MANGGAGAWA SA KOMUNIKASYON NG PILIPINAS (MKP) v. PHILIPPINE LONG
DISTANCE TELEPHONE, INC. (PLDT)
G.R. No. 244695
PLDT, INC. v. HON. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SILVESTRE H.
BELLO III (SEC. BELLO); and MANGGAGAWA SA KOMUNIKASYON NG PILIPINAS
G.R. No. 244752
SEC. BELLO of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) v. PLDT, INC.
G.R. No. 245294
PRESENT:
GESMUNDO, C.J., Chairperson
HERNANDO,
ZALAMEDA,
ROSARIO,
MARQUEZ, JJ.
PROMULGATION DATE:
February 14, 2024
FACTS:
Petitioner PLDT is a corporation engaged in the telecommunications business.
For its operation, it engaged the services of several contractors and sub-contractors to
provide services in various areas or phases of its operations. Petitioner MKP, on the
other hand, was the exclusive bargaining agent of PLDT’s rank-and-file employees.
To settle the dispute that arose from the negotiation of the collective bargaining
agreement between PLDT and MKP, the intervention of the DOLE was sought, and the
,parties agreed to have a “Special Assessment and Visit of Establishment” (SAVE)
conducted in PLDT.
DOLE issued Administrative Order (AO) No. 648, constituting a DOLE
Assessment Team that will conduct SAVE to assess, validate and verify PLDT’s,
including its contractors/sub-contractors, compliance to Department Order (DO) No.
18-A, Series of 2011, on-the-job training and other training-in-employment practices,
hiring practices, working arrangements and compliance with general labor standards
and occupational safety and health standards.
On December 5, 2026, the DOLE Assessment Team presented its PLDT SAVE
Report establishing that PLDT and its contractors are engaged in labor-only contracting.
It was also reported that PLDT’s contractors violated general labor standards
provisions on overtime pay, holiday pay, service incentive leave, maternity leave,
paternity leave and 13th month pay. Some were found to have made unauthorized
deductions for uniform, safety shoes, cable handset, monitoring tablet and other tools.
Based on this finding, it was recommended that PLDT should regularize
contractual employees performing jobs that are directly related to their business. PLDT
was also declared solidarily liable with the contractors to pay the unpaid monetary
benefits of the contractors’ workers.
On January 6, 2017, PLDT filed a Manifestation and Motion to contest DOLE
Assessment Team’s findings. PLDT opined that it may be more appropriate to thresh
out these matters in an adversarial proceeding such as a regularization suit before the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) that is initiated by workers claiming
regularization.
On July 3, 2017, the Regional Director (RD) of the DOLE-National Capital Region
issued an Order stating that violations of the law and rules in labor-contracting under
Section 9, Rule VIII, Book Three of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code of
the Philippines, is considered a labor standards violation and thus, within the visitorial
and enforcement powers of the DOLE. Further, the legal consequence of a finding of
labor-only contracting is the regularization by the principal of the employees provided by
the labor-only contractor. The RD also ruled that PLDT failed to present evidence to
refute the findings that some of its contractors are engaged in labor-only contracting
despite having been afforded due process.
Based on these findings, the RD found PLDT and its contractors solidarily liable
to pay the unpaid monetary benefits of the contractors’ workers. The contractors found
to be engaged in labor-only contracting were ordered to cease and desist from further
, engaging in contracting activities; and the license of those with existing DO No. 18-A
registration were revoked. Finally, PLDT was ordered to regularize and include in its
payroll, the workers of the declared labor-only contractors.
On July 14, 2017, PLDT filed a Memorandum of Appeal before the Secretary of
Labor challenging the RD’s Order. On July 12, 2017, the RD issued a Supplemental
Order enumerating the list of workers of each contractor that were regularized. On
August 3, 2017 and September 28, 2017, MKP filed its Opposition to PLDT’s appeal
and Supplement to Opposition to Appeal.
On January 10, 2018, Sec. Bello issued a Resolution finding no merit in PLDT’s
appeal but partially granted some of the appeal of the contractors. On April 24, 2018,
Sec. Bello issued another Resolution acting on PLDT’s and MKP’s Motions for
Reconsideration. Sec. Bello reduced PLDT’s and the contractors’ total monetary liability
and the number of employees to be regularized.
PLDT filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). On July 31,
2018, the CA promulgated the assailed Decision affirming, albeit with substantial
modifications, the Resolutions of Sec. Bello.
The CA upheld the jurisdiction of the RD and Sec. Bello to determine the
existence of employer-employee relationship. It also agreed with Sec. Bello’s ruling to
prohibit PLDT from contracting out activities, services, jobs or functions that are usually
necessary and desirable in the usual course of its business.
The CA, however, reversed Sec. Bello’s ruling to regularize contractors
performing janitorial, maintenance, security, and messengerial services; medical
services provider of PLDT; individuals who render professional services; contractual
workers engaged in information technology-based services; and employees engaged in
sales who are paid on commission basis. Thus, individuals deployed by the contractors
who are performing installation, repair, and maintenance services of PLDT lines are
considered regular employees of PLDT.
By way of exception, the Labor Code also considers as regular, a casual
employment arrangement that lasted for at least one year, regardless of the
engagement’s continuity. The exception, however, cannot apply to the group of
individual workers enumerated above. The engagement of these workers, no matter
how long cannot ripen into regular employment with PLDT as the law is clear that the
exception only applies to casual employees who rendered at least one year of service
or, based on jurisprudence, to project employees who were continuously rehired even
after the cessation of the project to which they were assigned.
