 1143 (2018) [Per J. Velasco, Jr.].

49. Serman Cooperative vs. Montarde, G.R. Nos. 246760-61, 09 December 2020 [Per J. Carandang]; Alaska Milk Corporation vs. Paez, G.R. No. 237277, 27 November 2019 [Per J. A. Reyes, Jr.].

50. Gimalay v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 240123 & 240125, June 17, 2020 [Per J. Lazaro-Javier].

n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.