GR 123318; (August, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 123318 August 20, 1998
CITYTRUST Banking Corporation, petitioner, vs. National Labor Relations Commission, Ramon Raagas, Charlito Lagda and Renato Memita, respondents.
FACTS
Ramon Raagas, Charlito Lagda, and Renato Memita filed a case for illegal dismissal against CITYTRUST Banking Corporation. They claimed they were engaged as “bank representatives” in 1989, never regularized, and were illegally terminated. CITYTRUST contested, asserting that the complainants were security guards employed by security agencies, first by Armored Deliveries and Manpower Services (ADAMS) and later by Enriquez Security Services, Inc. (ESSI). These agencies assigned the complainants to CITYTRUST under Armored Car Service Agreements to provide security and armored car services. On September 9, 1992, ESSI served the complainants with “Relief Orders” directing them to report for reassignment. For failing to comply, ESSI dismissed them for abandonment. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the complainants, declaring them employees of CITYTRUST and ordering reinstatement with back wages. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed this decision on appeal.
ISSUE
Whether an employer-employee relationship existed between CITYTRUST Banking Corporation and the complainants (Raagas, Lagda, and Memita), thereby making CITYTRUST liable for illegal dismissal.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court ruled that no employer-employee relationship existed between CITYTRUST and the complainants. The Court found that the complainants were at all times employees of the security agencies (ADAMS and ESSI) that assigned them to CITYTRUST. The functions they performed—such as manning armored vehicles, withdrawing large sums from the Central Bank, and being identified as authorized representatives—were inherent and expected duties under the armored car service contracts between the agencies and the bank. The contracts explicitly stipulated that assigned personnel remained employees of the carrier (agency) and not of the bank. The recognized factors for determining employment relationship were absent: the agencies hired and paid the complainants; the agencies held the power of dismissal; and CITYTRUST did not exercise control over the means and methods of their work, being interested only in the results. The security agencies were legitimate independent contractors, not engaged in labor-only contracting. The NLRC’s reference to a prior DOLE case involving different security guards from another agency was inapplicable. Consequently, the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court nullified the NLRC Decision and dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal against CITYTRUST.