DISTANCE TELEPHONE, INC. (PLDT)
G.R. No. 244695
PLDT, INC. v. HON. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SILVESTRE H.
BELLO III (SEC. BELLO); and MANGGAGAWA SA KOMUNIKASYON NG PILIPINAS
G.R. No. 244752
SEC. BELLO of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) v. PLDT, INC.
G.R. No. 245294
PRESENT:
GESMUNDO, C.J., Chairperson
HERNANDO,
ZALAMEDA,
ROSARIO,
MARQUEZ, JJ.
PROMULGATION DATE:
February 14, 2024
FACTS:
Petitioner PLDT is a corporation engaged in the telecommunications business.
For its operation, it engaged the services of several contractors and sub-contractors to
provide services in various areas or phases of its operations. Petitioner MKP, on the
other hand, was the exclusive bargaining agent of PLDT’s rank-and-file employees.
To settle the dispute that arose from the negotiation of the collective bargaining
agreement between PLDT and MKP, the intervention of the DOLE was sought, and the
,parties agreed to have a “Special Assessment and Visit of Establishment” (SAVE)
conducted in PLDT.
DOLE issued Administrative Order (AO) No. 648, constituting a DOLE
Assessment Team that will conduct SAVE to assess, validate and verify PLDT’s,
including its contractors/sub-contractors, compliance to Department Order (DO) No.
18-A, Series of 2011, on-the-job training and other training-in-employment practices,
hiring practices, working arrangements and compliance with general labor standards
and occupational safety and health standards.
On December 5, 2026, the DOLE Assessment Team presented its PLDT SAVE
Report establishing that PLDT and its contractors are engaged in labor-only contracting.
It was also reported that PLDT’s contractors violated general labor standards
provisions on overtime pay, holiday pay, service incentive leave, maternity leave,
paternity leave and 13th month pay. Some were found to have made unauthorized
deductions for uniform, safety shoes, cable handset, monitoring tablet and other tools.
Based on this finding, it was recommended that PLDT should regularize
contractual employees performing jobs that are directly related to their business. PLDT
was also declared solidarily liable with the contractors to pay the unpaid monetary
benefits of the contractors’ workers.
On January 6, 2017, PLDT filed a Manifestation and Motion to contest DOLE
Assessment Team’s findings. PLDT opined that it may be more appropriate to thresh
out these matters in an adversarial proceeding such as a regularization suit before the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) that is initiated by workers claiming
regularization.
On July 3, 2017, the Regional Director (RD) of the DOLE-National Capital Region
issued an Order stating that violations of the law and rules in labor-contracting under
Section 9, Rule VIII, Book Three of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code of
the Philippines, is considered a labor standards violation and thus, within the visitorial
and enforcement powers of the DOLE. Further, the legal consequence of a finding of
labor-only contracting is the regularization by the principal of the employees provided by
the labor-only contractor. The RD also ruled that PLDT failed to present evidence to
refute the findings that some of its contractors are engaged in labor-only contracting
despite having been afforded due process.
Based on these findings, the RD found PLDT and its contractors solidarily liable
to pay the unpaid monetary benefits of the contractors’ workers. The contractors found
to be engaged in labor-only contracting were ordered to cease and desist from further
, engaging in contracting activities; and the license of those with existing DO No. 18-A
registration were revoked. Finally, PLDT was ordered to regularize and include in its
payroll, the workers of the declared labor-only contractors.
On July 14, 2017, PLDT filed a Memorandum of Appeal before the Secretary of
Labor challenging the RD’s Order. On July 12, 2017, the RD issued a Supplemental
Order enumerating the list of workers of each contractor that were regularized. On
August 3, 2017 and September 28, 2017, MKP filed its Opposition to PLDT’s appeal
and Supplement to Opposition to Appeal.
On January 10, 2018, Sec. Bello issued a Resolution finding no merit in PLDT’s
appeal but partially granted some of the appeal of the contractors. On April 24, 2018,
Sec. Bello issued another Resolution acting on PLDT’s and MKP’s Motions for
Reconsideration. Sec. Bello reduced PLDT’s and the contractors’ total monetary liability
and the number of employees to be regularized.
PLDT filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). On July 31,
2018, the CA promulgated the assailed Decision affirming, albeit with substantial
modifications, the Resolutions of Sec. Bello.
The CA upheld the jurisdiction of the RD and Sec. Bello to determine the
existence of employer-employee relationship. It also agreed with Sec. Bello’s ruling to
prohibit PLDT from contracting out activities, services, jobs or functions that are usually
necessary and desirable in the usual course of its business.
The CA, however, reversed Sec. Bello’s ruling to regularize contractors
performing janitorial, maintenance, security, and messengerial services; medical
services provider of PLDT; individuals who render professional services; contractual
workers engaged in information technology-based services; and employees engaged in
sales who are paid on commission basis. Thus, individuals deployed by the contractors
who are performing installation, repair, and maintenance services of PLDT lines are
considered regular employees of PLDT.
By way of exception, the Labor Code also considers as regular, a casual
employment arrangement that lasted for at least one year, regardless of the
engagement’s continuity. The exception, however, cannot apply to the group of
individual workers enumerated above. The engagement of these workers, no matter
how long cannot ripen into regular employment with PLDT as the law is clear that the
exception only applies to casual employees who rendered at least one year of service
or, based on jurisprudence, to project employees who were continuously rehired even
after the cessation of the project to which they were assigned.
