This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2016-01-13 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| (1) Does not have substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment, machineries, work premises and other materials; and (2) The workers recruited and placed by such person are performing activities which are directly related to the principal business or operations of the employer in which workers are habitually employed.[75] As a general rule, a contractor is presumed to be a labor-only contractor, unless such contractor overcomes the burden of proving that it has the substantial capital, investment, tools and the like.[76] | |||||
|
2016-01-13 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| Alilin v. Petron Corporation[96] is applicable. In that case, this Court ruled that the presence of the power of control on the part of the principal over the workers of the contractor, under the facts, prove the employer-employee relationship between the former and the latter, thus:[A] finding that a contractor is a 'labor-only' contractor is equivalent to declaring that there is an employer-employee relationship between the principal and the employees of the supposed contractor." In this case, the employer-employee relationship between Pctron and petitioners becomes all the more apparent due to the presence of the power of control on the part of the former over the latter. | |||||
|
2015-10-07 |
PERALTA J. |
||||
| As to whether or not SJS is an independent contractor, jurisprudence has invariably ruled that an independent contractor carries on an independent business and undertakes the contract work on his own account, under his own responsibility, according to his own manner and method, and free from the control and direction of his employer or principal in all matters connected with the performance of the work except as to the results thereof.[34] This embodies what has long been jurisprudentially recognized as the control test, as discussed above. In the instant case, SJS presented evidence to show that it had an independent business by paying business taxes and fees and that it was registered as an employer with the Social Security System. Moreover, there was no evidence to show that SJS and its employees were ever subject to the control of petitioner. On the contrary, as shown above, SJS possessed the right to control its employees' manner and means of performing their work , including herein respondent Galit. | |||||
|
2015-06-15 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Petron contends that the CA erred in ruling that ABC is a labor-only contractor since respondents failed to prove that ABC is not an independent contractor. The contention, however, is incorrect. The law presumes a contractor to be a labor-only contractor and the employees are not expected to prove the negative fact that the contractor is a labor-only contractor.[42] Thus, it is not respondents but Petron which bears the burden of establishing that ABC is not a labor-only contractor but a legitimate independent contractor. As held in Alilin v. Petron Corporation,[43] "where the principal is the one claiming that the contractor is a legitimate contractor, the burden of proving the supposed status of the contractor rests on the principal." | |||||