ISSUE:

WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONERS ARE SUBJECT TO

REGULARIZATION?

THE PETITIONERS ARE NOT SUBJECTED

TO REGULARIZTION.
Regularization stems from the grounds of the existence of
employer-employee relationship. In legitimate job contracting no
employer-employee relationship exist between the contractual
parties of the job contractor and the principal. The principal is
considered only as an indirect-employer. The joint and several
obligations by the principal and legitimate job contractor is only
for a limited purpose, that is to ensure that the employees are
paid with wages. According to the case of Philippine Global
Communications Inc., vs De Vera employer-employee
relationship can be determined using the four-fold test which
states if the employer can exercise the following acts employeremployee relationship maybe present:
a) Selection and engagement of the employee;
b) Payment of wages or salaries;
c) Exercise of the power of dismissal;
d) Exercise of the power of control the employees conduct;
These tests, however, are not an exact determination of such
relationship as it entertains exceptions.
In the case of Gallego vs. Bayer Philippines the control
test is the controlling test. It addresses the issue of whether the
employee controls or has reserve the right to control the
employee not only as to the result of the work but also as to the
means and methods by which the work is accomplished.
In the case at bar, JP Manpower is a legitimate job contactor
this is evidence by the fact that of JP has its own supervisor. The
only thing that SM Inc. intervenes with the employees of JP is on

ensuring that they will be on time on its work in order to sacrifice

the operation of the Principal. The power of control still lies in JP
Manpower.
The petitioners in this case also is also part of a work pool
which refers to a group workers which the employer deploys or
assigns to its various projects. Which means that after the
expiration of the term the petitioners can be assign to other
principals to perform various task. It would be unjust for the
employees of the to ask for regularization for the reason that they
have worked for such principal and have been repeatedly reassign
by the legitimate job-contractor to such principal. Wherein in
reality the legitimate job-contractor could have assign them to
other projects it just so happens that they were reassigned to
such job. It should be clear that the employer of the petitioners is
JP manpower not SM Inc.
Also it would be unjust to ask for regularization because
there was a complete disregard of the qualifications regarding the
regularization of an employee. Companies have strict
qualifications for the promotion of a non-regular employee to a
regular employee. It would be illogical for SM to regularized the
petitioners just for providing a service to them and not having to
contend with the stringent qualification of regularization.
The contract entered into by the parties between JP
manpower and SM Inc. is one of a fixed term employment and
also of a nature of a project employment. It is a fixed term
contract in a sense that the termination of the contract is already
predetermined at the engagement of the employment, it is also a
project employment in a sense that after the termination of the
contract the employer can assign the employees to other
principal to conduct a specific task. At the termination of the
employment the employee may either be reassign to his previous
post of be assign somewhere else. If the principal refuses to
renew the employment contract the employer cannot be
compelled to regularize the employee as it is a valid exercise of

management prerogative.
According to the case of Peckson
vs. Robinsons Incorporated Under the doctrine of
management prerogative, every employer has the inherent right
to regulate, according to his own discretion and judgment, all
aspects of employment, including hiring, work assignments,
working methods, the time, place and manner of work, work
supervision, transfer of employees, lay-off of workers, and
discipline, dismissal, and recall of employees. The only limitations
to the exercise of this prerogative are those imposed by labor
laws and the principles of equity and substantial justice . SM is
within the right in the exercise of its prerogative not to renew the
contracts of the petitioner. In this case it should be stressed again
that the employer is JP manpower not SM Inc. the responsibilities
of the latter only pertains to wages and to ensure the presence of
the petitioners during the allotted time of working.