LABOR STANDARDS CASES reinstated.
Hacienda Fatima being guilty of unfair labor
Labor Arbiter Augusto L. Villanueva
SSCR
nd
2 Sem A.Y. 2015-2016
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De
Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo
Jr.// Bowdy Sales
Chapter III Kinds of Employment/ Employee
Classification
1. HACIENDA FATIMA and/or PATRICIO VILLEGAS,
ALFONSO VILLEGAS and CRISTINE SEGURA,
petitioners, vs. NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
SUGARCANE WORKERS FOOD AND GENERAL
TRADE, respondents.
G.R. No. 149440. January 28, 2003.
FACTS:When the newly elected officers of the National
Federation of Sugarcane Workers Food and General Trade
was certified as the collective bargaining representative in the
certification elections, Hacienda Fatima, refused to sit down
with the union for the purpose of entering into a collective
bargaining agreement. Moreover, the workers were not given
work for more than one month. In protest, the workers staged
a strike which was however settled upon the signing of a
Memorandum of Agreement which stipulated that the parties
will initially meet for CBA negotiations on the 11th day of
January 1991 and will endeavor to conclude the same within
thirty (30) days; that the management will give priority to the
women workers who are members of the union in case work
relative or amounting to gahitand dipol arises; and that the
management will provide fifteen wagons for the workers and
that existing workforce prior to the actual strike will be given
priority.
However, alleging that the workers failed to load the
fifteen wagons, Hacienda Fatima reneged on its commitment
to sit down and bargain collectively. Instead, Hacienda
employed all means including the use of private armed guards
to prevent the organizers from entering the premises.
Moreover, starting September 1991, the Hacienda did not any
more give work assignments to the workers forcing the union
to stage a strike on January 2, 1992. But due to the
conciliation efforts by the DOLE, another Memorandum of
Agreement was signed by the workers and the Hacienda.
However, Hacienda Fatima again reneged on its commitment.
Thus, the workers filed a complaint against the Hacienda.
LABOR ARBITER:The labor Arbiter rendered judgment in
favor of the Hacienda Fatima for the reason that the said
workers refused to work or were being choosy in their work.
The workers appealed the said judgment before the NLRC.
NLRC:The NLRC rendered a judgment reversing the Labor
Arbiters decision and declaring the workers were illegally
dismissed. Furthermore the Hacienda Fatima was ordered by
the NLRC to reinstate the workers to their previous position
and to pay full backwages from September 1991 until
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
practice are further ordered to pay the union the sum of
P10,000.00 as moral damages and P5,000.00 as exemplary
damages.
Hacienda Fatima appealed the decision of the NLRC
before the CA.
CA:The CA affirmed the decision of the NLRC. Thus,
Hacienda appealed the decision of the CA before the SC.
ISSUE:WON the respondents, admittedly seasonal workers,
were regular employees, contrary to the clear provisions of
Article 280 of the Labor Code, which categorically state that
seasonal employees are not covered by the definition of
regular employees under paragraph 1, nor covered under
paragraph 2 which refers exclusively to casual employees who
have served for at least one year.
HELD:YES.Contrary to petitioners contention, the CA did
not err when it held that respondents were regular employees.
Article 280 of the Labor Code, as amended, states:
Art. 280. Regular and Casual Employment.The
provisions of agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and
regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an
employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee
has been engaged to perform activities which are usually
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the
employer, except where the 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 services to be performed is
seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of
the season. An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it
is not covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, That,
any employee who has rendered at least one year of service,
whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be
considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in
which he is employed and his employment shall continue while
such activity exist.
For respondents to be excluded from those classified as
regular employees, it is not enough that they perform work or
services that are seasonal in nature. They must have also been
employed only for the duration of one season. The evidence
proves the existence of the first, but not of the second,
condition. The fact that respondents repeatedly worked as
sugarcane workers for petitioners for several years is not
denied by the latter. Evidently, petitioners employed
respondents for more than one season. Therefore, the general
rule of regular employment is applicable. WHEREFORE, the
Petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision
AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.SO ORDERED.
2. ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNIONS (ATU),
RODOLFO MONTECLARO and EDGAR JUESAN,
petitioners, vs. HON. COMMISSIONERS OSCAR N.
ABELLA, MUSIB N. BUAT, LEON GONZAGA, JR.,
ALGON ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION CORP.,
ALEX GONZALES and EDITHA YAP, respondents.
G.R. No. 100518. January 24, 2000.
Page 1

FACTS:Algon Engineering Construction Corporationg is a
domestic corporation engaged in road construction projects of
the government. From 1968 to 1989, it engaged the services of
the following workers to work on various projects on different
dates: Rodolfo Monteclaro (mechanic), Edgar Juesan(painter),
VictorioLunzaga (tanker driver), Alfredo Jalet (batteryman),
JulitoMacabodbod (trailer helper), Ramon Tabada (carpenter),
RemsyAsensi (machinist), Armand Acero (helper mechanic),
LorditoTatad (painter helper), Rogelio Tantuan (painter),
TeodoroTabio (checker), GemudoAsejo (electrician), Roland
Olivar (latheman), ValerianoMijas (driver), Jose Noval
(welder), FelimonLagbao (mechanic), Pedro Roche (head
welder), and JustinianoSollano (carpenter). Their contracts
indicate the particular project they are assigned, the duration
of their employment and their daily wage.
In February 1989, the above named workers joined
petitioner union as members. Accordingly, petitioner union
filed a petition for certification election with the regional
office of the labor department. Respondent company opposed
the petition on the ground that the workers were project
employees and therefore not qualified to form part of the rank
and file collective bargaining unit. Not for long, the Med-
Arbiter dismissed the petition for certification election. On
appeal, the Secretary of Labor and Employment reversed the
Med-Arbiters decision and ordered the immediate holding of
a certification election.
Shortly thereafter, respondent company terminated
the employment of aforementioned workers owing to the
completion of its projects or the expiration of workers
contracts. Thus, the aggrieved workers filed with the Regional
Arbitration Branch of the NLRC their individual complaints
against private respondent company for illegal dismissal,
unfair labor practice, underpayment of wages, 13th month pay,
holiday pay and overtime pay. They also sought reinstatement
with back wages.
ISSUE:WON the said workers were illegally dismissed.
HELD:NO.The Labor Code defines regular, project and
casual employees as follows: ART. 280. Regular and Casual
EmploymentThe provisions of written agreement to the
contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement
of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular
where the employee has been engaged to perform activities
which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business
or trade of the employer, exceptwhere the employment has
been fixed for a specific project orundertaking the completion
or termination of which has beendetermined at the time of the
engagement of the employee or wherethe work or services to
be performed is seasonal in nature and theemployment is for
the duration of the season. And employment shall be deemed
to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph:
Provided, That, any employee who has rendered at least one
year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken,
shall be considered a regular employee withrespect to the
activity in which he is employed and hisemployment shall
continue while such activity exists.
Thus, regular employees are those who have been
engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer even if
the parties enter into an agreement stating otherwise.In
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
contrast, project employees are those 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 services to
be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for
the duration of the season. Furthermore, Policy Instruction No.
20,which was in force during the period of petitioners
employment, stated: Project employees are those employed
in connection with a particular construction project. Non-
project (regular) employees are those employed by a
construction company without reference to any particular
project. Project employees are not entitled to termination pay
if they are terminated as a result of the completion of the
project or any phase thereof in which they are employed,
regardless of the number of projects in which they have been
employed by aparticular construction company. Moreover, the
company is notrequired to obtain clearance from the Secretary
of Labor inconnection with such termination. What is required
of thecompany is report to the nearest Public Employment
Office forstatistical purposes.
In the case at bar, the contracts of employment of
thepetitioners attest to the fact that they had been hired
forspecific projects, and their employment was
coterminouswith the completion of the project for which they
had been hired.Said contracts expressly provide that the
workers tenure of employment would depend on the duration
of any phase ofthe project or the completion of the awarded
governmentconstruction projects in any of their planned
phases.Further, petitioners were informed in advance that
saidproject or undertaking for which they were hired would
endon a stated or determinable date. Besides, publicrespondent
noted that respondent company regularlysubmitted reports of
termination of services of projectworkers to the regional office
of the labor department asrequired under Policy Instruction
No. 20. This compliancewith the reportorial requirement
confirms that petitionerswere project employees.Considering
that petitioners were project employees,whose nature of
employment they were fully informedabout, at the time of
their engagement, related to a specificproject, work or
undertaking, their employment legallyended upon completion
of said project. The termination oftheir employment could not
be regarded as illegaldismissal.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED,
and the assailed RESOLUTION of respondent NLRC dated
May 17, 1991, is AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
3. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION,
petitioner, vs. MARLYN NAZARENO, MERLOU
GERZON, JENNIFER DEIPARINE, and JOSEPHINE
LERASAN, respondents.
G.R. No. 164156. September 26, 2006.
FACTS: ABS-CBN employed, for an average of 5
years,Nazareno, Gerzon, Deiparine, and Lerasan as
production assistants (PAs) on different dates. They were
assigned at the news and public affairs, for various radio
programs in the Cebu Broadcasting Station, with a monthly
compensation of P4,000. They were issued ABS-CBN
Page 2
employees identification cards and were required to work for
a minimum of eight hours a day, including Sundays and
holidays. The PAs were under the control and supervision of
Assistant Station Manager Dante J. Luzon, and News Manager
Leo Lastimosa.
On December 19, 1996, ABS-CBN and its Rank-and-
File Employees executed a Collective Bargaining Agreement
(CBA) to be effective during the period from December 11,
1996 to December 11, 1999. However, since petitioner refused
to recognize PAs as part of the bargaining unit, respondents
were not included to the CBA.
On October 12, 2000, respondents filed a Complaint
for Recognition of Regular Employment Status,
Underpayment of Overtime Pay, Holiday Pay, Premium Pay,
Service Incentive Pay, Sick Leave Pay, and 13th Month Pay
with Damages against the petitioner before the NLRC.
LABOR ARBITER:On July 30, 2001, the Labor Arbiter
rendered judgment in favor of the respondents, and declared
that they were regular employees of petitioner as such, they
were awarded monetary benefits. However, the Labor Arbiter
did not award money benefits as provided in the CBA on his
belief that he had no jurisdiction to interpret and apply the
agreement, as the same was within the jurisdiction of the
Voluntary Arbitrator as provided in Article 261 of the Labor
Code. ABS-CBN filed a motion for reconsideration, which the
Labor Arbiter denied. Petitioner forthwith appealed the
decision to the NLRC, while respondents filed a partial appeal.
NLRC:NLRC modified the decision of the Labor Arbiter
stating that respondents were entitled to the benefits under the
CBA because they were regular employees who contributed to
the profits of petitioner through their labor. Petitioner filed a
motion for reconsideration, which the NLRC denied.
Petitioner thus filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court before the CA.
CA:On February 10, 2004, the CA rendered judgment
dismissing the petition. The appellate court stated that
respondents are not mere project employees, but regular
employees who perform tasks necessary and desirable in the
usual trade and business of petitioner and not just its project
employees. Moreover, the CA added, the award of benefits
accorded to rank-and-file employees under the 1996-1999
CBA is a necessary consequence of the NLRC ruling that
respondents, as PAs, are regular employees. Finding no merit
in petitioners motion forreconsideration, the CA denied the
same in a Resolutiondated June 16, 2004.Petitioner thus filed
before the SC a petition for review onCertiorari.
ISSUE:WON the respondents, as production assistants, are
considered regular employees.
