THE COURT OF APPEALS (CA) rejected an illegal dismissal charge filed by manpower agency workers against a firearms manufacturer and their agency, upholding earlier rulings by a labor arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). According to the ruling issued by the third division on Nov. 1, ”Findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only great respect but even finality.”
It added that determinations of fact are beyond the scope of a Rule 65 certiorari petition.
“Where a petition fails to fully satisfy, prima facie, the requirements of the limited, exceptional, extraordinary remedy of a special civil action for certiorari, a resolution for its dismissal should be issued outright,” it said.
The tribunal found that NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion, contrary to the petitioners’ claim, finding no evidence of arbitrariness, caprice, or whim on the part of the NLRC.
The case stems from employees who filed an illegal dismissal complaint against the firearms company and the manpower services firm after they were dismissed in September 2023. They alleged the company colluded with the agency to deny them regular employment status and benefits.
The company argued that it entered into a service agreement with the agency for staff responsible for auxiliary tasks at its manufacturing facility.
It said there was no employer-employee relationship, identifying the manpower agency as their employer of records.
The agreement between company and the agency ended in September 2023, a month after, the firearms company received the illegal dismissal complaint.
The manpower agency said upon the expiration of an agreement, it informs employees of options such as redeployment, temporary layoff or resignation. The petitioners refused the options and filed a complaint instead with the NLRC.
The labor arbiter and the NLRC found the complaint without merit, adding the plaintiffs were not dismissed but placed on a floating status instead.
Under the Labor Code, “floating status” may be considered a form of temporary layoff as long as it does not exceed six months. The petitioners filed their complaint after a month of being put in floating status, well within the six-month window. — Chloe Mari A. Hufana