File photo of PLDT鈥檚 office.
The Supreme Court has affirmed the Court of Appeal鈥檚 (CA) ruling in 2018 that nullified a labor department order for the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. (PLDT) to regularize more than 7,000 workers of its service contractors.
However, the high court affirmed the ruling which found that workers involved in the installation, repair and maintenance services of PLDT lines need to be regularized as they perform tasks necessary and directly related to the company鈥檚 business.
In a 38-page decision promulgated on Feb. 14, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by the Manggagawa sa Komunikasyon ng Pilipinas (MKP), PLDT, and former Labor Secretary Silvestre Bello III challenging the rulings of the appellate court.
READ:
Due to a dispute that arose from the negotiation of the collective bargaining agreement between MKP (the exclusive bargaining agent of PLDT鈥檚 rank-and-file employees) and the company, the two parties in 2016 sought the intervention of the Department of Labor and Employment (Dole) through a 鈥淪pecial Assessment and Visit of Establishment.鈥�
The assessment team from Dole interviewed a total of 1,104 PLDT employees and contracted workers, as well as 37 contractors鈥� representatives from several offices of PLDT in the National Capital Region (NCR), focusing on the company鈥檚 contracting activities and practices.
READ: DOLE appeals CA ruling vs PLDT regularization order
In its report, the team said it found that PLDT and its contractors violated Dole Department Order No. 18-A, Series of 2011, saying that they were engaged in labor-only contracting.
Dole-NCR order
Based on interviews with the contracted workers, the Dole team said PLDT exercised control and supervision over them as most workers said organic PLDT employees supervised them, some workers of contractors performed tasks also performed by PLDT employees, and that PLDT had the authority to recommend replacement or termination of employment of contractors鈥� workers.
In July 2017, the Dole director for NCR ordered the company to regularize and include in its payroll, the workers of the declared labor-only contractors.
In January 2018, Bello adopted the regional director鈥檚 ruling, ordering that 7,416 workers of PLDT鈥檚 contractors declared as labor-only contractors be classified as regular employees of the company.
Bello said the notarized statements of contractor鈥檚 officers, the service agreements, and other documents that PLDT offered 鈥渨ere self-serving.鈥�
In April of that same year, the labor chief reduced the total monetary liability of PLDT and the contractors from P66 million to P52 million and also decreased the number of employees to be regularized to 7,344.
Core activities
The company sought relief from the CA, which reversed Bello鈥檚 order to regularize several groups of workers including those performing janitorial, maintenance, security, and messenger services; medical services providers; individuals who render 鈥減rofessional services鈥�; contractual workers engaged in information technology-based services; and employees engaged in sales who are paid on a commission basis.
In their petitions before the high tribunal, the MKP claimed that the CA erred in holding that specific groups of contracted workers that perform jobs not directly related to the core activities of PLDT such as janitors and security guards could not be regularized by the company.
PLDT, for its part, said the CA was wrong to uphold the regularization of the contractors鈥� workers performing installation, repair, and maintenance services, saying that the court failed to consider the possibility that the workers were engaged as project or seasonal employees鈥攂oth valid employment arrangements.
Not illegal
Meanwhile, Bello challenged the CA ruling, saying that there was nothing 鈥渓egally objectionable鈥� when he ruled that his decision could apply to 7,344 employees even if the number of workers interviewed was not more than 1,000.
鈥淎ccording to Sec. Bello, in case of an award arising from a company鈥檚 violation of labor legislations, the entire roster of employees should benefit from the award,鈥� the Supreme Court said.
In its ruling, the high court clarified that labor contracting was not illegal.
鈥淎n employer is not necessarily engaged in labor-only contracting whenever it farms out specific jobs, works, or services. We must distinguish between legitimate labor contracting and labor-only contracting,鈥� it said.
It sustained the CA鈥檚 finding with regard to the regularization of the linemen, saying that there was no merit in PLDT鈥檚 claim that those involved in installation, repair, and maintenance services of PLDT lines may be considered as project or seasonal workers.
Instead, the Supreme Court sustained the CA ruling which found that these specific workers need to be regularized because they perform tasks that are necessary and desirable, and directly related to the business of PLDT.
Remanded
The high court remanded the case to the Office of the Regional Director of Dole NCR to review and determine the impact of the regularization of the workers performing installation, repair, and maintenance services.
The office was also ordered to review, compute, and properly determine the monetary award on the labor standards violation, to which petitioner PLDT Inc. and the concerned contractors are solidarily liable.
For Bello鈥檚 case, the Supreme Court upheld the CA鈥檚 finding that he committed grave abuse of discretion because his order to regularize more than 7,000 workers was based on interviews of the workers which were 鈥渕ere allegations that are devoid of any probative value.鈥�
鈥淭he Court expresses apprehension to [Dole鈥檚] approach considering the result of the interviews of less than 1,000 employees were used as basis to regularize 6,000 other employees,鈥� it said.
Anecdotal evidence, according to the high tribunal, was 鈥渕alleable鈥� and 鈥渕ay be tailored to suit any narrative or conclusion.鈥