(b) if the contractual agreement falls within the prohibitions of Section 6 (Prohibitions) of this Agreement. (Underlined and italicized in original.) In addition, this research shows only a simple and informative discussion on the contracting of pure work and the conclusion and recommendation of the group on the last part according to the available resources. On the basis of the facts, there is above all a pure employment contract. Employees use W`s equipment, which indicates a lack of investment in tools on the part of Q Manpower, and the maintenance task of the production plant is directly related to W`s manufacturing activity. The contractor bears the burden of proof that he is participating in a legitimate/admissible employment contract, since the law itself is lacking assuming that he is a pure contractor, unless proven otherwise. Authorized procurement or subcontracting has been distinguished from pure employment contracts in such a way that the authorized award or subcontracting refers to an agreement by which a procuring entity agrees to entrust or manage to a contractor or subcontractor the performance or performance of a particular work, contract or service within a specified or predetermined period of time; whether or not it is such a work. The work or services must be performed or provided inside or outside the principal`s premises, whereas the pure employment contract refers to an agreement in which the contractor or subcontractor merely recruits, provides or places workers to perform work, work or service for a principal. (Allied Banking Corporation v. Calumpag, G.R. No. 219435, January 17, 2018) Here, this court is more inclined to uphold the findings of the LA and NLRC in this case. As those managing authorities have succinctly stated, not only the applicant but also ICSI had satisfactorily demonstrated that ICSI was really a legitimate contractor and not just a leaflet, and therefore that the employer-employee relationship between ICSI and the defendants is maintained. First of all, ICSI received the DOLE No.
RCN-8-0507-236. This may not be conclusive evidence of the applicant`s status as a contractor, but the fact of his registration has prevented the legal presumption that he is simply a pure contractor. [29] Second, ICSI has considerable capital. According to its articles of association, ICSI has an authorized share capital of 4 million pesos, while according to a report of the independent auditor, it has a gross income of 14,192,040 pesos and total assets of 30,820,419.34 pesos for the year ending 31 December 2008. [30] While it is not clear whether they invest in the form of tools, equipment, machinery, etc., this would not change the fact that they have significant capital to be considered a legitimate entrepreneur. As this Court held in Neri, et al.c. NLRC, et al.[31], the law does not even require significant capital and investment in the form of tools, equipment, machinery, etc., and this results from the use of the conjunction “or”. If it is different, then the conjunction “and” should have been used.
[32] Third, in addition to the petitioner, ICSI also has other customers on List A during the period during which its contract with the former existed,[33] indicating that it is carrying on an independent and independent business. Fourth, ICSI also has control over the performance of its employees` work. It was the CISI officer(s) who directly supervised the respondents. Specifically, it was the IcSI Core Controller who gave respondents their work schedule, while his OIC was the one who monitored their attendance. In this context, the following observations from the LA and the NLRC are quite revealing: Conversely, D.O. No. 174-17 Illegal and prohibited employment contracts as an agreement in which: If a person, partnership, association or entity that is not an employer enters into contracts with an independent contractor for the performance of work, tasks, employment or projects, the former may be held liable as an indirect employer if the provisions relating to pure employment contracts are complied with. (Article 107 of the Labour Code) “In determining whether a contractor is engaged in a purely work order or an eligible contract of employment, “all the facts and circumstances surrounding the matter are taken into account.” (Petron Corporation v. Caberte, G.R. No. 182255, p. 15.
June 2015) The fact that the petitioners worked at Sunpower`s premises does not in itself nullify Jobcrest`s control over the means, method and outcome of the petitioners` work.95 The award of the contract is permitted “whether such works, works or services are carried out or completed inside or outside the customer`s premises”96, as long as the elements of a pure entrepreneur are not present. .