HELD:YES.We agree with respondents contention that
where a person has rendered at least one year of service,
regardless of the nature of the activity performed, or where the
work is continuous or intermittent, the employment is
considered regular as long as the activity exists, the reason
being that a customary appointment is not indispensable
before one may be formally declared as having attained
regular status. Article 280 of the Labor Code provides:
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
ART. 280. REGULAR AND CASUAL
EMPLOYMENT.The provisions of written agreement to the
contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral
agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to
be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform
activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer except where the
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 services to be performed is seasonal in
nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.
In Universal Robina Corporation v. Catapang,the
Court reiterated the test in determining whether one is a
regular employee: The primary standard, therefore, of
determining regular employment is the reasonable connection
between the particular activity performed by the employee in
relation to the usual trade or business of the employer. The test
is whether the former is usually necessary or desirable in the
usual business or trade of the employer. The connection can be
determined by considering the nature of work performed and
its relation to the scheme of the particular business or trade in
its entirety. Also, if the employee has been performing the job
for at least a year, even if the performance is not continuous
and merely intermittent, the law deems repeated and
continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of
the necessity if not indispensability of that activity to the
business. Hence, the employment is considered regular, but
only with respect to such activity and while such activity
exists.
Not considered regular employees are project
employees, the completion or termination of which is more
or less determinable at the time of employment, such as those
employed in connection with a particular construction project,
and seasonal employees whose employment by its nature is
only desirable for a limited period of time. Eventhen, any
employee who has rendered at least one year ofservice,
whether continuous or intermittent, is deemedregular with
respect to the activity performed and whilesuch activity
actually exists. It is of no moment that petitioner hired
respondents as talents. The fact that respondents received
pre-agreed talent fees instead of salaries, that they did not
observe the required office hours, and that they were permitted
to join other productions during their free time are not
conclusive of the nature of their employment. Respondents
cannot be considered talents because they are not actors or
actresses or radio specialists or mere clerks or utility
employees. They are regular employees who perform several
different duties under the control and direction of ABS-CBN
executives and supervisors.
Thus, there are two kinds of regular employees
under the law: (1) those engaged to perform activities which
are necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of
the employer and (2) those casual employees who have
rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous
or broken, with respect to the activities in which they are
employed.The law overrides such conditions which are
prejudicialto the interest of the worker whose weak
bargainingsituation necessitates the succor of the State.
Whatdetermines whether a certain employment is regular or
otherwise is not the will or word of theemployer, to which the
worker oftentimes acquiesces, muchless the procedure of
Page 3
hiring the employee or the manner ofpaying the salary or the
actual time spent at work. It is thecharacter of the activities
performed in relation to theparticular trade or business taking
into account all thecircumstances, and in some cases the
length of time of itsperformance and its continued existence.It
is obvious thatone year after they were employed by
petitioner,respondents became regular employees by operation
oflaw.
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition
is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision and
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CAG. R. SP No. 76582
are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.SO ORDERED.
4. BRENT SCHOOL, INC., and REV. GABRIEL
DIMACHE, petitioners, vs. RONALDO ZAMORA, the
Presidential Assistant for Legal Affairs, Office of the
President, and DOROTEO R. ALEGRE, respondents.
G.R. No. 48494. February 5, 1990.
FACTS:Doroteo R. Alegre was engaged as athletic director
by Brent School, Inc. at a yearly compensation of
P20,000.00.The contract fixed a specificterm for its existence,
five (5) years.Some three months before the expiration of
thestipulated period, or more precisely on April 20,
1976,Alegre was given a copy of the report filed by Brent
Schoolwith the Department of Labor advising of the
terminationof his services effective on July 16, 1976. The
stated groundfor the termination was completion of contract,
expirationof the definite period of employment. And a month
or solater, on May 26, 1976, Alegre accepted the amount
ofP3,177.71, and signed a receipt there for containing
thephrase, in full payment of services for the period May
16,to July 17, 1976 as full payment of contract.
However, at the investigation conducted by a
LaborConciliator of said report of termination of his
services,Alegre protested the announced termination of
hisemployment. He argued that although his contract did
stipulate that the same would terminate on July 17, 1976, since
his services were necessary and desirable in the usualbusiness
of his employer, and his employment had lasted for five years,
he had acquired the status of a regular
employee and could not be removed except for valid cause.
REGIONAL DIRECTOR:The Regional Director considered
Brent Schools report as an application for clearance to
terminate employment (not a report of termination), and
accepting the recommendation of the Labor Conciliator,
refused to give such clearance and instead required the
reinstatement of Alegre, as a permanent employee, to his
former position without loss of seniority rights and with full
back wages. Brent School filed a motion for reconsideration.
TheRegional Director denied the motion and forwarded
thecase to the Secretary of Labor for review.
SECRETARY OF LABOR:Sustained the Regional
Director.Brent appealed to the Office of the President.
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT:Again it was rebuffed. That
Office dismissed its appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
Labor Secretarys decision, ruling that Alegre was a
permanent employee who could not be dismissed except for
just cause, and expiration of the employment contract was not
one of the just causes provided in the Labor Code for
termination of services. Thus, Brent appealed before the SC.
ISSUE:WON the termination of Alegres contract of
employment with Brent School by reason of the expiration of
the agreed term of period is valid.
HELD:YES.Accordingly, and since the entire purpose behind
the development of legislation culminating in the present
Article 280 of the Labor Code clearly appears to have been, as
already observed, to prevent circumvention of the employees
right to be secure in his tenure, the clause in said article
indiscriminately and completely ruling out all written or oral
agreements conflicting with the concept of regular
employment as defined therein should be construed to refer to
the substantive evil that the Code itself has singled out:
agreements entered into precisely to circumvent security of
tenure. It should have no application to instances where a
fixed period of employment was agreed upon knowingly and
voluntarily by the parties, without any force, duress or
improper pressure being brought to bear upon the employee
and absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent, or
where it satisfactorily appears that the employer and
employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms
with no moral dominance whatever being exercised by the
former over the latter. Unless thus limited in its purview, the
lawwould be made to apply to purposes other than
thoseexplicitly stated by its framers it thus becomes
pointlessand arbitrary, unjust in its effects and apt to lead to
absurdand unintended consequences.
WHEREFORE, the public respondents Decision
complained of is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondent
Alegres contract of employment with Brent School having
lawfully terminated with and by reason of the expiration of the
agreed term of period thereof, he is declared not entitled to
reinstatement and the other relief awarded and confirmed on
appeal in the proceedings below. No pronouncement as to
costs. SO ORDERED.
5. COLUMBUS PHILIPPINES BUS CORPORATION,
petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, ZENAIDA DOMASIG and ROMAN
DOMASIG, respondents.
G.R. Nos. 11485859. September 7, 2001.
FACTS:Columbus Philippines Bus Corporation is engaged in
the business of operating passenger buses. Since the start of its
operations in 1990, it has maintained a list of drivers and
conductors who rendered service in its bus units allegedly on a
first come first served basis and compensated purely on
commission. The drivers and conductors/conductress worked
for about ten to fifteen days a month and were allegedly not
required to work every day.
Roman Domasig started working as a driver with the
petitioner on August 30, 1990 with a daily income ranging
from P350.00 to P650.00, while his wife ZenaidaDomasig,
Page 4
was employed as a bus conductress on October 1, 1990 with a
daily income of P250.00) to P500.00. The employment of
Roman and ZenaidaDomasig with the bus company was
abruptly terminated on January 21 and 22, 1992, respectively,
for their having allegedly formed a labor union.
Thus, these two (2) related cases of unfair labor
practice, illegal dismissal, illegal deductions from salary, and
nonpayment of service incentive leave pay and 13th month
pay were instituted by private respondents against Columbus
Philippines Bus Corporation and its officers, Atty. Ferdinand
Catabian and Mrs. Amelia de Dios, before the DOLE.
LABOR ARBITER:Labor Arbiter found for Ramon and
ZenaidaDomasig and ordered the bus company to reinstate
Roman and ZenaidaDomasig to their former positions as
driver and bus conductress, respectively, without loss of
seniority, rights and with back pay accruing from January 21,
1992 and January 22, 1992 up to their actual reinstatement.
Aggrieved by the adverse judgment of the Labor Arbiter,
petitioner appealed to NLRC.
NLRC:NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiters decision, and in
its OrderdatedJanuary 7, 1994 denied the petitioners motion
forreconsideration. Thus, the petitioner filed an appeal before
the SC.
ISSUE:WON Ramon and ZenaidaDomasig were regular
employees.
HELD:YES.To determine whether the employment of an
employee is regular or casual, Article 280of the Labor Code is
definitive and whether such employment is regular or casual
has nothing to do with the manner of computing and paying
the employees wages or compensation. Rather the said
provision of the Labor Code provides that:
The primary standard, x xx of determining a regular
employment is the reasonable connection between the
particular activity performed by the employee in relation to
the usual business or trade of the employer. The test is
whether the former is usually necessary or desirable in the
usual business or trade of the employer. The connection can
be determined by considering the nature of the work
performed and its relation to the scheme of the particular
business or trade in its entirety. Also, if the employee has been
performing the job for at least one year, even if the
performance is not continuous or merely intermittent, the law
deems the repeated and continuing need for its performance
as sufficient evidence of the necessity if not indispensability of
that activity to the business. Hence, the employment is also
considered regular, but only with respect to such activity and
while such activity exists.
Considering the above quotedstandard for
determining aregular employment, it appears that the
employment ofprivate respondents is regular. They perform
worknecessary and desirable in the business of the petitioner.
Without the services of the bus drivers and conductors, likethe
private respondents, the petitioner could not haveoperated and
managed its business of providingtransportation services to the
public. However, not allemployees paid on commission basis
can legally beconsidered as regular employees. In the case of
Singer Sewing Machine Company v. Drilon,it was held that
while certain individuals were hired to work ascollectors or
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
collecting agents of the company,nevertheless, per a certain
written agreement they wereconsidered as independent
contractors and not employeesof the company.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED,
and thechallenged Resolution of public respondent NLRC
isAFFIRMED. The computation of the amount of back
wagesto which private respondents Roman Domasig and
ZenaidaDomasig are entitled is hereby REMANDED to the
LaborArbiter for appropriate action.SO ORDERED.
6. SINGER SEWING MACHINE COMPANY, petitioner,
vs. HON. FRANKLIN M. DRILON, MED-
ARBITERFELIX B.CHAGUILE, JR., and SINGER
MACHINE COLLECTORSUNION
BAGUIO(SIMACUB), respondents.
G.R. No. 91307. January 24, 1991.
FACTS:On February 15, 1989, the union filed a petition for
direct certification as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent
of all collectors of the Singer Sewing Machine Company,
Baguio City. The Company opposed the petition mainly on the
ground that the union members are actually not employees but
are independent contractors as evidenced by the collection
agency agreement which they signed. The respondent Med-
Arbiter, finding that there exists an employer-employee
relationship between the union members and the Company,
granted the petition for certification election. On appeal,
Secretary of Labor Franklin M. Drilon affirmed it. The motion
for reconsideration of the Secretarys resolution was denied.
ISSUE:WON article 280 is the yardstick for determining the
existence of an employment relationship.
HELD:NO.The Court finds the contention of the respondents
that the union members are employees under Article 280 of
the Labor Code to have no basis. The definition that regular
employees are those who perform activities which are
desirable and necessary for the business of the employer is not
determinative in this case. Any agreement may provide that
one party shall render services for and in behalf of another for
a consideration (no matter how necessary for the latters
business) even without being hired as an employee. This is
precisely true in the case of an independent contractorship as
well as in an agency agreement. The Court agrees with the
petitioners argument that Article 280 is not the yardstick for
determining the existence of an employment relationship
because it merely distinguishes between two kinds of
employees, i.e., regular employees and casual employees, for
purposes of determining the right of an employee to certain
benefits, to join or form a union, or to security of tenure.
