G.R. No. 121490 - NAGKAKAISANG MANGGAGAWA SA SONY (NAMASO) AND ELVIRA O. ELPA, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (FIRST DIVISION), HON. COMMISSIONERS VICENTE VELOSO AND ALBERTO QUIMPO, SOLID CORPORATION, ELENA LIM, JAMES UY, DELMA M. OLAM, ASIA CENTRAL EMPLOYMENT SERVICES INC. AND JOSE P. BANE

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Labor Arbiter is hereby set aside and a new one entered declaring Aces Inc. to be a labor-only contractor and ordering respondent Solid Corporation to reinstate complainant to her former position without loss of seniority rights and privileges. Respondent Solid Corp. and Aces Inc. are ordered jointly and severally to pay complainant full backwages until reinstated. The NLRC ruled that notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner signed an agreement with ACES for a temporary assignment at SOLID, she was, for all intents and purposes, an employee of SOLID. It concluded that SOLID was the one which exercised the power of control, the most determinative indicator of an employer-employee relationship. It considered the following factors: (1) the petitioner was immediately turned over to SOLID; (2) SOLID dictated petitioners transfer from one department to another and required her to render overtime work; (4) the petitioner directly reported to SOLIDs supervisor; (5) all tools, machineries, and equipment used by the petitioner belonged to SOLID; and (6) the one who informed the petitioner when her last day of work would be was SOLIDs assistant personnel. Citing Art. 280 of the Labor Code, the NLRC held that the petitioner is presumed to have been a regular employee, since she rendered service which was usually necessary and desirable in the usual business of SOLID. The NLRC further declared that ACES was a labor-only contractor and not an independent contractor, since ACES failed to prove that it had substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment, and machineries. By operation of law, SOLID is deemed to be the employer of the petitioner. Both ACES and SOLID moved for the reconsideration of the NLRCs decision. ACES submitted its audited financial statement as of 31 December 1991, indicating its total assets amounting to P14,673,220.00 and its inventory of tools, equipment, and machineries. Said documents meant to dispute petitioners allegation that it had no substantial capital to be considered an independent contractor. On the other hand, SOLID particularly questioned the propriety of the appeal filed by NAMASO on behalf of the petitioner, who never qualified as a union member. In its Resolution [18] of 28 June 1995, the NLRC reconsidered its decision of 27 January 1995 and disposed as follows: WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing considerations, the Motions for Reconsideration filed by the respondents ACES INC. and SOLID CORPORATION are hereby granted and the decision of this Commission promulgated on January 27, 1995 is hereby set aside. LET THE ENTIRE RECORDS OF THIS CASE REMANDED [sic] TO THE ARBITRATION BRANCH OF ORIGIN FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. The remand of the case was ordered to settle the ambiguity of the documents annexed to the parties respective pleadings and to determine whether the appeal filed by NAMASO was valid. Hence, the instant petition, where the petitioner impleaded a