SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 206865. November 12, 2018.]
KISHO SAKATA ELECTRONICS (P), INC. [NOW NIKKOSHI ELECTRONICS PHILIPPINES, INC.], petitioner, vs.GRACE B. JARLAN, respondent.
[G.R. No. 207173. November 12, 2018.]
SAN ROQUE HUMAN RESOURCES CORP., petitioner, vs.GRACE B. JARLAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Special Second Division, issued a Resolution dated12 November 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 206865 (Kisho Sakata Electronics (P), Inc. [now Nikkoshi Electronics Philippines, Inc.] vs. Grace B. Jarlan); G.R. No. 207173 (San Roque Human Resources Corp. vs. Grace B. Jarlan). — This resolves Kisho Sakata Electronics (P), Inc.'s (KSE) Motion for Reconsideration 1 (MR) of this Court's Resolution dated June 27, 2018, which denied the consolidated petitions and affirmed the Decision dated March 30, 2012 and Resolution dated April 25, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 113695. In denying the petitions, the Court found no compelling reasons to reverse the CA's finding that San Roque Human Resources Corp. (San Roque) was engaged in mere labor-only contracting; thus, respondent Grace B. Jarlan (Jarlan), who was deployed by San Roque to work for KSE from July 2005 to November 2006, was to be considered an employee of KSE. Jarlan was illegally dismissed when her employment contract was terminated due to an alleged reduction in work orders received by KSE from its clients, without proof of compliance with the legal requirements for a valid termination. KSE and San Roque were correctly declared by the CA to be jointly and severally liable to Jarlan for the consequences of the illegal dismissal. Dissatisfied, KSE filed the present MR.
The Court denies the motion. The arguments in KSE's MR are mere rehash of the contentions that were already provided in its petition and considered by the Court in arriving at the resolve to deny the petition. The Court reiterates the general presumption that a contractor is a labor-only contractor unless it overcomes the burden of proving that it has the substantial capital, investment, tools and the like. 2 This presumption particularly applies in this case in light of Section 11 of Department Order (D.O.) No. 18-02, series of 2002, which covers herein parties' contracts and provides in part that the failure of a contractor to register with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) shall give rise to the presumption that the contractor is engaged in labor-only contracting. TCAScE
It is material that based on records, San Roque hired and deployed Jarlan to KSE in July 2005 as Operator with a daily wage of P277.00 even though it was then still not registered with the DOLE. For more than a year, San Roque operated and deployed Jarlan to KSE even without a Certificate of Registration from DOLE, and thus was still unregulated by the government agency. It was only towards the last month of Jarlan's work with KSE that San Roque obtained Certificate of Registration Numbered ROIV-L-06-10-067 dated October 17, 2006. 3 In any case, it is emphasized that registration as an independent contractor is not even conclusive evidence of such status, but only prevents the legal presumption of being a mere labor-only contractor from arising. Ultimately, it stands that "(i)n distinguishing permissible job contracting and prohibited labor-only contracting, the totality of the facts and the surrounding circumstances of the case are to be considered." 4
KSE likewise insists in its MR that San Roque's substantial capital and investments should suffice to classify the company as an independent contractor. For the Court, however, it was not enough for San Roque to show that it had substantial capital or investment as a company; the "substantial capital or investment" should specifically relate to the "job, work or service to be performed," as required under Section 5 5 of D.O. No. 18-02, series of 2002. Per records, Jarlan still used at work the machineries and equipment owned by KSE. A perusal of the list of assets that San Roque attached to its MR with the CA would also show that the assets it invoked did not relate to investments or assets particularly connected to the job or service it allegedly undertook for KSE, as it merely included office equipment (such as computer units, printers, copying machine, laminating machine, clerical tables and chairs, air-conditioning units, filing cabinets, white boards, training room chairs), welding training facilities, janitorial tools and equipment (such as 111 lockers, vacuum cleaners, high speed polisher, mop squeezer, janitor cart, ladder, grass cutter, wet and dry cleaner, lawnmower, push cart, garbage cart, carpet drier, big wheel container and digital camera) and 27 service vehicles. 6
The several other factors that strongly qualified San Roque as a labor-only contractor, and KSE, as the true employer of Jarlan, were fully explained by the Court in its Resolution dated June 27, 2018. There is no cogent reason for the Court to reconsider its resolve to affirm the assailed rulings of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 113695.
WHEREFORE, Kisho Sakata Electronics (P), Inc.'s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. cTDaEH
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo (G.R. No. 206865), pp. 516-527.
2.Valencia v. Classique Vinyl Products Corporation, 804 Phil. 492, 507 (2017).
3.Rollo (G.R. No. 206865), p. 145.
4.San Miguel Corporation v. Semillano, 637 Phil. 115, 130 (2010).
5. Section 5. Prohibition against labor-only contracting. — Labor-only contracting is hereby declared prohibited. For this purpose, labor-only contracting shall refer to an arrangement where the contractor or subcontractor merely recruits, supplies or places workers to perform a job, work or service for a principal, and any of the following elements are present:
i) The contractor or subcontractor does not have substantial capital or investment which relates to the job, work or service to be performed and the employees recruited, supplied, or placed by such contractor are performing activities which are directly related to the main business of the principal; or
ii) The contractor does not exercise the right to control over the performance of the work of the contractual employee.
6.Rollo (G.R. No. 207173), pp. 120-122.