Article 280 does not apply where the existence of an
employment relationship is in dispute.
WHEREFORE, the Order dated June 14, 1989 of
Med-Arbiter Designate Felix B. Chaguile, Jr., the Resolution
and Order of Secretary Franklin M. Drilon dated November 2,
1989 and December 14, 1989, respectively are hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petition for certification
election is ordered dismissed and the temporary restraining
Page 5
order issued by the Court on December 21, 1989 is made
permanent. SO ORDERED.
7. 1 Sonza vs. ABSCBN Broadcasting Corporation
G.R. No. 138051. June 10, 2004.
FACTS: In May 1994, respondent ABSCBN Broadcasting
Corporation (ABSCBN) signed an Agreement
(Agreement) with the Mel and Jay Management and
Development Corporation (MJMDC). ABSCBN was
represented by its corporate officers while MJMDC was
represented by SONZA, as President and General Manager,
and Carmela Tiangco (TIANGCO), as EVP and Treasurer.
Referred to in the Agreement as AGENT, MJMDC agreed
to provide SONZAs services exclusively to ABSCBN as
talent for radio and television. The Agreement listed the
services SONZA would render to ABSCBN. ABSCBN agreed
to pay for SONZAs services a monthly talent fee of P310,000
for the first year and P317,000 for the second and third year of
the Agreement. ABSCBN would pay the talent fees on the
10th and 25th days of the month.
On 30 April 1996, SONZA filed a complaint against
ABSCBN before the Department of Labor and Employment,
National Capital Region in Quezon City. SONZA complained
that ABSCBN did not pay his salaries, separation pay, service
incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, signing bonus, travel
allowance and amounts due under the Employees Stock
Option Plan (ESOP). On 10 July 1996, ABSCBN filed a
Motion to Dismiss on the ground that no employer-employee
relationship existed between the parties. SONZA filed an
Opposition to the motion on 19 July 1996.
The Labor Arbiter rendered his Decision dated 8 July
1997 dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.The
pertinent parts of the decision read as follows: While
Philippine jurisprudence has not yet, with certainty, touched
on the true nature of the contract of a talent, it stands to
reason that a talent as above described cannot be considered
as an employee by reason of the peculiar circumstances
surrounding the engagement of his services. It must be noted
that complainant was engaged by respondent by reason of his
peculiar skills and talent as a TV host and a radio
broadcaster. Unlike an ordinary employee, he was free to
perform the services he undertook to render in accordance
with his own style. The benefits conferred to complainant
under the May 1994 Agreement are certainly very much
higher than those generally given to employees. For one,
complainant Sonzas monthly talent fees amount to a
staggering P317,000. Moreover, his engagement as a talent
was covered by a specific contract. Likewise, he was not
bound to render eight (8) hours of work per day as he worked
only for such number of hours as may be necessary. The fact
that per the May 1994 Agreement complainant was accorded
some benefits normally given to an employee is
inconsequential. Whatever benefits complainant enjoyed arose
from specific agreement by the parties and not by reason of
employer-employee relationship. As correctly put by the
respondent, All these benefits are merely talent fees and other
contractual benefits and should not be deemed as salaries,
wages and/or other remuneration accorded to an employee,
notwithstanding the nomenclature appended to these benefits.
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
Apropos to this is the rule that the term or nomenclature given
to a stipulated benefit is not controlling, but the intent of the
parties to the Agreement conferring such benefit. The fact
that complainant was made subject to respondents Rules and
Regulations, likewise, does not detract from the absence of
employer-employee relationship. As held by the Supreme
Court, The line should be drawn between rules that merely
serve as guidelines towards the achievement of the mutually
desired result without dictating the means or methods to be
employed in attaining it, and those that control or fix the
methodology and bind or restrict the party hired to the use of
such means. The first, which aim only to promote the result,
create no employer-employee relationship unlike the second,
which address both the result and the means to achieve it.
(Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No.
84484, November 15, 1989).
SONZA appealed to the NLRC. On 24 February
1998, the NLRC rendered a Decision affirming the Labor
Arbiters decision. He filed a motion for reconsideration,
which the NLRC denied in its Resolution dated 3 July 1998.
On 6 October 1998, SONZA filed a special civil action for
certiorari before the Court of Appeals assailing the decision
and resolution of the NLRC. On 26 March 1999, the Court of
Appeals rendered a Decision dismissing the case.Hence, this
petition.
ISSUE: W/N Sonza is a regular employee.
HELD: No.We affirm the assailed decision. The present
controversy is one of first impression. Although Philippine
labor laws and jurisprudence define clearly the elements of an
employer-employee relationship, this is the first time that the
Court will resolve the nature of the relationship between a
television and radio station and one of its talents. There is
no case law stating that a radio and television program host is
an employee of the broadcast station.
SONZA contends that the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction over
the case because he was an employee of ABSCBN. On the
other hand, ABSCBN insists that the Labor Arbiter has no
jurisdiction because SONZA was an independent contractor.
SONZA maintains that all essential elements of an Employer-
employee relationship are present in this case. Since there is
no local precedent on whether a radio and television program
host is an employee or an independent contractor, we refer to
foreign case law in analyzing the present case. The United
States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, recently held in
AlbertyVlez v. Corporacin De Puerto Rico Para La
DifusinPblica(WIPR)that a television program host is an
independent contractor.
Applying the control test to the present case, we find
that SONZA is not an employee but an independent
contractor. The control test is the most important test our
courts apply in distinguishing an employee from an
independent contractor.This test is based on the extent of
control the hirer exercises over a worker. The greater the
supervision and control the hirer exercises, the more likely the
worker is deemed an employee.
7. 2 THELMA DUMPIT-MURILLO, petitioner, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, ASSOCIATED
BROADCASTING COMPANY, JOSE JAVIER AND
EDWARD TAN, respondents.
Page 6
G.R. No. 164652. June 8, 2007
FACTS:On October 2, 1995, under a Talent Contract,
Associated Broadcasting Company (ABC) hired petitioner
Thelma Dumpit-Murillo as a newscaster and co-anchor for
BalitangBalita, an early evening news program. The contract
was for a period of three months and was renewed. In
addition, petitioners services were engaged for the program
Live onFive. On September 30, 1999, after four years of
repeated renewals, petitioners talent contract expired. Two
weeks after the expiration of the last contract, petitioner sent a
letter to Mr. Jose Javier, Vice President for News and Public
Affairs of ABC, informing the latter that she was still
interested in renewing her contract subject to a salary increase.
Thereafter, petitioner stopped reporting for work.
A month later, petitioner sent a demand letterto ABC,
demanding: (a) reinstatement to her former position (b)
payment of unpaid wages for services rendered from
September 1 to October 20, 1999 and full backwages
(c)payment of 13th month pay, vacation/sick/service
incentiveleaves and other monetary benefits due to a
regularemployee starting March 31, 1996. ABC replied that a
checkcovering petitioners talent fees for September 16 to
October20, 1999 had been processed and prepared, but that
theother claims of petitioner had no basis in fact or in law.
On December 20, 1999, petitioner filed a
complaintagainst ABC, Mr. Javier and Mr. Edward Tan, for
illegal constructive dismissal, nonpayment of salaries,
overtime pay, premium pay, separation pay, holiday pay,
service incentive leave pay, vacation/sick leaves and 13th
month pay. She likewise demanded payment for moral,
exemplary and actual damages, as well as for attorneys fees.
LABOR ARBITER:Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint.
NLRC:On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter in a
Resolution dated August 30, 2000. The NLRC held that an
employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner
and ABC that the subject talent contract was void that the
petitioner was a regular employee illegally dismissed and that
she was entitled to reinstatement and backwages or separation
pay, aside from 13th month pay and service incentive leave
pay, moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees.
CA:The appellate court ruled that the NLRC committed grave
abuse of discretion, and reversed the decision of the
NLRC.The appellate court reasoned that petitioner should not
be allowed to renege from the stipulations she had voluntarily
and knowingly executed by invoking the security of tenure
under the Labor Code. According to the appellate court,
petitioner was a fixed term employee and not a regular
employee within the ambit of Article 280of the Labor Code
because her job, as anticipated and agreed upon, was onlyfor a
specified time.
ISSUE: 1. WON the prevailing jurisprudence citing Sonza vs.
ABS-CBN, that talent contracts do not create employer-
employee relationship, would apply in the case at bar.
2. WON Dumpit-Murillo is a regular employee
contemplated in art. 280 of the Labor Code.
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
HELD: FIRST. NO. The Court of Appeals committed
reversible error when it held that petitioner was a fixed term
employee. Petitioner was a regular employee under
contemplation of law. The practice of having fixed term
contracts in the industry does not automatically make all talent
contracts valid and compliant with labor law. The assertion
that a talent contract exists does not necessarily prevent a
regular employment status. Further, the Sonzacase is not
applicable. In Sonza, thetelevision station did not instruct
Sonza how to perform hisjob. How Sonza delivered his lines,
appeared on television,and sounded on radio were outside the
television stationscontrol. Sonza had a free hand on what to
say or discuss inhis shows provided he did not attack the
television station orits interests. Clearly, the television station
did not exercisecontrol over the means and methods of the
performance ofSonzas work.In the case at bar, ABC had
control over theperformance of petitioners work. Noteworthy
too, is thecomparatively low P28,000 monthly pay of
petitionervisthe P300,000 a month salary of Sonza,that all the
morebolsters the conclusion that petitioner was not in the
samesituation as Sonza.
SECOND. YES. In Manila Water Company, Inc. v.
Pena,we said that the elements to determine the existence of
an employment relationship are: (a) the selection and
engagement of the employee, (b) the payment of wages, (c)
the power of dismissal, and (d) the employers power to
control. The most important element is the employers control
of the employees conduct, not only as to the result of the
work to be done, but also as to the means and methods to
accomplish it. The duties of petitioner as enumerated in her
employment contract indicate that ABC had control over the
work of petitioner. Aside from control, ABC also dictated the
work assignments and payment of petitioners wages. ABC
also had power to dismiss her. All these being present, clearly,
there existed an employment relationship between petitioner
and ABC. Concerning regular employment, the law provides
for two
kinds of employees, namely: (1) those who are engaged to
perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in
the usual business or trade of the employer and (2) those who
have rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous
or broken, with respect to the activity in which they are
employed.In other words, regular status arises from either the
nature of work of the employee or the duration of his
employment. In Benares v. Pancho,we very succinctly said:.
. . [T]he primary standard for determining regular
employment is the reasonable connection between the
particular activity performed by the employee vis--vis the
usual trade or business of the employer. This connection can
be determined by considering the nature of the work
performed and its relation to the scheme of theparticular
business or trade in its entirety. If the employee has
beenperforming the job for at least a year, even if the
performance is not continuous and merely intermittent, the
law deems repeated andcontinuing need for its performance
as sufficient evidence of thenecessity if not indispensability of
that activity to the business. Hence, the employment is
considered regular, but only with respectto such activity and
while such activity exists.In our view, the requisites for
regularity of employment have been met in the instant case.
Gleaned from the description of the scope of services
Page 7
aforementioned, petitioners work was necessary or desirable
in the usual business or trade of the employer which includes,
as a precondition for its enfranchisement, its participation in
the governments news and public information dissemination.
In addition, her work was continuous for a period of four
years. This repeated engagement under contract of hire is
indicative of the necessity and desirability of the petitioners
work in private respondent ABCs business.
WHEREFORE, the challenged Decision dated
January 30, 2004 and Resolution dated June 23, 2004 of the
Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 63125, which held that
the petitioner was a fixed term employee, are REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. The NLRC decision is AFFIRMED. Costs
against private respondents.SO ORDERED.
8. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. vs. Marquez
G.R. NO. 167638 June 12, 2005
FACTS: Petitioner hired the services of respondents on
various dates starting December, 1994 to undertake the
production in the Cebuano dialect of television serial
programs for petitioner's week-day afternoon time slots in
Cebu. Respondents were assigned among three (3) production
groups, each with its own set of directors, writers,
videographers, lightsmen, editors, actors and utility personnel.
Each production group was given a weekly budget, initially
at P30,000.00, which was later increased to P40,000.00 a
week.
The television-series did so well that several more
were subsequently produced. The production groups were
continuously engaged to film succeeding programs to replace
the concluded ones.
On June 15, 1999, respondents addressed a letter to
petitioner asking for a 25% increase in their weekly budget,
but the same was denied by petitioner's AVP for the Visayas
Cluster, Ma. Luisa L. Ascalon. Instead, respondents were
informed of the termination of their services effective August
13, 1999. On August 27, 1999, respondents filed with the
Regional Arbitration Branch (RAB) at Region VII of the
Department of Labor and Employment their consolidated
complaint for illegal dismissal.
LABOR ARBITER: On June 15, 2000, the Executive Labor
Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of respondents and
ordered petitioner to pay to them their money claims.
NLRC: Reveresed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.
CA: Reversed the decision of the NLRC and reinstating the
decision of the Labor Arbiter that there was an employer-
employee relationship.
ISSUE: WON the respondent is a regular employee.
HELD: YES.It is a matter of record that respondents have
rendered almost five (5) years of continuous service to
petitioner, doing work that is necessary and desirable to the
usual business of the latter. Hence, even granting on the
extreme that respondents were not performing work that is
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business of
petitioner, nonetheless the second paragraph of Article 280 of
the Labor Code still applies. It reads:
ART. 280. REGULAR AND CASUAL
EMPLOYMENT. An employment shall be deemed to be casual
if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph.Provided,
That, any employee who has rendered at least one year of
service whether such service is continuous or broken, shall
be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity
in which he is employed and his employment shall continue
while such activity exists. (Emphasis supplied).
We thus rule and so hold that respondents are
petitioner's regular employees, at least with respect to the
production of petitioner's Visayan tele-series programs and
until such activity exists.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby
DENIED.
9. Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc. vs. Oberio
G.R. No. 168424. June 8, 2007.
The test to determine whether employment is regular or not is
the reasonable connection between the particular activity
performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or
trade of the employeralso, if the employee has been
performing the job for at least one year, even if the
performance is not continuous or merely intermittent, the law
deems the repeated and continuing need for its performance
as sufficient evidence of the necessity, if not indispensability of
that activity to the business.
FACTS: Sometime in August 1998, petitioner reduced the
number of its drama productions from 14 to 11, but was
opposed by respondents. After the negotiations failed, the
latter sought the intervention of the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE), which on November 12, 1998,
conducted through its Regional Office, an inspection of
DWYB station. The results thereof revealed that petitioner is
guilty of violation of labor standard laws, such as
underpayment of wages, 13th month pay, non-payment of
service incentive leave pay, and noncoverage of respondents
under the Social Security System.
Respondents alleged that they were employed as
drama talents by DYWBBombo
Radyo, a radio station owned and operated by petitioner
Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc. They reported for
work daily for six days in a week and were required to record
their drama production in advance. Some of them were
employed by petitioner since 1974, while the latest one was
hired in 1997.Their drama programs were aired not only in
Bacolod City but also in the sister stations of DYWB in the
Visayas and Mindanao
areas.
Petitioner contended that respondents are not its
employees and refused to submit the payroll and daily time
records despite the subpoena ducestecumissued by the DOLE
Regional Director. Petitioner further argued that the case
should be referred to the NLRC because the Regional Director
has no jurisdiction over the determination of the existence of
employer- employee relationship which involves evidentiary
Page 8
matters that are not verifiable in the normal course of
inspection.
Vexed by the respondents complaint, petitioner
allegedly pressured and intimidated respondents. Respondents
Oberio and Delta were suspended for minor lapses and the
payment of their salaries were purportedly delayed.
Eventually, on February 3, 1999, pending the outcome of the
inspection case with the Regional Director, respondents were
barred by petitioner from reporting for work thus, the former
claimed constructive dismissal.
Respondents filed a case for illegal dismissal,
underpayment/non-payment of wages and benefits plus
damages against petitioner. Labor Arbiter dismissed the case
without prejudice while waiting for the decision of the
Secretary of Labor on the same issue of the existence of an
employer-employee relationship between petitioner and
respondents. On appeal to the NLRC, respondents raised the
issue of employer-employee relationship and submitted
evidence. Petitioner, on the other hand, did not present any
documentary evidence in its behalf and merely denied the
allegations of respondents. It claimed that the radio station
pays for the drama recorded by piece and that it has no control
over the conduct of respondents. NLRC rendered a decision
holding that respondents were regular employees of petitioner
who were illegally dismissed by the latter. Hence, petitioner
filed the instant recourse.
ISSUE:W/N the respondents are regular employees of the
petitioner.
HELD:Yes.substantial justice dictates that this case be
resolved on the merits considering that the NLRC and the
Court of Appeals correctly found that there existed an
employer-employee relationship between petitioner and
respondents and that the latters dismissal was illegal.
Respondents employment with petitioner passed the fourfold
test on employer-employee relations, namely: (1) the
selection and engagement of the employee, or the power to
hire (2) the payment of wages (3) the power to dismiss and
(4) the power to control the employee. Petitioner failed to
controvert with substantial evidence the allegation of
respondents that they were hired by the former on various
dates from 1974 to 1997. If petitioner did not hire respondents
and if it was the director alone who chose the talents,
petitioner could have easily shown, being in possession of the
records, a contract to such effect. However, petitioner merely
relied on its contention that respondents were piece rate
contractors who were paid by results.Note that under Policy
Instruction No. 40, petitioner is obliged to execute the
necessary contract specifying the nature of the work to be
performed, rates of pay, and the programs in which they will
work. Moreover, project or contractual employees are required
to be apprised of the project they will undertake under a
written contract. This was not complied with by the petitioner,
justifying the reasonable conclusion that no such contracts
exist and that respondents were in fact regular employees.
Moreover, the engagement of respondents for a period ranging
from 2 to 25 years and the fact that their drama programs were
aired not only in Bacolod City but also in the sister stations of
DYWB in the Visayas and Mindanao areas, undoubtedly show
that their work is necessary and indispensable to the usual
business or trade of petitioner. The test to determine whether
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
employment is regular or not is the reasonable connection
between the particular activity performed by the employee in
relation to the usual business or trade of the employer. Also, if
the employee has been performing the job for at least one
year, even if the performance is not continuous or merely
intermittent, the law deems the repeated and continuing need
for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity, if
not indispensability of that activity to the business. Thus, even
assuming that respondents were initially hired as
project/contractual employees who were paid per drama or per
project/contract, the engagement of their services for 2 to 25
years justify their classification as regular employees, their
services being deemed indispensable to the business of
petitioner.
10. Orozco vs. Fifth Division of the Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 155207. August 13, 2008.
The inevitable conclusion is that petitioner columnist was not
an employee of respondent newspaper but an independent
contractor, engaged to do independent work.
FACTS: In March 1990, PDI engaged the services of
petitioner Wilhelmina S. Orozco to write a weekly column for
its Lifestyle section. She religiously submitted her articles
every week, except for a Six-month stint in New York City
when she, nonetheless, sent several articles through mail. She
received compensation of P250.00later increased to
P300.00for every column published. Petitioner claims that
her then editor, Ms.Lita T. Logarta, told her that respondent
Leticia Jimenez Magsanoc, PDI Editor in Chief, wanted to
stop publishing her column for no reason at all and advised
petitioner to talk to Magsanoc herself. Petitioner narrates that
when she talked to Magsanoc, the latter informed her that it
was PDI Chairperson Eugenia Apostol who had asked to stop
publication of her column, but that in a telephone conversation
with Apostol, the latter said that Magsanoc informed her
(Apostol) that the Lifestyle section already had many
columnists.
PDI claims that in June 1991, Magsanoc met with the
Lifestyle section editor to discuss how to improve said section.
They agreed to cut down the number of columnists by keeping
only those whose columns were well written, with regular
feedback and following. In their judgment, petitioners column
failed to improve, continued to be superficially and poorly
written, and failed to meet the high standards of the
newspaper. Hence, they decided to terminate petitioners
column. Aggrieved by the newspapers action, petitioner filed
a complaint for illegal dismissal, backwages, moral and
exemplary damages, and other money claims before the
NLRC.
Labor Arbiter Arthur Amansec rendered a Decision
in favor of petitioner. PDI appealed the Decision to the NLRC.
In a Decision dated August 23, 1994, the NLRC Second
Division dismissed the appeal thereby affirming the Labor
Arbiters Decision. PDI then filed a Petition for Review before
this Court seeking the reversal of the NLRC Decision.
However, in a Resolution dated December 2, 1998, this Court
referred the case to the Court of Appeals, pursuant to our
ruling in St. Martin Funeral Home v. National Labor
Relations Commission. CA set aside the NLRC Decision and
dismissed petitioners Complaint. It held that the NLRC
Page 9
misappreciated the facts and rendered a ruling wanting in
substantial evidence
ISSUE: W/N a newspaper columnist is an employee of the
newspaper which publishes the column.
HELD:No.It is true that petitioner herself admitted that she
was not, and [had] never been considered respondents
employee because the terms of works were arbitrarily decided
upon by the respondent. However, the employment status of
a person is defined and prescribed by law and not by what the
parties say it should be. This Court has constantly adhered to
the fourfold test to determine whether there exists an
employer-employee relationship between parties. Of these
four elements, it is the power of control which is the most
crucial and most determinative factor. Petitioner has
misconstrued the control test, as did the Labor Arbiter and
the NLRC. Not all rules imposed by the hiring party on the
hired party indicate that the latter is an employee of the
former. Rules which serve as general guidelines towards the
achievement of the mutually desired result are not indicative
of the power of control. The control that PDI exercised over
petitioner was only as to the finished product of her efforts,
i.e., the column itself, by way of either shortening or outright
rejection of the column. The newspapers power to approve or
reject publication of any specific article she wrote for her
column cannot be the control contemplated in the control
test, as it is but logical that one who commissions another to
do a piece of work should have the right to accept or reject the
product. The important factor to consider in the control test
is still the element of control over how the work itself is done,
not just the end result thereof. Although petitioner had a
weekly deadline to meet, she was not precluded from
submitting her column ahead of time or from submitting
columns to be published at a later time. More importantly,
respondents did not dictate upon petitioner the subject matter
of her columns, but only imposed the general guideline that
the article should conform to the standards of the newspaper
and the general tone of the particular section.
11. Audion Electric Co., Inc. vs. NLRC
G.R. No. 106648. June 17, 1999.
Where the employment of project employees is extended long
after the supposed project has been finished, the employees
are removed from the scope of project employees and
considered regular employees.
FACTS: The complainant was employed by Audion Electric
Company on June 30, 1976 as fabricator and continuously
rendered service assigned in different offices or projects as
helper electrician, stockman and timekeeper. He has rendered
thirteen (13) years of continuous, loyal and dedicated service
with a clean record. On August 3, complainant was surprised
to receive a letter informing him that he will be considered
terminated after the turnover of materials, including
respondents tools and equipments not later than August 15,
1989. Complainant claims that he was dismissed without
justifiable cause and due process and that his dismissal was
done in bad faith which renders the dismissal illegal. On its
part, Audion Electric Co. merely relied on its unverified letter
communication signed by its project manager. For this reason,
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
he claims that he is entitled to reinstatement with full
backwages. He also claims that he is entitled to moral and
exemplary damages. He includes payment of his overtime pay,
project allowance, minimum wage increase adjustment,
proportionate 13th month pay and attorneys fees.
