Regularization woes

Dear Atty. Angela,

I have been working as a senior technician that repairs satellites of a telecommunications company provider. I was hired in 2015 by an agency employee and I was deployed to the telco. For many years, I have been receiving directives from the regular employees of the telco and I wear the uniform that the company provides. Recently, the telco implemented redundancy and I was identified to be part of it. I believe my work is an essential role in the company and I must be regularized. Would it be a good idea for me to file an illegal dismissal case?

Ramil

Dear Ramil,

Yes, if you perform tasks that are directly related to the core functions of the company’s business and is receiving direct orders from the principal company, then you should fight for your right to be regularized by filing an illegal dismissal case against your agency employer and the company you are working for as there is a possible labor-only contracting arrangement here.

There are two instances when a contractor or subcontractor is deemed to be engaged in labor-only contracting. In the first instance, there are two indicators: (1) the contractor or subcontractor does not have substantial capitalization or it does not have investment in tools, equipment, machineries, supervision and work premises and (2) its employees are performing activities or jobs which are directly related and indispensable to the main business of the principal. In the second instance, the principal, not the contractor or subcontractor, exercises the power of control over the manner and method of the employees’ work.[1]

In the case of Manggagawa sa Komunikasyon ng Pilipinas v. PLDT[2], the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the employees engaged in installation, repair, and maintenance services of PLDT lines, are performing work directly related to PLDT’s telecommunication business. Under Article 295, what determines regular employment is the reasonable connection between work performed by the employee and the usual business or trade of the employer. It cannot be denied that without the work performed by these employees, PLDT would not be able to carry-on its business and deliver the services it promised its consumers.

Also, since the power of control rests not upon your agency employer but with the company, there is strong indication that there is an illegal contracting agreement between them. For a job contracting to be valid, the level of control should not interfere with the means and methods of accomplishing the assigned tasks, which is not the case here and as such, this is indicative of an employer-employee relationship between you and the company.

[1] Luces v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils. Inc.,

G.R. 213816 (2 December 2020).

[2] G.R. Nos. 244695, 244752 & 245294 (14 February 2024).

Atty. Angela Antonio