You are on page 1of 2

DOLE PHILIPPINES vs.

ESTEVA
G.R. No. 161115
November 30, 2006
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Facts:
Petitioner is a corporation engaged principally in the production and processing
of pineapple for the export market. Respondents are members of the Cannery MultiPurposeCooperative (CAMPCO). CAMPCO was organized in accordance with Republic
Act No. 6938,otherwise known as the Cooperative Code of the Philippines. Pursuant to
the Service Contract,CAMPCO members rendered services to petitioner. The number
of CAMPCO members that report for work and the type of service they performed
depended on the needs of petitioner at any giventime. Although the Service Contract
specifically stated that it shall only be for a period of sixmonths,i.e., from 1 July to
31 December 1993, the parties had apparently extended or renewed thesame for the
succeeding years without executing another written contract. It was under
thesecircumstances that respondents came to work for petitioner. DOLE organized a
Task Force that conducted an investigation into the alleged labor-only contracting
activities of the cooperatives.The Task Force identified six cooperatives that were
engaged in labor-only contracting, one of which was CAMPCO. In this case,
respondents alleged that they started working for petitioner at various times in the
years 1993 and 1994, by virtue of the Service Contract executed betweenCAMPCO and
petitioner. All of the respondents had already rendered more than one year of
serviceto petitioner. While some of the respondents were still working for
petitioner, others were put onstay home status on varying dates in the years 1994,
1995, and 1996 and were no longerfurnished with work thereafter. Together,
respondents filed a Complaint with the NLRC for illegaldismissal, regularization, wage
differentials, damages and attorneys fees. Petitioner denied that respondents were
its employees. It explained that it found the need to engage external services
toaugment its regular workforce, which was affected by peaks in operation, work
backlogs,absenteeism, and excessive leaves. It used to engage the services of
individual workers for definiteperiods specified in their employment contracts and
never exceeding one year. However, such anarrangement became the subject of a
labor case, in which petitioner was accused of preventing theregularization of such
workers.
Issue/s:
1. Whether or not the court of appeals was correct when it made its own
factual findingsand disregarded the factual findings of the labor arbiter and the
NLRC.2. Whether or not CAMPCO was a mere labor-only contractor.
Decision:

The Court in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction may look into the records of
the case andre-examine the questioned findings. As a corollary, this Court is clothed
with ample authority toreview matters, even if they are not assigned as errors in their
appeal, if it finds that theirconsideration is necessary to arrive at a just decision of
the case. The same principles are nownecessarily adhered to and are applied by the
Court of Appeals in its expanded jurisdiction overlabor cases elevated through a
petition for certiorari; thus, we see no error on its part when it made a new a factual
determination of the matters and on that basis reversed the ruling of the NLRC.On the
second issue, CAMPCO was a mere labor-only contractor.
This Court finds that CAMPCO was a labor-only contractor and, thus, petitioner
is the real employer of the respondents, with CAMPCO acting only as the agent or
intermediary of petitioner. Due to the nature of their work and length of their
service, respondents should be considered as regular employees of petitioner.
Petitioner constructively dismissed a number of the respondents by placing them on
"stay home status" for over six months, and was therefore guilty of illegal dismissal.
Petitioner must accord respondents the status of regular employees, and reinstate the
respondents who it constructively and illegally dismissed, to their previous positions,
without loss of seniority rights and other benefits, and pay these respondents
backwages from the date of filing of the Complaint with the NLRC on 19 December
1996 up to actual reinstatement.

You might also like