Labor Arbiter Cresencio R. Iniego rendered a
decision in favor of the respondent. Petitioner appealed to the
National Labor Relations Commission which rendered the
questioned Resolution dated March 24, 1992 dismissing the
appeal. The motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner was
denied by the NLRC in its Order dated July 31, 1992.
ISSUE:W/N the respondent NLRC committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it
ruled that private respondent was a regular employee and not a
project employee.
HELD:No. Private respondents employment status was
established by the Certification of Employment dated April
10, 1989 issued by petitioner which certified that private
respondent is a bonafide employee of the petitioner from June
30, 1976 up to the time the certification was issued on April
10, 1989. The same certificate of employment showed that
private respondents exposure to their field of operation was as
fabricator, helper/electrician, stockman/timekeeper. This
proves that private respondent was regularly and continuously
employed by petitioner in various job assignments from 1976
to 1989, for a total of 13 years. The alleged gap in
employment service cited by petitioner does not defeat private
respondents regular status as he was rehired for many more
projects without interruption and performed functions which
are vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business of
petitioner.We have held that where the employment of project
employees is extended long after the supposed project has
been finished, the employees are removed from the scope of
project employees and considered regular employees.Private
respondent had presented substantial evidence to support his
position, while petitioner merely presented an unverified
position paper merely stating therein that private respondent
has no cause to complain since the employment contract
signed by private respondent with petitioner was coterminous
with the project. Notably, petitioner failed to present such
employment contract for a specific project signed by private
respondent that would show that his employment with the
petitioner was for the duration of a particular project.
Petitioner should have submitted or filed as many reports of
termination as there were construction projects actually
finished, considering that private respondent had been hired
since 1976. The failure of petitioner to submit reports of
termination supports the claim of private respondent that he
was indeed a regular employee. This court has consistently
held that failure of the employer to file termination reports
after every project completion with the nearest public
employment office is an indication that private respondent was
not and is not a project employee.
12. Universal Robina Corporation vs. Catapang
G.R. No. 164736. October 14, 2005.
The five (5)month contract of employment was used by
petitioners as a convenient subterfuge to prevent private
respondents from becoming regular employees. Petitioners
Page 10
act of repeatedly hiring private respondents negates their
contention that private respondents were hired for a specific
project or undertaking only.
FACTS: The individual respondents were hired by the
petitioner company on various dates from 1991 to 1993 to
work at its duck farm in Barangay Sto. Tomas, Calauan,
Laguna. The respondents were hired under an employment
contract which provided for a five-month period. After the
expiration of the said employment contracts, the petitioner
company would renew them and reemploy the respondents.
This practice continued until sometime in 1996, when the
petitioners informed the respondents that they were no longer
renewing their employment contracts. In October 1996, the
respondents filed separate complaints for illegal dismissal,
reinstatement, backwages, damages and attorneys fees against
the petitioners. The complaints were later consolidated.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in favor of the
respondents. On May 17, 1999, the petitioners filed an Appeal
Memorandum with the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) on the ground that the Labor Arbiter erred in ruling
that the respondents are the petitioner companys regular
employees. Meanwhile, on May 18, 1999, the respondents
filed a Motion for Enforcement of Reinstatement Order with
the Labor Arbiter. On June 21, 1999, the Labor Arbiter issued
a Writ of Execution enforcing the immediate reinstatement of
the respondents as mandated in the March 30, 1999 Decision.
On July 13, 1999, the petitioners manifested to the Labor
Arbiter that they can reinstate only 17 of the 30 employees in
view of the phase out of the petitioner companys Agricultural
Section as early as 1996. They averred that there were no
other available positions substantially similar to the positions
previously occupied by the other 13 respondents, but that 10
of them could be accommodated at the farms Duck Dressing
Section which operates at an average of three days a week
only.On December 16, 1999, 17 employees were reinstated to
their former positions. Thereafter, the respondents moved for
the immediate reinstatement of the remaining 13 respondents.
In case of failure to comply with the reinstatement of the 13
respondents, the LaborArbiter directed the petitioner company
to pay them separation pay instead.Aggrieved, the petitioners
filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA).
On August 21, 2003, the CA denied the petition for lack of
merit.
The petitioners submit that the respondents are not
regular employees. They aver that it is of no moment that the
respondents have rendered service for more than a year since
they were covered by the five-month individual contracts to
which they duly acquiesced. The petitioners contend that they
were free to terminate the services of the respondents at the
expiration of their individual contracts. The petitioners
maintain that, in doing so, they merely implemented the terms
of the contracts.
The respondents aver that they acquired the status as
regular employees after rendering one year of service to the
petitioner company. They contend that the contracts providing
for a fixed period of employment should be struck down as
contrary to public policy, morals, good customs or public
order as it was designed to preclude the acquisition of tenurial
security.
ISSUE:W/N the respondents are regular employees.
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
HELD:Yes. In any case, we find that the CA, the NLRC and
the Labor Arbiter correctly categorized the respondents as
regular employees of the petitioner company. Thus, we quote
with approval the following excerpt from the decision of the
CA:
It is obvious that the said five-month contract of employment
was used by petitioners as a convenient subterfuge to prevent
private respondents from becoming regular employees. Such
contractual arrangement should be struck down or disregarded
as contrary to public policy or morals. To uphold the same
would, in effect, permit petitioners to avoid hiring permanent
or regular employees by simply hiring them on a temporary or
casual basis, thereby violating the employees security of
tenure in their jobs.
...
Petitioners act of repeatedly and continuously hiring private
respondents in a span of . . . 3 to 5 years to do the same kind
of work negates their contention that private respondents were
hired for a specific project or undertaking only.
13. Abesco Construction and Development Corporation vs.
Ramirez
G.R. No. 141168. April 10, 2006.
Employees who work under different project employment
contracts for several years do not automatically become
regular employees Employees who are members of a work
pool from which a company draws workers for deployment to
its different projects do not become regular employees by
reason of that fact alone. The principal test in determining
whether employees are project employees or regular
employees is whether they are assigned to carry out a
specific project or undertaking, the duration and scope of
which are specified at the time they are engaged for that
project.
FACTS: Petitioner company was engaged in a construction
business where respondents were hired on different dates from
1976 to 1992 either as laborers, road roller operators, painters
or drivers. In 1997, respondents filed two separate
complaintsfor illegal dismissal against the company and its
General Manager, Oscar Banzon, before the Labor Arbiter
(LA). Petitioners allegedly dismissed them without a valid
reason and without due process of law. The complaints also
included claims for non-payment of the 13th month pay, five
days service incentive leave pay, premium pay for holidays
and rest days, and moral and exemplary damages. The LA
later on ordered the consolidation of the two complaints.
Petitioners denied liability to respondents and
countered that respondents were project employees since
their services were necessary only when the company had
projects to be completed. Petitioners argued that, being project
employees, respondents employment was coterminous with
the project to which they were assigned. They were not regular
employees who enjoyed security of tenure and entitlement to
separation pay upon termination from work.
After trial, the LA declared respondents as regular
employees because they belonged to a work pool from
which the company drew workers for assignment to different
projects, at its discretion. He ruled that respondents were hired
and rehired over a period of 18 years, hence, they were
Page 11
deemed to be regular employees. He likewise found that their
employment was terminated without just cause. Petitioners
appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) which affirmed the LAs decision.Subsequently,
petitioners filed a petition for review in the Court of Appeals
(CA) but dismissed petitionersappeal.
ISSUE:Whether the respondents were project employees or
regular employees.
HELD:We rule that respondents were regular employees.
However, we take exception to the reasons cited by the LA
(which both the NLRC and the CA affirmed) in considering
respondents as regular employees and not as project
employees. Contrary to the disquisitions of the LA, employees
(like respondents) who work under different project
employment contracts for several years do not automatically
become regular employees they can remain as project
employees regardless of the number of years they
work.Length of service is not a controlling factor in
determining the nature of ones employment. Moreover,
employees who are members of a work pool from which a
company (like petitioner corporation) draws workers for
deployment to its different projects do not become regular
employees by reason of that fact alone. The Court has
enunciated in some casesthat members of a work pool can
either be project employees or regular employees.
The principal test for determining whether employees
are project employees or regular employees is whether
they are assigned to carry out a specific project or
undertaking, the duration and scope of which are specified at
the time they are engaged for that project.Such duration, as
well as the particular work/service to be performed, is defined
in an employment agreement and is made clear to the
employees at the time of hiring.
In this case, petitioners did not have that kind of
agreement with respondents. Neither did they inform
respondents of the nature of the latters work at the time of
hiring. Hence, for failure of petitioners to substantiate their
claim that respondents were project employees, we are
constrained to declare them as regular
employees.Furthermore, petitioners cannot belatedly argue
that respondents continue to be their employees (so as to
escape liability for illegal dismissal). Before the LA,
petitioners staunchly postured that respondents were only
project employees whose employment tenure was
coterminous with the projects they were assigned to. However,
before the CA, they took a different stance by insisting that
respondents continued to be their employees. Petitioners
inconsistent and conflicting positions on their true relation
with respondents make it all the more evident that the latter
were indeed their regular employees.
14. Phil. Federation of Credit Cooperatives, Inc. vs. NLRC
G.R. No. 121071. December 11, 1998.
Regardless of the designation an employer may have
conferred upon a workers employment status, where the latter
has completed the probationary period and allowed to work
thereafter, he becomes a regular employee, and a dismissal
premised on an alleged expiration of the contract is illegal.
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
It is an elementary rule in the law on labor relations that a
probationary employee who is engaged to work beyond the
probationary period of six months, as provided under Art. 281
of the Labor Code, as amended, or for any length of time set
forth by the employer, shall be considered a regular employee.
FACTS: Sometime in September 1982, private respondent
Victoria Abril was employed by petitioner Philippine
Federation of Credit Cooperatives, Inc. (PFCCI), a corporation
engaged in organizing services to credit and cooperative
entities, as Junior Auditor/Field Examiner and thereafter held
positions in different capacities, to wit: as office secretary in
1985 and as cashier designate for four (4) months ending in
April 1988. Respondent, shortly after resuming her position as
office secretary, subsequently went on leave until she gave
birth to a baby girl. Upon her return sometime in November
1989, however, she discovered that a certain Vangie Santos
had been permanently appointed to her former position. She,
nevertheless, accepted the position of Regional Field Officer
as evidenced by a contract which stipulated, among other
things, that respondents employment status shall be
probationary for a period of six (6) months. Said period having
elapsed, respondent was allowed to work until PFCCI
presented to her another employment contract for a period of
one year commencing on January 2, 1991 until December 31,
1991, after which period, her employment was terminated.
In a complaint for illegal dismissal filed by
respondent against PFCCI on April 1, 1992, Labor Arbiter
Cornelio L. Linsangan rendered a decision on March 10, 1993
dismissing the same for lack of merit but ordered PFCCI to
reimburse her the amount of P2,500.00 which had been
deducted from her salary. On appeal, however, the said
decision was reversed by the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC).
ISSUE:Whether the respondent is a probationary employee or
a regular employee.
HELD:Article 281 of the Labor Code, as amended, allows the
employer to secure the services of an employee on a
probationary basis which allows him to terminate the latter for
just cause or upon failure to qualify in accordance with
reasonable standards set forth by the employer at the time of
his engagement. Probationary employees, notwithstanding
their limited tenure, are also entitled to security of tenure.
