ordered to immediately reinstate complainant Pedro Garado to his former position as key operator with three (3) years backwages, without qualification or reduction whatsoever . . . . Except as herein above MODIFIED, the appealed decision is hereby Affirmed.Hence the present petition. Fuji Xerox argues that Skillpower, Inc. is an independent contractor and that Garado is its employee for the following reasons:(1) Garado was recruited by Skillpower, Inc.;(2) The work done by Garado was not necessary to the conduct of the business of Fuji Xerox;(3) Garado's salaries and benefits were paid directly by Skillpower, Inc.;(4) Garado worked under the control of Skillpower, Inc.; and(5) Skillpower, Inc. is a highly-capitalized business venture.The contentions are without merit.Fuji Xerox contends that Garado was actually recruited by Skillpower, Inc. as part of its personnel pool and later merely assigned to it (petitioner) . It is undisputed, however, that since 1980,1when Garado was first assigned to work at Fuji Xerox, he had never been assigned to any other company so much so that by 1984, he was already a member of the union which petitioned the company for his regularization.2From 1980 to 1984 he worked exclusively for petitioner. Indeed, he was recruited by Skillpower, Inc. solely for assignment to Fuji Xerox to work in the latter's Xerox Copier Project.3Petitioners claim that Skillpower, Inc. has other clients to whom it provided "temporary" services. That, however, is irrelevant. What is important is that once employed, Garado was never assigned to any other client of Skillpower, Inc. In fact, although under the agreement Skillpower, Inc. was supposed to provide only "temporary" services, Skillpower, Inc. actually supplied Fuji Xerox the labor whichthe latter needed for its Xerox Copier Project for seven (7) years, from 1977 to 1984.On January 1, 1983, private respondent signed a contract entitled "Appointment as Contract Worker," in which it was stated that private respondent's status was that of a contract worker for a definite period from January 1, 1983 to June 30, 1983. As such, private respondent's employment was considered temporary, to terminate automatically six (6) months afterwards, without necessity of any notice and without entitling private respondent to separation or termination pay. Private respondent was made to understand that he was an employee of Skillpower, Inc., and not of the client to which he was assigned. Therefore, the termination of the contract or any renewal or extension thereof did not entitle him to become an employee of the client and the latter was not under any obligation to appoint him as such, "notwithstanding the total duration of the contract or any extension or renewal thereof."This is nothing but a crude attempt to circumvent the law and undermine the security of tenure of private respondent by employing workers under six-month contracts which are later extended indefinitely through renewals. As this Court held in thePhilippine Bank of Communications v.NLRC:4It is not difficult to see that to uphold the contractual
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 75 pages?
loisa dela cruz
Nature, Security guard, Labor Arbiter, MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY