File photo of PLDT’s office.
The Supreme Court has affirmed the Court of Appeal’s (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’s 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: CA nullifies order for PLDT to regularize at least 7000 workers
Due to a dispute that arose from the negotiation of the collective bargaining agreement between MKP (the exclusive bargaining agent of PLDT’s 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 “Special Assessment and Visit of Establishment.”
The assessment team from Dole interviewed a total of 1,104 PLDT employees and contracted workers, as well as 37 contractors’ representatives from several offices of PLDT in the National Capital Region (NCR), focusing on the company’s 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’ 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’s ruling, ordering that 7,416 workers of PLDT’s contractors declared as labor-only contractors be classified as regular employees of the company.
Bello said the notarized statements of contractor’s officers, the service agreements, and other documents that PLDT offered “were self-serving.”
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’s order to regularize several groups of workers including those performing janitorial, maintenance, security, and messenger services; medical services providers; individuals who render “professional services”; 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’ 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—both valid employment arrangements.
Not illegal
Meanwhile, Bello challenged the CA ruling, saying that there was nothing “legally objectionable” 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.
“According to Sec. Bello, in case of an award arising from a company’s violation of labor legislations, the entire roster of employees should benefit from the award,” the Supreme Court said.
In its ruling, the high court clarified that labor contracting was not illegal.
“An 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,” it said.
It sustained the CA’s finding with regard to the regularization of the linemen, saying that there was no merit in PLDT’s 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’s case, the Supreme Court upheld the CA’s 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 “mere allegations that are devoid of any probative value.”
“The Court expresses apprehension to [Dole’s] approach considering the result of the interviews of less than 1,000 employees were used as basis to regularize 6,000 other employees,” it said.
Anecdotal evidence, according to the high tribunal, was “malleable” and “may be tailored to suit any narrative or conclusion.”