Thus, except for just cause as provided by law,or under the
employment contract, a probationary employee cannot be
terminated. The Court is constrained to review the contract of
employment entered into between the party litigants. While
the initial statements of the contract show that respondents
employment was for a fixed period, the succeeding provisions
thereof contradicted the same when it provided that
respondent shall be under probationary status commencing on
February 17, 1990 and ending six (6) months thereafter.
Petitioner manifested that respondents employment for a
period of one year, from January until December 1991, having
been fixed for a specified period, could not have converted her
employment status to one of regular employment. Conversely,
it likewise insisted that respondent was employed to perform
work related to a project funded by the World Council of
Credit Unions (WOCCU) and hence, her status is that of a
project employee. The Court is, thus, confronted with a
Page 12
situation under which the terms of the contract are so
ambiguous as to preclude a precise application of the pertinent
labor laws.
Amidst the muddled assertions by petitioner, we
adhere to the pronouncement stated in the recent case of
Villanueva v. NLRC,where the Court ruled that where a
contract of employment, being a contract of adhesion, is
ambiguous, any ambiguity therein should be construed strictly
against the party who prepared it. Furthermore, Article 1702
of the Civil Code provides that, in case of doubt, all labor
contracts shall be construed in favor of the laborer.
After a careful scrutiny of the subject contract, we
arrive at the conclusion that there was no grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the NLRC and, thus, affirm the
finding that respondent has become a regular employee
entitled to security of tenure guaranteed under the Constitution
and labor laws. Regardless of the designation petitioner may
have conferred upon respondents employment status, it is,
however, uncontroverted that the latter, having completed the
probationary period and allowed to work thereafter, became a
regular employee who may be dismissed only for just or
authorized causes under Articles 282, 283 and 284 of the
Labor Code, as amended. Therefore, the dismissal, premised
on the alleged expiration of the contract, is illegal and entitles
respondent to the reliefs prayed for.
15. CALS Poultry Supply Corporation vs. Roco
G.R. No.150660. July 30, 2002
FACTS:CALS Poultry Supply Corporation is engaged in
thebusiness of selling dressed chicken and other
relatedproduct and managed by Danilo Yap.On March 15,
1984, CALS hired Alfredo Roco as itsdriver. On the same
date, CALS hired Edna Roco, Alfredossister, as a helper in
the dressing room of CALS.On May16, 1995, it hired
CandelariaRoco, another sister, ashelper,also at its chicken
dressing plant on a probationarybasis. On March 5, 1996,
Alfredo Roco and CandelariaRoco filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal against CALS and Danilo Yap alleging that Alfredo
and Candelaria were illegally dismissedon January 20, 1996
and November 5, 1996, respectively.Both also claimed that
they were underpaid of their wages.
In the case of CandelariaRoco, the Labor Arbiter
upheld CALS decision not to continue with her probationary
employment having been found her unsuited for the work for
which her services were engaged. She was hired on May 16,
1995 and her services were terminated on November 15, 1995.
There is no dispute that she was employed on
probationary basis. She was hired on May 16, 1995 and her
services were terminated on November 15, 1995 due to poor
work performance. She did not measure up to the work
standards on the dressing of chicken. The Labor Arbiter
sustained CALS in terminating her employment. For the
duration of CandelariaRocos probationary employment, she
failed to comply with Cals standards in the work assigned to
her. First, she frequently failed to observe the allowable
inches to be cut, which must only be 1.5 inches, in performing
the surgical incision of the Chicken butt, either she cuts it too
long, thereby distorting the appearance of the chickens or she
cuts it too short, thereby making it difficult to remove the
chicken parts without damaging these parts Second, she
frequently mishandles the pullout of chicken parts, such that,
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
she damaged said parts Third, she frequently completes her
assigned tasks in twenty (20) to even twentyfive (25) seconds,
over and above the required time limit, which is only eight (8)
to ten (10) seconds. Resultantly, the chickens/parts which
passed through her hands frequently suffer from premature
decomposition/bacterial or salmonella contamination By
reason of the foregoing, Cals management deemed it best to
terminate her probationary employment.
However, the Court of Appeals set aside the NLRC
ruling on the ground that at the time Candelarias services
were terminated, she had attained the status of a regular
employee as the termination on November 15, 1995 was
effected four (4) days after the 6month probationary period
had expired, hence, she is entitled to security of tenure in
accordance with Article 281 of the Labor Code. CALS argues
that the Court of Appeals computation of the 6month
probationary period is erroneous as the termination of
Candelarias services on November 15, 1995 was exactly on
the last day of the 6monthperiod.
ISSUE: WON Candelaria had attained the status of a regular
employee.
HELD:No. We agree with CALS contention as upheld by
both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that Candelarias
services was terminated within and not beyond the 6month
probationary period.
In Cebu Royal v. Deputy Minister of Labor,our
computation of the 6months probationary period is reckoned
from the date of appointment up to the same calendar date of
the 6th month following. Thus, we held: The original findings
were contained in aonepageorder reciting simply that
complainant was employed on a probationary period of
employment for six (6) months. After said period, he
underwent medical examination for qualification as regular
employee but the results showed that he is suffering from PTB
minimal. Consequently, he was informed of the termination of
his employment by respondent. The order then concluded that
the termination was justified. The six-month period of
probation started from the said date of appointment and so
ended on August 17, 1978, but it is not shown that the private
respondents employment also ended then on the contrary, he
continued working as usual. Under Article 282 of the Labor
Code, an employee who is allowed to work after a
probationary period shall be considered a regular employee.
Hence, Pilones was already on permanent status when he was
dismissed on August 21, 1978, or four days after he ceased to
be a probationer.
16. Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Corporation vs. Chrysler
Philippines Labor Union
G.R. No. 148738. June 29, 2004.
FACTS:Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Corporation (MMPC)
is a domestic corporation engaged in the assembly and
distribution of Mitsubishi motor vehicles. Chrysler Philippines
Labor Union (CPLU) is a legitimate labor organization and the
duly certified bargaining agent of the hourly paid regular rank
and file employees of MMPC. Nelson Paras was first
employed by MMPC as a shuttle bus driver on March 19,
Page 13
1976. He resigned on June 16, 1982. He applied for and was
hired as a diesel mechanic and heavy equipment operator in
Saudi Arabia from 1982 to 1993. When he returned to the
Philippines, he was rehired as a welder fabricator at the
MMPC tooling shop from October 3, 1994 to October 31,
1994.On October 29, 1994, his contract was renewed from
November 1, 1994 up to March 3, 1995.
Sometime in May of 1996, Paras was rehired on a
probationary basis as a manufacturing trainee at the Plant
Engineering Maintenance Department. Paras started reporting
for work on May 27, 1996. Hewas assigned at the paint ovens,
air makeupandconveyors. As part of the MMPCs policy,
Paras wasevaluated by his immediate supervisors Lito
R.Lacambacaland Wilfredo J. Lopezafter six (6) months,and
received an average rating. Later, Lacambacalinformed Paras
that based on his performance rating, hewould be
regularized.However, the Department and Division Managers,
A.C.Velando and H.T. Victoria,including Mr. Dante
Ong,reviewed the performance evaluation made on Paras.
Theyunanimously agreed, along with Paras
immediatesupervisors, that the performance of Paras
wasunsatisfactory.As a consequence, Paras was notconsidered
for regularization. On November 26, 1996, hereceived a
Notice of Termination dated November 25, 1996,informing
him that his services were terminated effectivethe said date
since he failed to meet the required company standards for
regularization.
Utilizing the grievance machinery in the
collectivebargaining agreement, the CPLU demanded the
settlement of the dispute which arose from Paras
termination.The dispute was thereafter submitted for voluntary
arbitration, as the parties were unable to agree on a mutually
acceptable solution. CPLU posited that Paras was dismissed
on his one hundred eighty third (183rd) day of employment, or
three (3) days after the expiration of the probationary period of
six (6) months. It was contended that Paras was already a
regular employee on the date of the termination of his
probationary employment. On November 3, 1997, the
Voluntary Arbitrator (VA) rendered a decision finding the
dismissal of Paras valid for his failure to pass the probationary
standards of MMPC.
Paras and CPLU asserted that pursuant to Article 13
of the New Civil Code, the period of May 27, 1996 to
November 26, 1996 consisted of one hundred eighty three
(183) days. They asserted that the maximum of
theprobationary period is six (6) months, which is equivalent
to 180 days as such, Paras, who continued to be employed
even after the 180th day, had become a regular employee as
provided for in Article 282 of the Labor Code. They averred
that as a regular employee, Paras employment could be
terminated only for just or authorized causes as provided for
under the Labor Code, and after due notice. They posited that
in the Letter of Termination dated November 25, 1996, the
ground for Paras termination was not among those sanctioned
by the Labor Code hence, his dismissal was illegal. The
MMPC, for its part, averred that under Article 13 of the New
Civil Code, Paras probationary employment which
commenced on May 27, 1996 would expire on November 27,
1996. Since he received the notice of termination of his
employment on November 25, 1996, the same should be
considered to have been served within the six-month
probationary period. According to the petitioner, when the
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
terminationletter was served on November 26, 1996, Paras
was still aprobationary employee.
ISSUE:whether or not respondent Paras was already a regular
employee on November 26, 1996
HELD: Indeed, an employer, in the exercise of its
management prerogative, may hire an employee on a
probationary basis in order to determine his fitness to perform
work.Under Article 281 of the Labor Code, the employer must
inform the employee of the standards for which his
employment may be considered for regularization. Such
probationary period, unless covered by an apprenticeship
agreement, shall not exceed six (6) months from the date the
employee started working. The employees services may be
terminated for just cause or for his failure to qualify as a
regular employee based on reasonable standards made known
to him. Respondent Paras was employed as a management
trainee on a probationary basis.
During the orientation conducted on May 15, 1996,
he was apprised of the standards upon which his regularization
would be based. He reported for work on May 27, 1996. As
per the companys policy, the probationary period was from
three (3) months to a maximum of six (6) months. Applying
Article 13 of the Civil Code,the probationary period of six (6)
months consists of one hundred eighty (180) days.This is in
conformity with paragraph one, Article 13 of the Civil Code,
which provides that the months which are not designated by
their names shall be understood as consisting of thirty (30)
days each. The number of months in the probationary period,
six (6), should then be multiplied by the number of days
within a month, thirty (30)hence, the period of one hundred
eighty (180) days. As clearly provided for in the last paragraph
of Article 13,in computing a period, the first day shall be
excluded andthe last day included. Thus, the one hundred
eighty (180)days commenced on May 27, 1996, and ended on
November23, 1996. The termination letter dated November
25, 1996was served on respondent Paras only at 3:00 a.m.
ofNovember 26, 1996. He was, by then, already a
regularemployee of the petitioner under Article 281 of the
LaborCode.
An employee cannot be dismissed except for just
orauthorized cause as found in the Labor Code and after
dueprocess. The basis for which respondent Paras services
wereterminated was his alleged unsatisfactory rating
arisingfrom poor performance. In the present case, the
immediate supervisor ofrespondent Paras gave him an average
performance ratingand found him fit for regularization.
However, in a complete turnaround, thepetitioner made it
appear that after the performanceevaluation of respondent
Paras was reviewed by thedepartment and division heads, it
was unanimously agreedthat the respondents performance
rating wasunsatisfactory, making him unfit for regularization.
Considering that respondent Paras was not dismissed for ajust
or authorized cause, his dismissal from employmentwas
illegal.
17. Mariwasa Manufacturing, Inc. vs. Leogardo, Jr.
G.R. No. 74246. January 26, 1989.
Page 14
Probationary employment The employer and the employee
may by agreement extend the probationary period of
employment beyond the 6months period in Art. 282 of the
Labor Code.
