Nathaniel has been a salesman assigned by Newmark Enterprises (Newmark) for nearly two years at the Manila office of Nutrition City, Inc. (Nutrition City). He was deployed pursuant to a service agreement between Newmark and Nutrition City, the salient provisions of which were as follows:
a) the Contractor (Newmark) agrees to perform and provide the Client (Nutrition City), on a non-exclusive basis, such tasks or activities that are considered contractible under existing laws, as may be needed by the Client from time to time;
b) the Contractor shall employ the necessary personnel like helpers, salesmen, and drivers who are determined by the Contractor to be efficiently trained;
c) the Client may request replacement of the Contractor’s personnel if quality of the desired result is not achieved;
d) the Contractor’s personnel will comply with the Client’s policies, rules, and regulations; and
e) the Contractor’s two service vehicles and necessary equipment will be utilized in carrying out the provisions of this Agreement.
When Newmark fired Nathaniel, he filed an illegal dismissal case against the wealthier company, Nutrition City, Inc., alleging that he was a regular employee of the same. Is Nathaniel correct? (2.5%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
**Yes**, Nathaniel is correct in alleging that he is a regular employee of Nutrition City, Inc. Under Article 106 of the Labor Code and *Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. Agito*, an arrangement constitutes prohibited labor-only contracting when the
Unlock the full Labor Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
What is the legal consequence when a contractor is declared a prohibited labor-only contractor under Article 106?
When labor-only contracting exists, the principal is treated by law as the direct employer of the workers.
Which element is essential to establish a legitimate independent contracting arrangement under DO 174?
Legitimate contracting requires substantial capital or investment in tools, equipment, and work premises.
Under Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. Agito, what indicates that a principal exercises the right of control over deployed workers?
Subjecting deployed workers to the principal's company rules and regulations demonstrates control by the principal.
What is the statutory minimum paid-up capital required for a contractor to be registered under Department Order No. 174?
Choices available with full access.
Why is Nutrition City, Inc. considered the direct employer of Nathaniel despite his deployment by Newmark Enterprises?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Labor-Only Contracting
Under Article 106 of the Labor Code and Department Order No. 174, labor-only contracting refers to an arrangement where the contractor does not have substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment, or work premises, and merely supplies workers to the principal. Furthermore, if the principal exercises the right of control over the performance and manner of work of the contractor's employees, labor-only contracting is conclusively presumed. In such cases, the arrangement is prohibited by law, and the principal is statutorily treated as the direct employer of the supplied workers.
2. Right of Control
The right of control is the most crucial determinant of an employer-employee relationship. Where a service agreement permits the client-principal to enforce its own policies, rules, and regulations directly upon the contractor's deployed personnel, or allows the principal to demand replacement of workers based on performance quality, control is effectively exercised by the principal. Under settled labor jurisprudence, including Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. Agito, when a principal retains direct control over the manner and execution of work, the contractor functions as a mere manpower supplier.
3. Substantial Capital Requirement
To qualify as a legitimate independent contractor, an entity must possess substantial capital or investment in tools, equipment, machineries, or work premises directly related to the service rendered. Substantial capital refers to paid-up capital stock or net worth amounting to at least five million pesos under current labor regulations. The mere provision of minor assets, such as two service vehicles, does not satisfy the statutory requirement of substantial capital or investment, thereby classifying the contractor as a prohibited labor-only contractor.