In two separate cases, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) has ruled in favor of platform workers in illegal dismissal cases against manpower companies and leading Southeast Asian e-commerce platform Lazada.
Both cases involve illegal dismissal and non-payment of the 13th month pay.
Josiah David Quising, legal representative of the platform workers in two separate cases, declared that “these victories are important because of the evolving nature of the workplace.”
“We are no longer traditional wherein workers are situated in one physical space, it also extends to the digital space,” Quising told Bulatlat in Filipino.
NLRC is an attached quasi-judicial agency of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) mandated to resolve labor and management disputes involving Filipino workers.
“These winning cases are mere reaffirmation of the rights of platform workers, particularly riders, based on the Supreme Court (decision),” Quising added.
The first case was an illegal dismissal with claims for non-payment of the 13th month pay, cash bond deposit, damages and attorney’s fees by a platform rider against Metro Courier Inc. (MCI) and Lazada.
The NLRC stated that the rider is a “regular employee of respondent Lazada and that he was illegally dismissed by the latter.”
The rider was employed by the manpower services MCI for Lazada. His regular work routine was described as follows: he would wait for his assigned delivery schedule early in the morning, between 4 am to 7 am, which he would proceed to the designated hub, wait for the parcels to arrive, and proceed to sorting to delivery.
Even before completing all deliveries, the complainant was required to deposit the payments collected from customers between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. He would return to work to complete his remaining deliveries, often working until 8 p.m. to 10 pm, depending on the volume of parcels.
The rider received an email informing him of the termination of his contract on March 26, 2025, without any hearing or prior notice of dismissal. The termination letter alleged that the rider committed following violations: false delivery, commission of a crime, and tampering with parcels.
The impact of the rider’s sudden termination was severe, since it transpired when his youngest child was hospitalized.
“As a result of the loss of his employment, Complainant (rider) and his family incurred substantial debts, and his three children were unable to attend school due to lack of money for daily expenses,” the NLRC statement of facts read. “The complainant and his family also struggled to meet basic needs, including food and housing, and eventually lost their rented residence due to their inability to pay rent.”
Lazada said that there was no employer-employee relationship between the rider and the company as he was engaged by MCI to provide services. MCI also said that it does not have an employment relationship with the rider, insisting that the NLRC does not have jurisdiction over the illegal dismissal case.
However, the NLRC cited the 2023 Supreme Court ruling that declared that Lazada platform riders are regular employees and that all four factors in the four-fold test were present: (a) the employer’s selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; © the power to dismiss; and (d) the power to control the employee’s conduct.
Read: Outdated labor policies in app-based employment
“As respondent companies Metro Courier Inc. and Lazada were engaged in the prohibited labor-only contracting scheme, they are jointly and severally ordered to pay complainant his separation pay, backwages, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, holiday pay, damages and attorney’s fees,” the NLRC ruling added.
The second case was filed by three platform workers against J. Alcabasa Enterprises and General Services, a manpower company that provided services for shipping company J&T Express. The three workers were deployed to the latter company.
They were illegally dismissed on January 31, 2026, without valid cause, notice to explain, nor “genuine” hearing prior to their dismissal. They were barred from entering the premises of J&T Express a day before their last day, January 30, 2026.
The notice of conferences only started in February 2026 onwards, by the J. Alcabasa Enterprises and General Services, when their illegal dismissal was already in effect.
J&T Express said that they were issued a directive not to accept or allow the redeployment of the three workers to their company because they filed a DOLE complaint.
This DOLE complaint was about the assistance the three workers sought, concerning the nonpayment of their 13th month pay. DOLE ruled in favor of the workers and the 13th month pay was released on January 27, 2026. A day after, the workers were informed that their deployment at J&T Express would end on January 31, 2026.
“This Office finds that complainants (workers) have sufficiently established dismissal by substantial evidence,” the NLRC ruling stated, emphasizing that the workers prove that they were informed and prevented from entering the workplace, reinforced by documentary trail from the companies.
The NLRC further noted that the procedural due process in termination requires the employee to be informed first of the charges, and be given a meaningful opportunity to answer, before their termination.
“An employer cannot first terminate an employee and thereafter conduct an administrative investigation for the purpose of supplying a cause for an already completed dismissal,” the NLRC ruling added.
Moreover, the workers said that they were regular employees while the company characterized them as seasonal workers.
The arbitration office clarified that the designation given by an employer is not controlling. Employment status of the workers is determined by the nature of the work and the applicable law and jurisprudence.
Article 295 of the Labor Code provides that employment is regular when the employee has been engaged to perform activities that are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, subject to recognized exceptions such as project and seasonal employment.
But the workers were repeatedly engaged since 2024, which the NLRC ruled inconsistent with the definition of seasonal work wherein workers were hired for a definite project with a predetermined completion date. Thus, the NLRC declared that the three workers were regular employees.
Due to the finding that illegal dismissal was committed in the case, payment of moral damages, attorney’s fees, and other benefits were compelled to be given to the three workers.
“The granting of moral and exemplary damages are important developments because these are usually denied in labor cases, including those cases against Lazada that reached the Supreme Court,” Quising said.
The International Labour Organization (ILO) adopted the Decent Work in the Platform Economy Convention, 2026 (No. 193) this year, marking a historic victory for platform workers around the world as it is the first legally binding international treaty to regulate gig work and establish global standards for platform workers.
ILO recorded that there are around 150 million platform workers that are employed globally. In the Philippines alone, there are 11 million recorded workers in the digital economy.
Read: ILO to negotiate binding standards for 150 million platform workers
Among the convention’s key provisions are the protection of workers’ freedom of association and collective bargaining rights, access to social security, occupational safety and health standards, fair and transparent remuneration systems, and safeguards against the misclassification of employees as self-employed contractors.
The Philippine government has been urged to ratify the ILO Convention No. 193 to reinforce international obligation for the protection of millions of platform workers in the country.
Read: Labor group urges PHL ratification of ILO convention
“It is also encouraging to see the law keeping pace with developments in these areas. We hope this will not be our last victory on this front,” Quising added.
“As a regular employee of Lazada, complainant can only be terminated based on valid grounds and that he cannot be merely dismissed on the ground of ‘Termination of Service Partner Agreement’, as the latter is not one of the just or authorized cause for termination as provided by the Labor Code and jurisprudence,” the NLRC ruling stated.
“Lazada failed to successfully discharge the burden of proof to establish valid cause for complainant’s dismissal, and that he was afforded due process prior to his termination,” the NLRC ruling added. (RTS, RVO)
Disclosure: Josiah David Quising is also a columnist and contributor for Bulatlat.
The post Workers win illegal dismissal case vs Lazada, manpower agencies appeared first on Bulatlat.
From Bulatlat via This RSS Feed.