Welder won for illegal dismissal at NLRC-NCR Arbitration Branch

Posted February 04,2019 18:25:10

         In a Decision on December 2012, an NCR Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the maintenance welder against the South Central Construction for illegal dismissal.

         The complainant, Jeremias P. Rante, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with claim for payment of separation pay against the company.

       The complainant commenced his employment with the company on March 20, 2002 as a maintenance welder. Complainant was a welder in charge of maintaining the proper order of pipelines, hot and cold sprinkler system of the building, repair and fabricate steel railings from basement to 12thfloor, assisting elevator technician for welding works of the elevators, aside from his work at the Manila Prince Hotel.

        After 10 years of service, complainant was informed that he could get his separation pay, 13thmonth pay and the last salary for the second week of the month for he was already terminated. The company however contends that complainant is an independent contractor.

        “After a careful perusal of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Arbitration Branch is convinced that the complainant was illegally dismissed by the respondents from his employment,” the Labor Arbiter ruled.

        “It should be noted that in illegal dismissal cases, it is the respondent which should show proof that the dismissal was based on just or authorized causes and only after observance of due process,” he said.

        “Article 106 of the Labor Code provides that there is “labor only contracting where the person supplying workers to an employer does not have substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment, machineries, work premises, among others, and the workers recruited and placed by such person are performing activities which are directly related to the principal business of such employer. In such cases, the person or intermediary shall be considered merely as an agent of the employer who shall be responsible to the workers in the same manner and extent as if the latter were directly employed by him,” he added.

        The Labor Arbiter ruled that respondent company did not submit any documents to show that respondent is an independent contractor as envisioned under Article 106 of the Labor Code, as amended; and hence, the respondent company will be deemed as a labor-only contractor and an agent of the Manila Prince Hotel where they shall be held solidarily liable as complainant’s employer.

         The Labor Arbiter has exclusive jurisdiction over illegal dismissal, money claims and other claims arising from employer-employee relationship.

          If no appeal is filed, the decision or order of the Labor Arbiter becomes final and executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt thereof.


Research, Information and Publications Division

National Labor Relations Commission