This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-06-15 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Permissible or legitimate job contracting or subcontracting, on the other hand, "refers to an arrangement whereby a principal agrees to put out or farm out with the contractor or subcontractor the performance or completion of a specific job, work, or service within a definite or predetermined period, regardless of whether such job, work, or service is to be performed or completed within or outside the premises of the principal. A person is considered engaged in legitimate job contracting or subcontracting if the following conditions concur: (a) the contractor carries on a distinct and independent business and partakes the contract work on his account under his own responsibility according to his own manner and method, free from the control and direction of his employer or principal in all matters connected with the performance of his work except as to the results thereof; (b) the contractor has substantial capital or investment; and (c) the agreement between the principal and the contractor or subcontractor assures the contractual employees' entitlement to all labor and occupational safety and health standards, free exercise of the right to self-organization, security of tenure, and social welfare benefits."[40] | |||||
|
2015-02-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| In labor cases, if the petitioner before this court can show grave abuse of discretion on the part of trie National Labor Relations Commission, the assailed Court of Appeals ruling (in the Rule 65 proceedings) will be reversed. "Labor officials commit grave abuse of discretion when their A factual findings are arrived at arbitrarily or in disregard of the evidence."[82] If the petitioner can show that "the [labor] tribunal acted capriciously and whimsically or in total disregard of evidence material to the controversy,"[83] the factual findings of the National Labor Relations Commission may be subjected to review and ultimately rejected.[84] | |||||
|
2014-01-15 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Claiming that the burns rendered him permanently incapable of working again as a seaman, respondent demanded[10] for the payment of his full disability benefits under Section 20 (B) in relation to Sections 30 and 30-A of the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency (POEA) Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC), in the amount of US$60,000.00, which petitioners refused to heed. [11] Thus, respondent filed a complaint against petitioners for the same, seeking as well moral and exemplary damages, including attorney's fees. In their position paper, [12] petitioners denied respondent's claims, contending that his injury was self-inflicted and, hence, not compensable under Section 20 (D) of the POEA-SEC. They denied that the vessel's incinerator exploded and claimed that respondent burned himself by pouring paint thinner on his overalls and thereafter set himself on fire. They averred that he was led to commit such act after he was caught last October 10, 2000 [13] stealing the vessel's supplies during a routine security inspection conducted by Captain Bodo Wirth (Captain Wirth) where respondent was informed that he was to be dismissed.[14] They also stated that just before they Based on the aforesaid statement, on October 10, 2000, while the vessel was docked in Hong Kong, Captain Wirth conducted a routine security inspection when he came across a large parcel which belonged to respondent lying on the crew passageway. Upon inspection, the box contained a television set, a day bed cover, several towels and some provisions, all belonging to the vessel. When asked why he was stealing the foregoing articles, respondent claimed that they were given to him as a present by the chief steward. However, when Captain Wirth asked the latter, he denied giving respondent the same. As a result, Captain Wirth informed respondent that his actions warranted his immediate dismissal. discovered respondent to be burning, the vessel's engine room became flooded.[15] They ascribed the flooding incident to respondent, having been seen by fellow crew members standing at the railing around the portside seachest and looking at it[16] and that when the bilge level alarm sounded, he was seen disappearing up to the boiler deck leaving small patches of water on the floor, on the steps, and on the deck where he had been.[17] In support thereof, petitioners submitted the report of the ship captain on the flooding as extracted from the vessel's deck logbook[18] as well as the affidavits and statements executed by the vessel's officers and crew members relative to the flooding and burning incidents. Based on the said affidavits and statements, the vessel's bosun, Antonio Gile (Gile), attested that he saw respondent go to the paint room and there soak his hands in a can full of thinner. Respondent then proceeded to the incinerator door where he was set ablaze. Gile further pointed out that there was no fire in the incinerator at that time.[19] Also, Chief Officer Antonino S. Bejada (Bejada) testified that prior to the burning incident, he had ordered an ordinary seaman who had been burning deck waste in the incinerator to extinguish the fire with water and close up the incinerator door because of bad weather conditions. Bejada then checked the incinerator after the burning incident and found unburnt cardboard cartons inside with no sign of explosion and that the steel plates surrounding it were cool to the touch. He also noticed that the respondent's overalls had patches of green paint on the arms and body and smelled strongly of thinner. An open paint tin can was found near the place of the incident and a cigarette lighter lying beside respondent [20] which oiler Edgardo Israel confirmed was borrowed from him even though he knew that the former did not smoke.[21] Finally, petitioners denied respondent's claim for damages and attorney's fees for lack of factual and legal bases.[22] | |||||