This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2005-06-08 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| We are likewise in agreement with the Labor Arbiter's reasoning that said delinquency reports merely served as justifiable, not arbitrary, basis for PLDT to demand replacement of guards found to have committed infractions while on their tours of duty at PLDT's premises. In Citytrust Banking Corporation v. NLRC,[15] we upheld the validity of the contract between ADAMS and ESSI to provide security guards to Citytrust and held that the security guards were the employees of the security agencies, not Citytrust. Specifically we held as valid and controlling the stipulation that the bank has the option to ask for replacement of the guards or personnel assigned to the bank who, in its judgment, are unsatisfactory, wanting in the performance of their duties or for any reason at the discretion of the bank. Thus- | |||||