ON VARIOUS dates, respondents Jenny Porras Cayetano and five others were hired by Consolidated Building Maintenance Inc. (CBMI), a job contractor which provides kitchen, delivery, sanitation and allied services to petitioner Philippine Pizza Inc.’s (PPI’s) Pizza Hut chain of restaurants and were thereafter deployed to various branches of the latter.
In a complaint for illegal dismissal against PPI and CBMI, respondents claimed they were regular employees of PPI and not of CBMI. They were initially hired by PPI but were subsequently transferred to CBMI to prevent them from attaining regular employment status.
For its part, PPI denied any employer-employee relationship with respondents, averring that it entered into several contracts of services with CBMI to perform janitorial and other services in its various branches. They were performing tasks in accordance with CBMI’s manner and method free from a direction and control of PPI.
On the other hand, CBMI admitted that respondents were its employees and that it paid their wages and remitted their Social Security System (SSS), Philhealth, and Pagibig contributions. It insisted that it is a legitimate job contractor, as it possesses substantial capital and a Department of Labor and Employment (Dole) certificate of registration; undertakes a business separate and distinct from that of PPI; and more importantly retained and exercised the right of control over respondents.
Who is the actual employer of respondents?
Ruling: CBMI.
The NLRC was also correct in holding that CBMI has substantial capital and investment.
Based on CBMI’s 2012 general information sheet, it has an authorized capital stock in the amount of P10 million and subscribed capital stock in the amount of P5 million, P3.5 million of which had already been paid up. Its audited financial statements show that it has considerable current and non-current assets amounting to P85 million. Taken together, CBMI has substantial capital to properly carry out its obligations with PPI, as well as to sufficiently cover its own operational expenses.
More importantly, the NLRC correctly gave credence to CBMI’s claim that it retained control over respondents, as shown by the deployment of at least one CBMI supervisor in each Pizza Hut branch to regularly oversee, monitor and supervise the employees’ attendance and performance.
This claim was further substantiated by CBMI’s area coordinators, who admitted in their affidavits that: they oversee, monitor and ensure CBMI employees’ compliance with company policies, rules, and regulations whichever Pizza Hut branch they may be assigned; they are responsible for ensuring that CBMI employees perform their tasks and functions in the manner that CBMI mandates; they regularly visit and monitor each area of deployment; they track and confirm the attendance and punctuality of CBMI employees; and they constantly inform CBMI’s human resource department (HRD) manager of any company violations committed by the employees.
The existence of the element of control can also be inferred from CBMI’s act of subjecting respondents to disciplinary sanctions for violations of company rules and regulations, as evidenced by the various offense notices and memoranda issued to them.
Records show that CBMI employed measures to ensure the observance of due process before subjecting respondents to disciplinary action. In fact, CBMI’s HRD manager, Sarah G. Delgado, attested in her affidavit that one of her duties is to make sure that due process is equally afforded to all erring CBMI employees before a disciplinary action is imposed upon them.
Records reveal that respondents applied for work with CBMI and were consequently selected and hired by the latter. They were then required by CBMI to attend orientations and seminars where respondents were apprised of the working conditions, basic customer service, basic good grooming, and company rules and regulations. During the course of their employment, CBMI paid their wages and remitted/paid their SSS, PhilHealth, and Pagibig contributions.
The Court finds that CBMI is a legitimate job contractor, and thus, the employer of respondents. (Philippine Pizza, Inc. vs. Jenny Porras, et.al., G.R. No. 230030, August 29, 2018).