Abella vs. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company

Abella vs.
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company guards for the purpose of guarding and protecting PLDT’s installations and
properties from theft, pilferage, intentional damage, trespass or other
GR No. 159469 | June 8 2005 | Elements of Relationship | Gab E. unlawful acts.
Petitioner: ZALDY G. ABELLA and THE MEMBERS OF THE PLDT
2. Under the agreement, it was expressly provided that there shall be no
SECURITY PERSONNEL UNION
employer-employee relationship between the PLDT and the security
Respondents: PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY
guards, which may be supplied to it by PSI, and that the latter shall have
(PLDT CO.) and PEOPLE’S SECURITY INC. (PSI)
Respondent PSI entered into an agreement with the PLDT to provide the latter with the entire charge, control and supervision over the work and services of
security guards. Under the agreement, it was expressly provided that there shall be no the supplied security guards. It was likewise stipulated therein that PSI
employer-employee relationship between the PLDT and the security guards, which may shall also have the exclusive authority to select, engage, and discharge its
be supplied to it by PSI, and that the latter shall have the entire charge, control and security guards, with full control over their wages, salaries or
supervision over the work and services of the supplied security guards. The 65 security compensation.
guards, all working for PLDT for more than a year allege that they are under the control
and supervision of PLDT and hence be considered as regular employees by the latter 3. Consequently, respondent PSI deployed security guards to the PLDT.
with compensation and benefits equivalent to ordinary rank-and-file employees of the PLDT’s Security Division interviewed these security guards and and those
same job grade.
who did not meet the height requirements were sent back by PLDT to PSI.
Doctrine:
PAL v. NLRC provides the legal yardstick in addressing employer-employee
4. On 05 June 1995, 65 security guards supplied by PSI filed a Complaint for
relationship. In that case, Unicorn Security Services, Inc. (USSI) and Philippine Airlines,
Inc. (PAL) executed a security service agreement where USSI was designated therein regularization against the PLDT with the Labor Arbiter. Complaint states
as the contractor. In determining which between PAL and USSI is the employer of the that inasmuch as the complainants are under the direct control and
security guards, we considered the following factors in considering the existence of an supervision of PLDT, they should be considered as regular employees by
employer-employee relationship: the latter with compensation and benefits equivalent to ordinary rank-and-
(1) the selection and engagement of the employee; file employees of the same job grade.
(2) the payment of wages;
(3) the power to dismiss; and 5. The security guards formed the PLDT Company Security Personnel Union
(4) the power to control the employee’s conduct. Considering these elements, we held with petitioner Zaldy Abella as union president. A month later, PLDT
in the said case that the security guards of PAL were the employees of the security
allegedly ordered PSI to terminate about 25 members of said union who
agency, not PAL.
participated in a protest picket in front of the PLDT Office at the Ramon
Application to the case:
There is no employer-employee relationship between the security guards and PLDT. Cojuangco Building in Makati City.
First, it was the PSI, the security provider of the PLDT, which selected, engaged or
hired and discharged the security guards. Second, it is PSI that determined and paid 6. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. On appeal, the
the petitioners’ wages, salaries, and compensation. Third and Fourth, neither does the
NLRC affirmed in toto the Labor Arbiter’s decision. The Court of Appeals,
issuance of “delinquency reports” or mandatory seminars by PLDT place the security
guards under the direct control and supervision of PLDT. in turn, affirmed the NLRC
7. According to the Court of Appeals, evidence demonstrates that it is

FACTS:
respondent PSI which is petitioners’ employer because the power of
1. Respondent PSI entered into an agreement with the PLDT to provide the selection over the guards lies with the PSI.
latter with such number of qualified uniformed and properly armed security
ISSUE: We agree with the Labor Arbiter that that said delinquency reports merely
served as justifiable, not arbitrary, basis for PLDT to demand replacement of
W/N an employer-employee relationship exists between the security guards guards found to have committed infractions while on their tours of duty at
and PLDT— NO. PLDT’s premises.
RATIO: In Citytrust Banking Corporation v. NLRC, we held as valid and controlling

There is no employer-employee relationship between the security the stipulation that the bank has the option to ask for replacement of the
guards and PLDT. None of the factors as laid down by PAL v. NLRC are guards or personnel assigned to the bank who, in its judgment, are
present: unsatisfactory, wanting in the performance of their duties or for any reason at
the discretion of the bank.
In determining which between PLDT and PSI is the employer of the security
guards, we considered the following factors in considering the existence of As regards the seminars, it is in the ordinary course of things for big
an employer-employee relationship: companies such as PLDT to assign their own security personnel and
(1) the selection and engagement of the employee; supervisors to monitor the performance of the security guards as part of the
(2) the payment of wages; company’s internal check, monitoring and control system in order to rate
(3) the power to dismiss; and whether the security agency it hired is performing at par with PLDT’s set
(4) the power to control the employee’s conduct. standards.
First, it was the PSI, the security provider of the PLDT, which selected, In fine, while the Constitution is committed to the policy of social
engaged or hired and discharged the security guards. justice and the protection of the working class, it should not be
Petitioners argue that referral by the PSI to PLDT for further interview and supposed that every labor dispute will be automatically decided in
evaluation falls under the context of “selection and engagement” thereby favor of labor. The partiality for labor has not in any way diminished
making them employees of PLDT. However, as aptly put by the NLRC, the our belief that justice is in every case for the deserving, to be
interviews and evaluation were conducted by PLDT to ensure that the dispensed in the light of the established facts and the applicable law and
standards it set are met by the security guards. In fact, PLDT rarely failed to doctrine.
accept security guards referred to by PSI but on account of height deficiency.
We are thus convinced that the employer-employee relationship is deemed
perfected even before the posting of the complainants with the PLDT, as DISPOSITION:
assignment only comes after employment
WHEREFORE, petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of our Resolution
dated 16 March 2005 is hereby DENIED with FINALITY no compelling
Moreover, PSI is a legitimate job contractor pursuant to Section 8, Rule VII,
Book II of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. reason having been adduced by petitioners to warrant the reversal thereof.
Accordingly, the Decision dated 31 January 2003 and the Resolution dated
Second, it is PSI that determined and paid the petitioners’ wages, 06 August 2003 of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED. Costs
salaries, and compensation. against petitioners.
Third and Fourth, the “delinquency reports” by PLDT to the security

guards do not place them under the direct control and supervision of
PLDT.

Abella vs. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abella vs. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Abella vs. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abella vs.

7. According to the Court of Appeals, evidence demonstrates that it is

RATIO: In Citytrust Banking Corporation v. NLRC, we held as valid and controlling

Third and Fourth, the “delinquency reports” by PLDT to the security

You might also like