08.) Abella v.

PLDT said union who participated in a protest picket in front of the PLDT Office at
Petitioner/s: Zaldy Abella and the members of the PLDT Security Union the Ramon Cojuangco Building in Makati City.
Respondent/s: PLDT and People’s Security Inc. (PSI)
Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, NLRC Affirmed, CA also affirmed.
Doctrine: While the Constitution is committed to the policy of social justice
and the protection of the working class, it should not be supposed that every
labor dispute will be automatically decided in favor of labor. The partiality for Issue: WON an employee employer relationship exists between PLDT and
labor has not in any way diminished our belief that justice is in every case for Petitioners?
the deserving, to be dispensed in the light of the established facts and the
applicable law and doctrine. Held: NO.
We considered the following factors in considering the existence of an
Facts: employer-employee relationship: (1) the selection and engagement of the
employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power to dismiss; and (4) the
PSI entered into an agreement with the PLDT to provide the latter with such power to control the employees conduct.
number of qualified uniformed and properly armed security guards for the
purpose of guarding and protecting PLDTs installations and properties from On the first factor, applying PAL v. NLRC, the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and
theft, pilferage, intentional damage, trespass or other unlawful acts. the Court of Appeals rendered a consistent finding based on the evidence
adduced that it was the PSI, the security provider of the PLDT, which
Under the agreement, it was expressly provided that there shall be no selected, engaged or hired and discharged the security guards.
employer-employee relationship between the PLDT and the security guards,
which may be supplied to it by PSI, and that the latter shall have the entire We hasten to add on this score that the Labor Arbiter as well as the NLRC
charge, control and supervision over the work and services of the supplied and the Court of Appeals found that PSI is a legitimate job contractor pursuant
security guards. It was likewise stipulated therein that PSI shall also have the to Section 8, Rule VII, Book II of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor
exclusive authority to select, engage, and discharge its security guards, with Code. It is a registered corporation duly licensed by the Philippine National
full control over their wages, salaries or compensation. Police to engage in security business. It has substantial capital and
investment in the form of guns, ammunitions, communication equipments,
65 security guards supplied by respondent PSI filed a Complaint for vehicles, office equipments like computer, typewriters, photocopying
regularization against the PLDT with the Labor Arbiter. The Complaint alleged machines, etc., and above all, it is servicing clients other than PLDT like
that petitioner security guards have been employed by the company through PCIBank, Crown Triumph, and Philippine Cable, among others. Here, the
the years commencing from 1982 and that all of them served PLDT directly security guards which PSI had assigned to PLDT are already the formers
for more than 1 year. It was further alleged that PSI or other agencies supply employees prior to assignment and if the assigned guards to PLDT are
security to PLDT, which entity controls and supervises the complainants work rejected by PLDT for reasons germane to the security agreement, then the
through its Security Department. Petitioners likewise alleged that PSI acted as rejected or terminated guard may still be assigned to other clients of PSI
the middleman in the payment of the minimum pay to the security guards, but
no premium for work rendered beyond eight hours was paid to them nor were On the second factor, the Labor Arbiter as well as the NLRC and the Court of
they paid their 13th month pay. Appeals are all in agreement that it is PSI that determined and paid the
petitioners wages, salaries, and compensation. As elucidated by the Labor
After filing the complaint, the security guards formed the PLDT Company Arbiter, petitioners witness testified that his wages were collected and
Security Personnel Union with petitioner Zaldy Abella as union president. A withdrawn at the office of PSI and PLDT pays PSI for the security services on
month later, PLDT allegedly ordered PSI to terminate about 25 members of a lump-sum basis and that the wages of complainants are only a portion of
the total sum. The signature of the PLDT supervisor in the Daily Time
Records does not ipso facto make PLDT the employer of complainants
inasmuch as the Labor Arbiter had found that the record is replete with
evidence showing that some of the Daily Time Records do not bear the
signature of a PLDT supervisor yet no complaint was lodged for nonpayment
of the guards wages evidencing that the signature of the PLDTs supervisor is
not a condition precedent for the payment of wages of the guards.

Anent the third and fourth factors, petitioners capitalize on the delinquency
reports prepared by PLDT personnel against some of the security guards as
well as certificates of participation in civil disturbance course, certificates of
attendance in first aid training, certificate of completion in fire brigade training
seminar and certificate of completion on restricted land mobile radio
telephone operation to show that the petitioners are under the direct control
and supervision of PLDT and that the latter has, in fact, the power to dismiss
them.

The Labor Arbiter found from the evidence that the delinquency reports were
nothing but reminders of the infractions committed by the petitioners while on
duty which serve as basis for PLDT to recommend the termination of the
concerned security guard from PLDT. As already adverted to earlier,
termination of services from PLDT did not ipso facto mean dismissal from PSI
inasmuch as some of those pulled out from PLDT were merely detailed at the
other clients of PSI.

As regards the seminars, while said seminars were conducted at the premises
of PLDT, it also remains uncontroverted that complainants participation was
done with the approval and at the expense of PSI. To be sure, it is not
uncommon, specially for big aggressive corporations like PLDT, to align or
integrate their corporate visions and policies externally or with that of other
entities they deal with such as their suppliers, consultants, or contractors, for
that matter.