FACTS:Private respondent Joaquin A. Dequila (or Dequilla)
was hired on probation by petitioner Mariwasa Manufacturing,
Inc. (hereafter, Mariwasa only) as a general utility worker on
January 10, 1979. Upon the expiration of the probationary
period of six months, Dequila was informed by his employer
that his work had proved unsatisfactory and had failed to meet
the required standards. To give him a chance to improve his
performance and qualify for regular employment, instead of
dispensing with his service then and there, with his written
consent Mariwasa extended his probation period for another
three months from July 10 to October 9, 1979. His
performance, however, did not improve and on that account
Mariwasa terminated his employment at the end of the
extended period.
Dequila thereupon filed with the Ministry of Labor
against Mariwasa and its VicePresident for Administration,
Angel T. Dazo, a complaint for illegal dismissal and violation
of Presidential Decrees Nos. 920 and 1389.
His complaint was dismissed after hearing by
Director Francisco L. Estrella, Director of the Ministrys
National Capital Region, who ruled that the termination of
Dequilas employment was in the circumstances justified and
rejected his money claims for insufficiency of evidence.On
appeal to the Office of the Minister, however, said disposition
was reversed. Respondent Deputy Minister Vicente Leogardo,
Jr. held that Dequila was already a regular employee at the
time of his dismissal, therefore, could not have been lawfully
dismissed for failure to meet company standards as a
probationary worker. He was ordered reinstated to his former
position without loss of seniority and with full back wages
from the date of his dismissal until actually reinstated.
Mariwasa and Dazo, now petitioners, thereafter be
sought this Court to review Hon. Leogardos decision on
certiorari and prohibition, urging its reversal for having been
rendered with grave abuse of discretion and/or without or in
excess of jurisdiction.
Art. 282.Probationary Employment.Probationary
employment shall not exceed six (6) months from the date the
employee started working, unless it is covered by an
apprenticeship agreement stipulating a longer period. The
services of an employee who has been engaged on a
probationary basis may be terminated for a just cause or when
he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with
reasonable standards made known by the employer to the
employee at the time of his engagement. An employee who is
allowed to work after probationary period shall be considered
a regular employee.
ISSUE:W/N Article 282 of the Labor Code notwithstanding,
probationary employment may validly be extended beyond the
prescribed six-month period by agreement of the employer
and the employee.
HELD:The Court agrees with the Solicitor General, who takes
the same position as the petitioners, that such an extension
may lawfully be covenanted, notwithstanding the seemingly
restrictive language of the cited provision.
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
Buiser vs. Leogardo, Jr.recognized agreements
stipulating longer probationary periods as constituting lawful
exceptions to the statutory prescription limiting such periods
to six months, when it upheld as valid an employment contract
between an employer and two of its employees that provided
for an eigthteen-month probation period. The single difference
between Buiserand the present case: that in the former
involved an eighteen-month probationary period stipulated in
the original contract of employment, whereas the latter refers
to an extension agreed upon at or prior to the expiration of the
statutory six-month period, is hardly such as to warrant or
even suggest a different ruling here. In both cases the parties
agreements in fact resulted in extensions of the period
prescribed by law.
For aught that appears of record, the extension of
Dequilas probation was ex gratia, an act of liberality on the
part of his employer affording him a second chance to make
good after having initially failed to prove his worth as an
employee. Such an act cannot now unjustly be turned against
said employers account to compel it to keep on its payroll one
who could not perform according to its work standards. The
law, surely, was never meant to produce such an inequitable
result.
By voluntarily agreeing to an extension of the
probationary period, Dequila in effect waived any benefit
attaching to the completion of said period if he still failed to
make the grade during the period of extension. The Court
finds nothing in the law which by any fair interpretation
prohibits such a waiver. And no public policy protecting the
employee and the security of his tenure is served by
proscribing voluntary agreements which, by reasonably
extending the period of probation, actually improve and
further a probationary employees prospects of demonstrating
his fitness for regular employment.
18. Villanueva vs. NLRC (Second Division)
G.R. No. 127448. September 10, 1998.
The termination of an employees employment contract on 21
February 1995, as well as the subsequent issuance on 13
March 1995 of a new contract for five months as data
encoder, was a devious, but crude, attempt to circumvent the
employees right to security of tenure as a regular employee.
FACTS:Petitioner Juanito M. Villanueva started working with
respondent Innodata Philippines, Inc.,/Innodata Processing
Corporation as an abstractor with a daily salary of P180.
The contract of employmentprovided for a period of
effectivity of one year commencing on Feb. 21, 1994, until
Aug. 21, 1995. It was also stipulated that from 21 February
1994 to 21 August 1994, or for a period of six months,
petitioners employment would be contractual and could be
terminated at whatever date within this period by mere service
of notice to that effect. However, should his employment be
continued beyond 21 August 1994, he would become a regular
employee upon demonstration of sufficient skill to meet the
standards set by the respondent company. Should he fail to
demonstrate the ability to master his task during the first six
months, he could be placed on probation for another six
months after which, he could be evaluated for promotion as a
regular employee. On 21 February 1995, petitioners services
were terminated by reason of end of contract.
Page 15
 Three weeks thereafter, the petitioner was rehired by
the respondent corporation, this time, as a data encoder.
effective 13 March 1995 to 15 August 1995, with a lesser
pay of P164.10 per day.On 13 August 1995, the petitioner was
again separated from the respondent company also on account
of end of contract.
This prompted the petitioner to file a complaint
against the respondent company and its president, Todd
Solomon, for illegal dismissal with prayer for moral and
exemplary damages and attorneys fees. In his 21 May 1996
Decision, Labor Arbiter Manuel R. Caday held that as an
abstractor engaged in processing, encoding of data, precoding,
editing, proofreading and scoring activities which were
necessary and desirable in the usual business of the respondent
corporationthe petitioner was a regular employee pursuant
to Article 280 of the Labor Code, who enjoyed security of
tenure. Moreover, when he was allowed to work after 21
August 1994, when his probationary employment of six
months expired, he acquired a vested right to a permanent
employment and could only be dismissed for a valid cause.
On appeal, respondent NLRC reversed the Labor
Arbiters decision and upheld the validity of petitioners
separation from the respondent company on the ground that
his employment contract was for a fixed period of one year
and six months, certain to end on 21 August 1994.
ISSUE:W/N the petitioner is a regular employee.
HELD:Yes.We agree with the OSG that the contract cannot
be strictly construed as one for a fixed term. For one, while the
first paragraph of Section 2 spoke of the contracts duration to
be one year, it was in fact, for one year and six months
because it was to commence on 21 February 1994 and
terminate on 21 August 1995. For another, while the second
paragraph specified the first sixmonth period of employment,
21 February to 21 August 1994, as contractual, the third
sentence of that paragraph granted the petitioner regular
employment status should he continue his employment
beyond August 21, 1994, . . . upon demonstration of sufficient
skill in terms of his ability to meet the standards set by the
respondent company. It is clear that the first six months was in
reality the probation period under Article281 of the Labor
Code,since petitioner would become a regular employee if the
employment would continue beyond that period upon
demonstration of sufficient skill in accord with the standards
set by the respondent corporation.
Significantly, the respondent company alleges that it
has never placed the petitioner on probation.This could only
mean that petitioners continuance in employment beyond 21
August 1994 was not for probation purposes under the fourth
sentence of the second paragraph of Section 2 reading as
follows: If the employee fails to demonstrate the ability to
master his task during the first six months he can be placed on
probation for another six (6) months after which he will be
evaluated for promotion as a regular employee. If the
petitioner was thus allowed to remain in employment beyond
21 August 1994, it could be for no other reason than that he
demonstrated sufficient skill in terms of his ability to meet
the standards set by the respondent company. He, therefore,
became a regular employee by virtue of the third sentence of
the second paragraph of Section 2 of the contract.
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
The termination of petitioners employment contract
on 21 February 1995, as well as the subsequent issuance on 13
March 1995 of a new contract for five months as data
encoder, was a devious, but crude, attempt to circumvent
petitioners right to security of tenure as a regular employee
guaranteed by Article 279 of the Labor Code.
19. Innodata Philippines, Inc. vs. Quejada Lopez
G.R. No. 162839. October 12, 2006
FACTS:Innodata Philippines, Inc., is engaged in the
encoding/data conversion business. It employs encoders,
indexers, formatters, programmers, quality/quantity staff, and
others, to maintain its business and do the job orders of its
clients. Estrella G. Natividad and Jocelyn L. Quejada were
employed as formatters by Innodata Philippines, Inc. They
[worked] from March 4, 1997, until their separation on March
3, 1998. Claiming that their job was necessary and desirable
to the usual business of the company which is data
processing/conversion and that their employment is regular
pursuant to Article 280 of the Labor Code, [respondents] filed
a complaint for illegal dismissal and for damages as well as
for attorneys fees against Innodata Phils., Incorporated,
Innodata Processing Corporation and Todd Solomon.
[Respondents] further invoke the stare decicisdoctrine in the
case of JuanitoVillanuevavs. National Labor Relations
Commission, et al., G.R. No. 127448 dated September 17,
1998 and the case of Joaquin Servidad vs.National Labor
Relations Commission, et al., G.R. No. 128682 dated March
18, 1999, arguing that the Highest Court has already ruled
with finality that the nature of employment at [petitioner]
corporation is regular and not on a fixed term basis, as the job
in the company is necessary and desirable to the usual
business of the corporation. On the other hand, [petitioner]
contends that [respondents] employment contracts expired,
for [these were] only for a fixed period of one (1) year.
After examination of the pleadings filed, Labor
Arbiter Donato G. Quinto rendered a judgment in favor of
complainants. National Labor Relations Commission, which
reversed and set aside the Labor Arbiters decision and
dismissed [respondents] complaint for lack of merit. It
declared that the contract between [respondents] and
[petitioner] company was for a fixed term and therefore, the
dismissal of [respondents], at the end of their one year term
agreed upon, was valid. The CA ruled that respondents were
regular employees in accordance with Section 280 of the
Labor Code. It said that the fixed term contract prepared by
petitioner was a crude attempt to circumvent respondents
right to security of tenure.
ISSUE: WON the employment contract is valid.
HELD: No.While the Supreme Court has recognized the
validity of fixed termemploymentcontracts in a number of
cases,it has consistently emphasized that when the
circumstances of a caseshow that the periods were imposed to
block the acquisitionof security of tenure, they should be
struck down for beingcontrary to law, morals, good customs,
public order orpublic policy.
A close scrutiny of the provisions of the employment
contract, however, show that the double-bladed scheme to
Page 16
block the acquisition of tenure security still exists. To stress,
Servidadstruck down the following objectionable contract
provisions: Section 2. This Contract shall be effective for a
period of 1 [year] commencing on May 10, 1994, until May
10, 1995 unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions
hereof. From May 10, 1994 to November 10, 1994, or for a
period of six (6) months, the EMPLOYEE shall be contractual
during which the EMPLOYER can terminate the
EMPLOYEEs services by serving written notice to that
effect. Such termination shall be immediate, or at whatever
date within the six-month period, as the EMPLOYER may
determine. Should the EMPLOYEE continue his employment
beyond November 10, 1994, he shall become a regular
employee upon demonstration of sufficient skill in the terms
of his ability to meet the standards set by the EMPLOYER. If
the EMPLOYEE fails to demonstrate the ability to master his
task during the first six months he can be placed on probation
for another six (6) months after which he will be evaluated for
promotion as aregular employee.
