Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 307 views

    Cusap Vs Adidas Digest (Almirante)

    Uploaded by

    HenteLAWco
    Marites Cusap and 27 other employees filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Adidas Philippines, Inc. and two other companies. They alleged that they had worked for Adidas for 1-7 years promoting and selling Adidas products. When Adidas changed distributors, the new distributor terminated its contract with the recruitment agency that had supplied employees, resulting in the employees' dismissal. The court found that the recruitment agency was merely a labor contractor and that Adidas was the real employer who exercised control and supervision over the employees. Therefore, Adidas was responsible for the illegal dismissal complaint.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Cusap Vs Adidas Digest (Almirante)

    Uploaded by

    HenteLAWco
    307 views1 page
    Marites Cusap and 27 other employees filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Adidas Philippines, Inc. and two other companies. They alleged that they had worked for Adidas for 1-7 years promoting and selling Adidas products. When Adidas changed distributors, the new distributor terminated its contract with the recruitment agency that had supplied employees, resulting in the employees' dismissal. The court found that the recruitment agency was merely a labor contractor and that Adidas was the real employer who exercised control and supervision over the employees. Therefore, Adidas was responsible for the illegal dismissal complaint.

    Original Description:

    labor case digest

    Original Title

    9. Cusap vs Adidas Digest (Almirante)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Marites Cusap and 27 other employees filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Adidas Philippines, Inc. and two other companies. They alleged that they had worked for Adidas for 1-7 years promoting and selling Adidas products. When Adidas changed distributors, the new distributor terminated its contract with the recruitment agency that had supplied employees, resulting in the employees' dismissal. The court found that the recruitment agency was merely a labor contractor and that Adidas was the real employer who exercised control and supervision over the employees. Therefore, Adidas was responsible for the illegal dismissal complaint.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    307 views1 page

    Cusap Vs Adidas Digest (Almirante)

    Uploaded by

    HenteLAWco
    Marites Cusap and 27 other employees filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Adidas Philippines, Inc. and two other companies. They alleged that they had worked for Adidas for 1-7 years promoting and selling Adidas products. When Adidas changed distributors, the new distributor terminated its contract with the recruitment agency that had supplied employees, resulting in the employees' dismissal. The court found that the recruitment agency was merely a labor contractor and that Adidas was the real employer who exercised control and supervision over the employees. Therefore, Adidas was responsible for the illegal dismissal complaint.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Marites R. Cusap, v. Adidas Philippines, Inc.

    , (Adidas)
    G.R. No. 201494, July 29, 2015).

    FACTS
    PETITIONER Marites R. Cusap and 27 other employees filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
    against the respondents Adidas Philippines, Inc., (Adidas), Promotion Resources & Inter-
    Marketing Exponents, Inc. (Prime), and later amended to include JC Athletes, Inc. (JCA). They
    alleged that they were regular employees of Adidas after having worked as promo girls and
    stockmen at the companys various rented outlets for years, ranging from one year to seven
    years. After its contract with its former distributor, World Sports, Inc. (WOSI) expired, Adidas
    allegedly contracted JCA to be its exclusive distributor. In turn, JCA entered into a promotional
    contract with PRIME. Petitioners claimed that they were dismissed from employment when the
    service contract between PRIME and JCA was terminated. They argued that Adidas was their
    real employer, not PRIME, which was merely a recruitment agency supplying Adidas with
    human resources. They pointed out that for years that they were employed, they worked for
    Adidas, under its supervision and control and that of JCA personnel.

    Their work being related to and in pursuit of Adidas principal business activity, they claimed
    they are its regular employees. Can their action prosper?

    HELD
    Yes. Again, in the absence of evidence that JCA had the wherewithal to undertake its distribution
    agreement with Adidas, except to enter into a promotions contract with PRIME, we find merit in
    the petitioners contention that Adidas and JCA, at a time, held office in the same address; and
    that Adidas provided the storage places and the outlets for the distribution of its products, not
    PRIME or JCA. As the petitioner points out, formerly it was WOSI and later JCA which acted as
    agent of Adidas. The record bears out her observations. Thus, the petitioner and the complainants
    (who withdrew from the case) were performing activities that were necessary to market the
    products that Adidas itself manufactured. They sold these products for several years, starting in
    June 1995 until Dec. 9, 2000. While Adidas explains that it amended its articles of incorporation
    in October 2002 to engage in retail, it cannot be denied that in 1995, it was already in the retail
    business through its agents WOSI and JCA and labor-only contractor PRIME. Thus, the
    petitioner had become an Adidas regular employee a long time before she was supposedly made
    a contractual employee of PRIME. In the absence of evidence showing how or in what manner
    PRIME carried out its promotion work under its contract with JCA and how it provided the
    necessary requirements for such undertaking (such as the maintenance of storage areas and
    engagement of sales outlets), we likewise find merit in the petitioners submission that it was
    Adidas who exercised control and supervision over the petitioners work performance, through
    its sales manager Sonny Niebres, its president Philip Go, and even Cornelia Indon, head of the
    WOSI concession. In sum, we hold that PRIME failed to satisfy the four-fold employer-
    employee relationship test, making it a labor-only contractor under the law and the rules. Like
    JCA, it was merely an agent of Adidas, notwithstanding the quitclaims of some of the
    complainants in its favor. Adidas, therefore, is petitioners real employer who shall be
    responsible to her in the same manner and extent as if she were directly employed by the
    company.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy