Gallego v. Bayer Philippines

RAMY GALLEGO v. BAYER PHILIPPINES INC., et the principal.
Under this arrangement, the following

al. (2009) conditions must be met: (a) the contractor carries on a
distinct and independent business and undertakes the
[J. Carpio-Morales] 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
Summary and Doctrine:
matters connected with the performance of his work except
In distinguishing between permissible job contracting and as to the results thereof; (b) the contractor has substantial
prohibited labor-only contracting, the totality of the facts and capital or investment; and (c) the agreement between the
the surrounding circumstances of the case are to be principal and contractor or subcontractor assures the
considered, each case to be determined by its own facts, and contractual employees’ entitlement to all labor and
all the features of the relationship assessed. occupational safety and health standards, free exercise of
the right to self-organization, security of tenure, and social
I. FACTS: welfare benefits.
Petitioner Ramy Gallego was contracted by Bayer In distinguishing between permissible job contracting and
Philippines Inc. (BAYER) as crop protection technician. prohibited labor-only contracting, the totality of the facts and
When Gallego’s employment came to a halt, BAYER the surrounding circumstances of the case are to be
reemployed Gallego through Product Image and Marketing considered, each case to be determined by its own facts,
Services, Inc. (PRODUCT IMAGE) performing the same and all the features of the relationship assessed.
tasks as that of a crop protection technician.
In the case at bar, the Court finds substantial evidence to
After a few years, Gallego claims that he was directed to support the finding of the NLRC that PRODUCT IMAGE is a
submit a resignation latter, but he refused. He was later on legitimate job contractor.
transferred to Luzon; moreover, his co-workers allegedly
The Court notes that PRODUCT IMAGE was issued by the
spread rumors there that he was not anymore connected
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Certificate of
with BAYER. Believing himself to be illegally dismissed, he
Registration Numbered NCR-8-0602-176. The DOLE
filed with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
certificate having been issued by a public officer, it carries
claiming he is entitled for reinstatement, backwages, and
with it the presumption that it was issued in the regular
etc. BAYER denied the existence of an employer-employee
performance of official duty. Gallego’s bare assertions fail to
relationship between BAYER and Gallego since Gallego
rebut this presumption. Further, since the DOLE is the
was actually under the control and supervision of PRODUCT
agency primarily responsible for regulating the business of
IMAGE, an independent contractor.
independent job contractors, the Court can presume, in the
The Labor Arbiter found BAYER, et al. guilty of illegal absence of evidence to the contrary, that it had thoroughly
dismissal and ordered the reinstatement of Gallego. The evaluated the requirements submitted by PRODUCT IMAGE
NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Gallego before issuing the Certificate of Registration.
then appealed to the Court of Appeals via Certiorari, which
Independently of the DOLE’s Certification, among the
was dismissed. Hence, this petition.
circumstances that establish the status of PRODUCT
II. ISSUES: IMAGE as a legitimate job contractor are: (1) PRODUCT
IMAGE had, during the period in question, a contract with
Whether or not PRODUCT IMAGE is a labor-only BAYER for the promotion and marketing of BAYER
contractor and BAYER should be deemed Gallego’s products; (2) PRODUCT IMAGE has an independent
principal employer business and provides services nationwide to big companies
such as Ajinomoto Philippines and Procter and Gamble
III. RATIONALE: Corporation; and (3) PRODUCT IMAGE’s total assets from
1998 to 2000 amounted to P405,639, P559,897, and
Permissible job contracting or subcontracting refers to an P644,728, respectively. PRODUCT IMAGE also posted a
arrangement whereby a principal agrees to farm out with a bond in the amount of P100,000 to answer for any claim of
contractor or subcontractor the performance of a specific its employees for unpaid wages and other benefits that may
job, work, or service within a definite or predetermined arise out of the implementation of its contract with BAYER.
period, regardless of whether such job, work or, service is to
be performed or completed within or outside the premises of
PRODUCT IMAGE cannot thus be considered a labor-only
contractor.
IV. DISPOSITIVE:
In fine, PRODUCT IMAGE is ineluctably the employer of
petitioner.
Respecting the issue of illegal dismissal, the Court

appreciates no evidence that petitioner was dismissed. What
it finds is that petitioner unilaterally stopped reporting for
work before filing a complaint for illegal dismissal, based on
his belief that Guillermo and Bergonia had spread rumors
that his transactions on behalf of BAYER would no longer be
honored as of April 30, 2002. This belief remains just that -
it is unsubstantiated. While in cases of illegal dismissal, the
employer bears the burden of proving that the dismissal is
for a valid or authorized cause, the employee must first
establish by substantial evidence the fact of dismissal.
WHEREFORE, the petition is, in light of the foregoing,

DENIED.

Gallego v. Bayer Philippines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gallego v. Bayer Philippines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gallego v. Bayer Philippines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RAMY GALLEGO v. BAYER PHILIPPINES INC., et the principal.

Under this arrangement, the following

Respecting the issue of illegal dismissal, the Court

WHEREFORE, the petition is, in light of the foregoing,

You might also like