20 - Valeroso V Skycable Corporation - Atanacio
20 - Valeroso V Skycable Corporation - Atanacio
20 - Valeroso V Skycable Corporation - Atanacio
Del Castillo, J.
FACTS:
Petitioners Valeroso and Legatona alleged that they started working on Nov 1, 1998 and July 13, 1999,
respectively, as account executives tasked to solicit cable subscriptions for Skycable Corporation.
From the years 2001-2006, their payslips showed that they received commissions ranging from Php 15k to
Php 530k each upon reaching a specific quota every month with an allowance up to Php 7k.
From being direct hires, they were transferred to Skill Plus Manpower Services without any agreement. In
2009, they were informed that their commissions would be reduced due to the introduction of prepaid cards
sold to cable subscribers resulting in lower monthly cable subscriptions.
They filed a labor case with the NLRC after which they were dropped from the roster of account executives
which they alleged constituted unfair labor practice. They also claimed that they did not receive 13 th month
pay and underpayment as well.
Skycable: claimed that it did not terminate the services for there was never an E-E relationship to begin with
o It averred that it engaged petitioners as independent contractors under a Sales Agency Agreement.
In 2007, due to streamlining its operations, engaged the services of an independent contractor
(Armada Resources) under a Sales Agency Agreement.
o As a result, petitioners’ contracts were terminated but they were transferred as employees of
Armada. By entering into a Sales Agency Agreement and engaging the Armada as an independent
contractor, it engaged in legitimate contracting without any E-E relationship.
Petitioners: they were employees of Armada – they were directly hired, paid, and dismissed by Skycable
o Officers of respondent supervise their area of work, monitor them daily, inform them of meetings
and penalize them for non-attendance, monitor their quota
o Their supervisors delegate to them the authority to investigate unlawful cable connections
o It gives trophies to award them for their outstanding performance
LA: dismissed complaint – petitioners failed to establish that an E-E relationship existed
NLRC: reversed LA
o Petitioners are regular employees; job as account executives for more than a year even if not
continuous and considering the importance of their tasks to the business
o Pay slips and certifications presented by petitioners constitute substantial evidence of an E-E
relationship
o Upon the termination of the Sales Agency Agreement with Armada in 2009, petitioners were
considered dismissed without just cause and due process
CA: reversed NLRC – sustained LA’s finding that there was no evidence to substantiate the bare allegation
of E-E relationship hence this appeal
ISSUE/S: