G.R. No. 219435 - ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION, NOW MERGED WITH PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, VS. REYNOLD CALUMPANG.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, Infante informed respondent that his services would no longer be required by the Branch. [15] Petitioner denied the existence of any employer-employee relationship between itself and respondent. It asserted that respondent was clearly an employee of RCI by virtue of the Service Agreement which clearly indicated in Article XI thereof that there would be no employer-employee relationship between RCI's employees and the Bank. [16] It further averred that RCI is a qualified job contractor because of its capitalization and the fact that it exercised control and supervision over its employees deployed at the branches of the petitioner in accordance with Rule VIII-A, Sec. 4, pars. (d) and (e) of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. [17] Furthermore, petitioner argued that it was merely exercising its prerogative under the Service Agreement to seek the replacement or relief of any personnel assigned by RCI when the Branch Head informed respondent that his services would no longer be required at the Branch. According to petitioner, this decision to replace respondent was not equivalent to termination of employment, especially since it was neither whimsical nor arbitrary. [18] Thus, petitioner concludes that, in the absence of any employer­-employee relationship between the parties, respondent had no cause of action against petitioner for illegal dismissal, damages and other claims. [19] Ruling of the Labor Arbiter In its Decision [20] dated March 28, 2006, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of respondent, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE , foregoing considered, complainant is hereby declared to be an employee of respondent Allied Banking Corporation. It is declared further that complainant has been illegally dismissed. Respondent Allied Banking Corporation is hereby ordered to reinstate complainant to his former position without loss of seniority rights or privileges, with full backwages from the time his salary was withheld until his actual reinstatement, which is tentatively computed in the amount of P37,800.00. Should reinstatement be unfeasible for valid reasons, respondent is ordered to pay the complainant separation pay of one month salary per year of service, a fraction of six months is considered as one year which is computed in the amount of P46,200. SO ORDERED.