Labor-Only Contracting: Meaning
Quick answer
Labor-only contracting is an arrangement where an agency supplies workers to a company but has no substantial capital or investment of its own, and the workers do tasks directly related to the company's main business. The law treats the agency as a mere agent. The company is then the real employer of the workers.
Also called: Labor-only contractor
What does the Labor Code say?
The rule is in Article 106 of the Labor Code (its number did not change in the 2015 renumbering). As quoted by the Supreme Court in Daguinod v. Southgate Foods (2019), it says there is labor-only contracting when two things are present:
- the person supplying the workers does not have substantial capital or investment, such as tools, equipment, machinery or work premises; and
- the workers are performing activities directly related to the principal business of the company.
In that case, the supplier is "merely as an agent of the employer". The company is responsible to the workers in the same way as if it had hired them directly.
Article 106 also says that a company that uses a contractor is jointly and severally liable with the contractor for the workers' unpaid wages, to the extent of the work done under the contract.
How do courts decide?
- Agency hiring is not illegal in itself. In Manggagawa sa Komunikasyon ng Pilipinas v. PLDT (2024), the Court said "labor contracting is not illegal per se." Each arrangement is checked on its facts.
- Labels do not decide. In Daguinod, the Court said parties cannot set the character of their business "by the mere expedience of a unilateral declaration in a contract".
- DOLE registration is not enough. Registration as an independent contractor is "merely presumptive proof" (Daguinod).
- Control matters. In Daguinod, the restaurant franchisee directed and disciplined the crew member, so it was "deemed as the direct employer". The cooperative and the franchisee were held jointly and solidarily liable for the money awards.
Example
Made-up illustration: Mark is hired by a manpower agency and assigned as a cashier at a fast-food branch. The agency has no equipment or office at the branch. The store manager gives Mark his schedule, tells him what to do and suspends him for being late. These facts point to labor-only contracting. If a labor tribunal agrees, the store operator is Mark's real employer. If Mark was dismissed without a valid cause, he may claim reinstatement and backwages from it.
For the full explanation, including short contracts and regularization, see Endo and labor-only contracting. See also Can a probationary employee be terminated? and Illegally dismissed: what can you get?
Which provisions use this term?
Frequently asked questions
Is hiring through an agency illegal in the Philippines?
No. In Manggagawa sa Komunikasyon ng Pilipinas v. PLDT (2024), the Supreme Court said labor contracting is not illegal per se. What is prohibited is labor-only contracting, as described in Article 106 of the Labor Code (Daguinod v. Southgate Foods, 2019).
What happens if the agency is a labor-only contractor?
Article 106, as quoted in Daguinod v. Southgate Foods (2019), treats the agency as a mere agent of the company. The company is responsible to the workers as if it had hired them directly.
Does DOLE registration prove that the agency is legitimate?
No, not by itself. In Daguinod, the Court said registration with DOLE as an independent contractor is merely presumptive proof. The facts, such as capital and who controls the work, decide.
Is labor-only contracting the same as endo?
Not exactly. Endo is a popular word for short, repeated contracts that end before a worker becomes regular. Labor-only contracting is the legal term for a fake contractor arrangement. The two often overlap but are judged by different rules.
General information, not legal advice. For your case, ask a lawyer, the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) or the agency.
Was this page helpful?