Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
above).
14. DOLE denied that the respondents were its employees.
14.1 DOLE explained that it needed to engage external services to augment its workforce.
14.2 And that a similar issue was the subject of a labor case which was ruled on by a labor arbiter. The arbiter
ruled that such employees were seasonal workers. The decision of the LA was affirmed by the NLRC.
14.3 And after the case was decided with finality, DOLE decided to discontinue with the complaining workers. And
it was then that they engaged the services of CAMPCO to provide the additional service.
14.4 Petitioner also contends that the respondents were co-owners of CAMPCO;
14.5 That CAMPCO was a duly-organized and a registered cooperative.
14.6 That CAMPCO was engaged in legitimate job-contracting with its owner-members
14.7 That since CAMPCO held itself out to DOLE as a legitimate job contractor, the respondents (as ownermembers of the coop) are estopped from denying or refuting the same.
14.8 They averred that the services rendered by CAMPCO constituted permissible job contracting under DO 10
s1997 of the Dept. of Labor.
15. LA: ruled in favor of DOLE.
16. Respondents appealed the decision to the NLRC reiterating their position.
17. NLRC: dismissed the appeal and affirmed the LAs decision.
18. Respondents filed a petition for certiorari under R65.
19. CA: the decision of the NLRC is set aside.
20. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE(S):
Whether or not CAMPCO is engaged in labor-only contracting?
HELD:
RATIO: