G.R. No.

182018

October 10, 2012

NORKIS TRADING CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. JOAQUIN BUENA VISTA, ENR! "ABROA, RICARDO CAPE, BERTU#DO TU#OD, $I##! DONDO! ANO %&' G#EN VI##ARASA, Respondents. RE!ES, J.: FACTS: The petition stems from an amended complaint for illegal suspension, illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice and other monetary claims filed with NLRC by herein respondents against Norkis Trading and Panaghiusa sa auswagan !ulti"Purpose Cooperative #P$%$ $&. The respondents were hired by Norkis Trading, a domestic corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of 'amaha motorcycles and multi"purpose vehicles, on separate dates and for various positions, such as operator, welder, and assistant operator. $lthough they worked for Norkis Trading as skilled workers, they were not treated as regular employees by Norkis Trading. (nstead, they were regarded as members of P$%$ $, a cooperative and which was deemed an independent contractor that merely deployed the respondents to render services for Norkis Trading.) The respondents believed that they were regular employees of Norkis Trading, citing in their Position Paper circumstances that allegedly characteri*ed their employment with the company. Respondents filed a complaint with +,L- against Norkis Trading and P$%$ $ for labor"only contracting and non"payment of minimum wage and overtime pay. The filing of the complaint allegedly led to the suspension of the respondents. membership with P$%$ $. They were later served by P$%$ $ with memoranda charging them with a violation of the rule against commission of acts in/urious or pre/udicial to the interest or welfare of the cooperative and that the filing of a case against Norkis Trading had greatly pre/udiced the interest and welfare of the cooperative. (n their answer, the respondents e0plained that they merely wanted to be recogni*ed as regular employees of Norkis Trading. ,n $ugust 12, 1333, the respondents received another set of memoranda from P$%$ $, charging them with the violations of the cooperative.s rules and regulations. ,n $ugust 42, 1333, P$%$ $ informed the respondents of the cooperative.s decision to suspend them for fifteen #15& working days, to be effective from %eptember 1 to 41, 1333, for violation of P$%$ $ rules. The suspension prompted the respondents to file with the NLRC the complaint for illegal suspension against Norkis Trading and P$%$ $.

The 15"day suspension was e0tended for another period of 15 days, from %eptember 44, 1333 to ,ctober 14, 1333. ,n ,ctober 16, 1333, the respondents were to report back to work but during the hearing in their NLRC case, they were informed by P$%$ $ that they would be transferred to Norkis Tradings. sister company, Porta Coeli (ndustrial Corporation #Porta Coeli&, as washers of !ulticab vehicles. The respondents opposed the transfer as it would allegedly result in a change of employers, from Norkis Trading to Porta Coeli. The respondents also believed that the transfer would result in a demotion since from being skilled workers they would be reduced to being utility workers. These circumstances made the respondents amend their complaint for illegal suspension, to include the charges of unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal, damages and attorney.s fees. 7or their part, both Norkis Trading and P$%$ $ claimed that the respondents were not employees of Norkis Trading. They insisted that the respondents were members of P$%$ $, which served as an independent contractor that merely supplied services to Norkis (nternational Co., (nc. #Norkis (nternational& pursuant to a /ob contract12 which P$%$ $ and Norkis (nternational e0ecuted on 8anuary 1), 1333 for 141,599 pieces of 7:;7"%eries Reinforcement Production. $fter P$%$ $ received reports from its coordinator at Norkis (nternational of the respondents. low efficiency and violation of the cooperative.s rules, and after giving said respondents the chance to present their side, a penalty of suspension was imposed upon them by the cooperative. The illegal suspension being complained of was then not linked to the respondents. employment, but to their membership with P$%$ $. Norkis Trading stressed that the respondents were deployed by P$%$ $ to Norkis (nternational, a company that is entirely separate and distinct from Norkis Trading. The L$ dismissed the complaint. (t did not found the suspension illegal. (n the meantime, +,LRegional +irector ruled that P$%$ $ was engaged in labor"only contracting. The NLRC affirmed the decision of the L$. ,n appeal, the C$ re/ected the decision of the NLRC. (t pointed out that P$%$ $ is included in the payroll of Norkis Trading and not Norkis (nternational. (t further held that respondents were illegally dismissed, taking into consideration the decision of the L$. ISSUE( <,N P$%$ $ is a mere labor"only contractor. E#D( The petitioner.s arguments against the respondents. claim that P$%$ $ is a labor"only contractor are already mooted by the finality of this Court.s Resolutions which stems from the C$.s and the +,L- %ecretary.s review of the +,L- Regional +irector.s ,rder. Regional +irector =alanag e0plained that P$%$ $ failed to prove during the conduct of a summary investigation that the cooperative had substantial capital or investment sufficient to enable it to perform the functions of an independent contractor. The respondents. claim that the machinery, e>uipment and supplies they used to perform their duties were owned by Norkis Trading, and not by P$%$ $, was undisputed. <hile P$%$ $ reflected in its %tatement of

7inancial Condition for the year 1332 property and e>uipment net of accumulated depreciation at P6)),4?6.94, there was no showing that the properties covered thereby were actually and directly used in the conduct of P$%$ $.s business. P$%$ $ likewise did not carry out an independent business from N,R (% TR$+(N;. <hile P$%$ $ was issued its Certificate of Registration on 8uly 1@, 1331, all it could show to prove that it carried out an independent business as a /ob contractor were the Pro/ect Contract dated 8anuary 4, 133@ with N,R (% TR$+(N;, and the Pro/ect Contract dated +ecember 1@, 133@ with N,R (% (NT-RN$T(,N$L. Aowever, as earlier discussed, the Pro/ect Contract dated +ecember 1@, 133@ with N,R (% (NT-RN$T(,N$L is nothing more than an afterthought by the petitioners to confuse its workers and defeat their rightful claims. Respondents performed activities directly related to the principal business of N,R (% TR$+(N;. They worked as welders and machine operators engaged in the production of steel crates which were sent to 8apan for use as containers of motorcycles that are then sent back to N,R (% TR$+(N;. Private respondentsB functions therefore are directly related and vital to N,R (% TR$+(N;.s business of manufacturing of 'amaha motorcycles.