SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. Nos. 251784 & 251794. July 6, 2020.]
GLOBAL SKILLS PROVIDERS MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE AND ALEJANDRO G. LUKBAN, petitioners, vs.FRANCISCO B. LAMEYRA, JR., RODOLFO C. ROSANA, JR., AND TANDUAY DISTILLERS, INC., respondents.
[G.R. Nos. 252008 & 252041. July 6, 2020.]
TANDUAY DISTILLERS, INC., petitioners, vs.FRANCISCO B. LAMEYRA, JR., RODOLFO C. ROSANA, JR., AND GLOBAL SKILLS PROVIDERS and MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated06 July 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. Nos. 251784 and 251794 (Global Skills Providers Multi-Purpose Cooperative and Alejandro G. Lukban v. Francisco B. Lameyra, Jr., Rodolfo C. Rosana, Jr., and Tanduay Distillers, Inc.) and G.R. Nos. 252008 and 252041 (Tanduay Distillers, Inc. v. Francisco B. Lameyra, Jr., Rodolfo C. Rosana, Jr., and Global Skills Providers and Multi-Purpose Cooperative. — After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petitions 1 and AFFIRM the August 28, 2019 Decision 2 and the January 27, 2020 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 160352 and 160430 for failure of petitioners Tanduay Distillers, Inc. (TDI), Global Skills Providers Multi-Purpose Cooperative (Global), and Alejandro G. Lukban (collectively, petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in holding that the National Labor Relations Commission did not gravely abuse its discretion in finding Global to be a labor-only contractor, and consequently, declaring TDI as the true employer of respondents Francisco B. Lameyra, Jr. and Rodolfo C. Rosana, Jr. (respondents).
As correctly ruled by the CA, the totality of the following circumstances will lead to the conclusion that Global is a mere labor-only contractor, and hence, TDI is the true employer of respondents: (a) Global did not actually use its resources for the performance of the contracted job, as specified in the Service Agreement; (b) Global did not exercise the power to control the performance of the work of respondents; (c) respondents were instructed to perform tasks, which were necessary and desirable to TDI's business; and (d) respondents were directly supervised by employees of TDI. It is settled that absent any of the recognized jurisprudential exceptions, findings of fact of the labor tribunals, when affirmed by the CA, are binding upon this Court, 4 as in this case.
SO ORDERED. (Zalameda, J., designated Additional Member vice Gaerlan, J.)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo (G.R. Nos. 251784 and 251794 Vol. I), pp. 9-29 and rollo (G.R. Nos. 252008 and 252041 Vol. I), pp. 10-62.
2.Rollo (G.R. Nos. 251784 and 251794 Vol. I), pp. 34-52. Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando with Associate Justices Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a member of the Court) and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi, concurring.
3.Id. at 53-56. Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan-Castillo and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi, concurring.
4. See Valencia v. Classique Vinyl Products Corporation, 804 Phil. 492, 504 (2017).