G.R. No. 265610 , April 03, 2024
WALTER L. BORROMEO AND JIMMY N. PARCIA, PETITIONERS, VS. LAZADA E-SERVICES PHILIPPINES, INC., ALEX DORONOLLO, ALLAN ANCHETA, RICHARD DELANTAR, AND SAM REYES, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioners Walter L. Borromeo and Jimmy N. Parcia initially rendered service as pick-up riders for respondent Lazada E-Services Philippines, Inc. (Lazada) through manpower agencies (RGServe and Dynamic, respectively). Subsequently, on April 1, 2016, and July 16, 2017, they each signed an Independent Contractor Agreement with Lazada to provide logistics and delivery services using their own motor vehicles for a service fee. Their tasks included picking up products from merchants for delivery to Lazada’s warehouse based on route sheets provided by Lazada’s route dispatcher, and they were required to report to monitoring staff. On August 18 and 19, 2017, they were informed of their termination due to a reduction of personnel. They filed a complaint before the NLRC for illegal dismissal and various monetary claims, asserting they were regular employees of Lazada, that the manpower agencies were labor-only contractors, and that their dismissal was without cause and due process. Lazada moved to dismiss the complaint, contending that petitioners were independent contractors, not employees, as evidenced by their contracts, use of their own vehicles, possession of business permits and BIR/DTI registrations, and the explicit stipulation in their Agreements that no employer-employee relationship existed. Lazada claimed Borromeo’s contract expired and was not renewed, while Parcia’s contract was pre-terminated after he did not return to work following a proposed change in service.

ISSUE

Whether the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that no employer-employee relationship existed between petitioners and Lazada.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the Court of Appeals, the NLRC, and the Labor Arbiter, holding that no employer-employee relationship existed between the parties. The Court found that the petitioners were independent contractors. The Agreement they signed explicitly stated the absence of an employer-employee relationship. They used their own vehicles, were registered with the BIR and DTI, issued official receipts for their service fees, and no mandatory deductions (SSS, PhilHealth, Pag-Ibig) were made from their fees. The element of control was not satisfied; Lazada’s provision of route sheets and monitoring only pertained to the result (the pick-up and delivery of items), not to the means and methods of how petitioners performed their services. The petitioners’ claim that the initial manpower agencies were labor-only contractors could not be entertained as said agencies were not impleaded as indispensable parties. Consequently, their relationship with Lazada was governed by the Civil Code provisions on contracts, not labor laws, and the Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over the complaint. The dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was proper.