Topic: Labor Law Project Employees

Ponente: MENDOZA, J.
JEANETTE V. MANALO, VILMA P. BARRIOS, LOURDES LYNN MICHELLE
FERNANDEZ AND LEILA B. TAIO, Petitioners, v. TNS PHILIPPINES INC., AND
GARY OCAMPO, Respondents.
G.R. No. 208567, November 26, 2014
Facts:
TNS Philippines Inc. (TNS), a company engaged primarily in the business of marketing research
and information, hired the petitioners as field personnel on a project-to-project basis, as
evidenced by a project-to-project employment contract. Thereafter, TNS submits termination
report with the DOLE-Regional Office. Petitioners were also given office-based tasks which
were not on a per project basis, not evidenced by any contract, and not reported to the DOLE
either. In August 2008, they were assigned in the tracking projects with pulling-out scheme,
which prompted them to file a consolidated complaint for regularization before the LA. On
October 21, 2008, petitioners were advised by TNS not to report for work anymore because they
were being pulled out from their current assignments and that they were not being lined up for
any continuing or incoming projects because it no longer needed their services. They were also
asked to surrender their company IDs. Petitioners, thereafter, filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal, overtime pay, damages, and attorneys fees against TNS. Later, the labor cases for
regularization and illegal dismissal were consolidated.
The LA rendered a decision, dismissing the complaint on the ground that petitioners were found
to be project employees who knew the nature of their positions as such at the time of their
employment and who agreed with full understanding that the contracts would lapse upon
completion of the project stated in their respective contracts. The NLRC reversed said decision
and held that in the absence of proof that the subsequent employment of the complainants
continued to be on a project-to-project basis under a contract of employment, complainants are
considered to have become regular employees after November 30, 2007. The failure to present
contract of project employment means that the employees are regular. The NLRC further ruled
that, being regular employees, petitioners were illegally dismissed because TNS, who had the
burden of proving legality in dismissal cases, failed to show how and why the employment of
petitioners was terminated on October 21, 2008. On appeal, the CA ruled in favor of TNS.
Hence, this petition.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the petitioners were merely project employees.
2. Whether or not there was abuse of discretion
Held:
1. No. Article 280 of the Labor Code, as amended, clearly defined a project employee as one
whose employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or
termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or
where the work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the
duration of the season. Additionally, a project employee is one whose termination of his

employment contract is reported to the DOLE everytime the project for which he was engaged
has been completed.
The reports belatedly submitted by TNS failed to show the corresponding project employment
contracts of petitioners covering the period indicated in the said termination reports. In the
absence of proof that the subsequent employment of petitioners continued to be on a project-toproject basis under a contract of employment, petitioners were considered to have become
regular employees.
In Maraguinot, Jr. v. NLRC, the Court held that once a project or work pool employee has been:
(1) continuously, as opposed to intermittently, rehired by the same employer for the same tasks or
nature of tasks; and (2) these tasks are vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business or
trade of the employer, then the employee must be deemed a regular employee. Here, Petitioners
successive re-engagement in order to perform the same kind of work firmly manifested the
necessity and desirability of their work in the usual business of TNS as a market research facility.
Petitioners were rehired not intermittently, but continuously, contract after contract, month after
month, involving the very same tasks. Ultimately, the functions they performed were indeed vital
and necessary to the very business or trade of TNS. In sum, petitioners are deemed to have
become regular employees. Hence, their dismissal is deemed illegal.
Topic: Labor Law Reinstatement Salaries
Ponente: REYES, J.
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., Petitioner, v. REYNALDO V. PAZ, Respondent.
G.R. No. 192924, November 26, 2014
Facts:
Reynaldo V. Paz was a former commercial pilot of PAL and a member of the Airlines Pilots
Association of the Philippines (ALPAP), the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of all
the pilots in PAL. On December 9, 1997, ALPAP filed a notice of strike with the NCMB of
DOLE. The DOLE Secretary enjoined the parties from committing acts which will further
exacerbate the situation. On June 5, 1998, the ALPAP officers and members staged a strike and
picketed at the PALs premises. To control the situation, the DOLE Secretary issued a return-towork order on June 7, 1998, directing all the striking officers and members of ALPAP to return to
work within 24 hours from notice of the order but to no avail. On June 25, 1998, Atty. Joji
Antonio, the counsel for ALPAP, informed the members of the union that she has just received a
copy of the return-to-work order and that they have until the following day within which to
comply. Then, PAL filed a petition for approval of rehabilitation plan and for appointment of a
rehabilitation receiver with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), claiming serious
financial distress brought about by the strike. Subsequently, on June 23, 1998, the SEC appointed
a rehabilitation receiver for PAL and declared the suspension of all claims against it. On June 1,
1999, the DOLE Secretary resolved the motions for reconsideration filed by both parties and
declared the strike staged by ALPAP illegal and that the participants thereof are deemed to have

lost their employment.

On June 25, 1999, the respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against PAL for not
accepting him back to work, claiming non-participation in the illegal strike. The Labor Arbiter
(LA) rendered a Decision, holding that the respondent was illegally dismissed and ordered that
he be reinstated to his former position without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and
paid his full backwages inclusive of allowances and other benefits computed from June 12, 1998
up to his actual reinstatement. The respondent pursued his move for the issuance of a writ of
execution, claiming that he was entitled to reinstatement salaries which he supposedly earned
during the pendency of the appeal to the NLRC.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the award of reinstatement salaries to the respondent is proper.
2. Whether or not the respondent is entitled to the payment of reinstatement salaries.
Held:
1. Yes. In the case of Garcia v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., the Court deliberated on the application
of Paragraph 3, Article 223 of the Labor Code in light of the apparent divergence in its
interpretation, specifically on the contemplation of the reinstatement aspect of the LA decision.
Thus:
In any event, the decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated
employee, insofar as the reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall immediately be executory,
pending appeal . The employee shall either be admitted back to work under the same terms and
conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation or,at the option of the employer, merely
reinstated in the payroll. The posting of a bond by the employer shall not stay the
2. No. The rule is that the employee is entitled to reinstatement salaries notwithstanding the
reversal of the LA decision granting him said relief. In Garcia, the Court relaxed the rule by
taking into consideration the cause of delay in executing the order of reinstatement of the LA. It
was declared, thus:
After the labor arbiters decision is reversed by a higher tribunal, the employee may be barred
from collecting the accrued wages, if it is shown that the delay in enforcing the reinstatement
pending appeal was without fault on the part of the employer.
The test is two-fold: (1) there must be actual delay or the fact that the order of reinstatement
pending appeal was not executed prior to its reversal; and (2) the delay must not be due to the
employers unjustified act or omission. If the delay is due to the employers unjustified refusal,
the employer may still be required to pay the salaries notwithstanding the reversal of the Labor
Arbiters decision.
It is clear from the records that PAL failed to reinstate the respondent pending appeal of the LA
decision to the NLRC. It can be recalled that the LA rendered the decision ordering the
reinstatement of the respondent on March 5, 2001. And, despite the self-executory nature of the
order of reinstatement, the respondent nonetheless secured a partial writ of execution on May 25,
2001. Even then, the respondent was not reinstated to his former position or even through

payroll. A scrutiny of the circumstances, however, will show that the delay in reinstating the
respondent was not due to the unjustified refusal of PAL to abide by the order but because of the
constraints of corporate rehabilitation. The inopportune event of PALs entering rehabilitation
receivership justifies the delay or failure to comply with the reinstatement order of the LA.