In comparison, the pertinent portions of the present
employment contracts in dispute read as follows:
TERM/DURATION
1. The EMPLOYER hereby employs, engages and hires the
EMPLOYEE, and the EMPLOYEE hereby accepts such
appointment as FORMATTER
effectiveMarch 04, 1997 to March 03, 1998, a period of one
(1) year. x xxxxxxxx
TERMINATION
7.1 This Contract shall automatically terminate on March 03,
1998 without need of notice or demand.
x xxxxxxxx
7.4 The EMPLOYEE acknowledges that the EMPLOYER
entered into this Contract upon his express representation that
he/she is qualified and possesses the skills necessary and
desirable for the position indicated herein. Thus, the
EMPLOYER is hereby granted the right to preterminate this
Contract within the first three (3) months of its duration upon
failure of the EMPLOYEE to meet and pass the qualifications
and standards set by the EMPLOYER and made known to the
EMPLOYEE prior to execution hereof. Failure of the
EMPLOYER to exercise its right hereunder shall be without
prejudice to the automatic termination of the EMPLOYEEs
employment upon the expiration of this Contract or
cancellation thereof for other causes provided herein and by
law.
The presentcontracts provide for two periods. Aside
from the fixedoneyearterm set in paragraph 1, paragraph 7.4
providesfor a three-month period during which petitioner has
the right to preterminate the employment for the failure of the
employees to meet and pass the qualifications and standards
set by the employer and made known to the employee prior
to their employment. Thus, although couched in ambiguous
language, paragraph 7.4 refers in reality to a probationary
period. Clearly, to avoid regularization, petitioner has again
sought to resort alternatively to probationary employment and
employment for a fixed term.
Noteworthy is the following pronouncement of this
Court in Servidad:
If the contract was really for a fixed term, the [employer]
should not have been given the discretion to dismiss the
[employee] during the one year period of employment for
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
reasons other thanthe just and authorized causes under the
Labor Code. Settled is the rule that an employer can terminate
the services of an employee only for valid and just causes
which must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. The
language of the contract in dispute is truly a double-
bladedscheme to block the acquisition of the employee of
tenurialsecurity. Thereunder, [the employer] has two options.
It canterminate the employee by reason of expiration of
contract, or itmay use failure to meet work standards as the
ground for theemployees dismissal. In either case, the tenor
of the contractjeopardizes the right of the worker to security of
tenureguaranteed by the Constitution. Consequently, the
terms of the present contract should beconstrued strictly
against petitioner, which prepared it.
Article 1700 of the Civil Code declares: Art. 1700.
The relations between capital and labor are not merely
contractual. They are so impressed with public interest that
labor contracts must yield to the common good. Therefore,
such contracts are subject to the special laws on labor unions,
collective bargaining, strikes and lockouts, closed shop,
wages, working conditions, hours of labor and similar
subjects. Indeed, a contract of employment is impressed with
public interest. For this reason, provisions of applicable
statutes are deemed written into the contract. Hence, the
parties are not at liberty to insulate themselves and their
relationships from the impact of labor laws and regulations by
simply contracting with each other.Moreover, in case of
doubt, the terms of a contract should be construed in favor of
labor.
20. Buiser vs. Leogardo, Jr.
No. L63316. July 31, 1984
FACTS: Petitioners were employed by the private respondent
GENERAL TELEPHONE DIRECTORY COMPANY as sales
representatives and charged with the duty of soliciting
advertisements for inclusion in a telephone directory. The
records show that petitioners IluminadaVerBuiserand Ma.
Mercedes P. Intengan entered into an Employment Contract
(on Probationary Status) on May 26, 1980 with private
respondent, a corporation engaged in the business of
publication and circulation of the directory of the Philippine
Long Distance Telephone Company. Petitioner Ma. Cecilia
RilloAcua entered into the same employment contract on
June 11, 1980 with the private respondent. Among others, the
Employment Contract (On Probationary Status) included the
following commonprovisions:1. The company hereby
employs the employee as telephone sales representative on a
probationary status for a period of eighteen (18) months, i.e.
from May 1980 to October 1981, inclusive. It is understood
that during the probationary period of employment, the
Employee may be terminated at the pleasure of the company
without the necessity of giving notice of termination or the
payment of termination pay. The Employee recognizes the
fact that the nature of thetelephone sales representatives job is
such that the companywould be able to determine his true
character, conduct and selling
capabilities only after the publication of the directory, and that
it takes about eighteen (18) months before his worth as a
telephone sales representative can be fully evaluated inasmuch
as the advertisement solicited by him for a particular year are
published inthe directory only the following year.
Page 17
 Corollary to this, the private respondent prescribed
sales quotas to be accomplished or met by the petitioners.
Failing to meet their respective sales quotas, the petitioners
were dismissed from the service by the private respondent.
Thus, on May 27, 1981, petitioners filed with the National
Capital Region, Ministry of Labor and Employment, a
complaint for illegal dismissal with claims for backwages,
earned commissions and other benefits.
Petitioners contend that under Articles 281-282 of the
Labor Code, having served the respondent company
continuously for over six (6) months, they have become
automatically regular employees notwithstanding an
agreement to the contrary. Articles 281-282
read thus: Art. 282. Probationary Employment.
Probationary employment shall not exceed six (6) months
from the date the employee started working, unless it is
covered by an apprenticeship agreement stipulating a longer
period. The services of an employee who has been engaged on
a probationary basis may be terminated for a just cause or
when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance
with reasonable standards made known by the employer to the
employee at the time of his engagement. An employee who is
allowed to work after a probationary period shall be
considered a regular employee. (As amended by PD 850).
Art. 281. Regular and Casual Employment.The provisions
of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and
regardless of the oral agreements of the parties, an
employment shall be deemed to be regular where the
employee has been engaged to perform activities which are
usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of
the employer, except where the 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 services to
be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for
the duration of the season. An employment shall be deemed to
be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph:
Provided, That, any employee who has rendered at least one
year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken,
shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the
activity in which he is employed and his employment shall
continue while such actually exists. It is petitioners
submission that probationary employment cannot exceed six
(6) months, the only exception being apprenticeship and
learnership agreements as provided in the Labor Code.
ISSUE:WON probationary period cannot exceed 6 months
HELD:No. Generally, the probationary period of employment
is limited to six (6) months. The exception to this general rule
is when the parties to an employment contract may agree
otherwise, such as when the same is established by company
policy or when the same is required by the natureof work to be
performed by the employee.
In the latter case, there is recognition of the exercise
of managerial prerogatives in requiring a longer period of
probationary employment, such as in the present case where
the probationary period was set for eighteen (18) months, i.e.
from May, 1980 to October, 1981 inclusive, especially where
the employee must learn a particular kind of work such as
selling, or when the job requires certain qualifications, skills,
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
experience or training. Policy Instruction No. 11 of the
Minister of Labor and Employment has clarified any and all
doubts on the period of probationary employment. It states as
follows:Probationary Employment has been the subject of
misunderstanding in some quarter. Some people believe six
(6) months is the probationary period in all cases. On the other
hand, employees who have already served the probationary
period aresometimes required to serve again on
probation.Under the Labor Code, six (6) months is the general
probationary period, but the probationary period is actually the
period needed to determine fitness for the job. This period, for
lack of a better measurement is deemed to be the period
needed to learn the job.
In the case at bar, it is shown that private respondent
Company needs at least eighteen (18) months to determine the
character and selling capabilities of the petitioners as sales
representatives. The Company is engaged in advertisement
and publication in the Yellow Pages of the PLDT Telephone
Directories. Publication of solicited ads are only made a year
after the sale has been made and only then will the company
be able to evaluate the efficiency, conduct, and selling ability
of its sales representatives, theevaluation being based on the
published ads. Moreover, an eighteen monthprobationary
period is recognized by the Labor Union in the private
respondent company, which is Article V of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement. We, therefore, hold and rule that the
probationary employment of petitioners set to eighteen (18)
months is legal and valid and that the Regional Director and
the Deputy Minister of Labor and Employment committed no
abuse of discretion in ruling accordingly.
21. Nitto Enterprises vs. National Labor Relations
Commission
G.R. No. 114337. September 29, 1995
FACTS: Petitioner Nitto Enterprises, a company engaged in
the sale of glass and aluminum products, hired Roberto Capili
sometime in May 1990 as an apprentice machinist, molder and
core maker as evidenced by an apprenticeship agreementfor a
period of six (6) months from May 28, 1990 to November 28,
1990 with a daily wage rate of P66.75 which was 75% of the
applicable minimum wage.
At around 1:00 p.m. of August 2, 1990, Roberto
Capili who was handling a piece of glass which he was
working on, accidentally hit and injured the leg of an office
secretary who was treated at a nearby hospital. Later that same
day, after office hours, private respondent entered a workshop
within the office premises which was not his work station.
There, he operated one of the power press machines without
authority and in the process injured his left thumb. Petitioner
spent the amount of P1,023.04 to cover the medication of
private respondent. The following day, Roberto Capili was
asked to resign.
On August 6, 1990, private respondent formally filed
before the NLRC Arbitration Branch, National Capital Region
a complaint for illegal dismissal and payment of other
monetary benefits. On October 9, 1991, the Labor Arbiter
rendered his decision finding the termination of private
respondent as valid and dismissing the money claim for lack
of merit. On July 26, 1993, the National Labor Relations
Commission issued an order reversing the decision of the
Labor Arbiter. The NLRC declared that private respondent
Page 18
was a regular employee of petitioner. As correctly pointed out
by the complainant, we cannot understand how an
apprenticeship agreement filed with the Department of Labor
only on June 7, 1990 could be validly used by the Labor
Arbiter as basis to conclude that the complainant was hired by
respondent as a plain apprentice on May 8, 1990.Clearly,
therefore, the complainant was respondents regular employee
under Article 280 of the Labor Code, as early as May 28,1990,
who thus enjoyed the security of tenure guaranteed in Section
3, Article XIII of our 1987 Constitution.
Petitioner assails the NLRCs finding that private
respondent Roberto Capili cannot plainly be considered an
apprentice since no apprenticeship program had yet been filed
and approved at the time the agreement was executed.
Petitioner further insists that the mere signing of the
apprenticeship agreement already established an employer
apprentice relationship.
ISSUE:WON Roberto Capili is a regular employee.
HELD:Yes. The law is clear on this matter. Article 61 of the
Labor Code provides: Contents of apprenticeship
agreement.Apprenticeship agreements, including the main
rates of apprentices, shall conform to the rules issued by the
Minister of Labor and Employment. The period of
apprenticeship shall not exceed six months. Apprenticeship
agreements providing for wage rates below the legal minimum
wage, which in no case shall start below 75% per cent of the
applicable minimum wage, may be enteredinto only in
accordance with apprenticeship program duly
approved by the Minister of Labor and Employment . The
Ministry shall develop standard model programs of
apprenticeship.
In the case at bench, the apprenticeship agreement
between petitioner and private respondent was executed on
May 28, 1990 allegedly employing the latter as an apprentice
in the trade of care maker/molder. On the same date, an
apprenticeship program was prepared by petitioner and
submitted to the Department of Labor and Employment.
However, the apprenticeship Agreement was filed only on
June 7, 1990. Notwithstanding the absence ofapproval by the
Department of Labor and Employment, the apprenticeship
agreement was enforced the day it was signed. Based on the
evidence before us, petitioner did not comply with the
requirements of the law. It is mandated that apprenticeship
agreements entered into by the employer and apprentice shall
be entered only in accordance with the apprenticeship program
duly approved by the Minister of Labor and Employment.
Prior approval by the Department of Labor and
Employment of the proposed apprenticeship program is,
therefore, a condition sine qua non before an apprenticeship
agreement can be validly entered into. Hence, since the
apprenticeship agreement between petitioner and private
respondent has no force and effect in the absence of a valid
apprenticeship program duly approved by the DOLE, private
respondents assertion that he was hired not as an apprentice
but as a delivery boy (kargador or pahinante) deserves
credence.
22. CHIANG KAI SHEK SCHOOL, petitioner, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and FAUSTINA FRANCO OH,
respondents.
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
G.R. No. 58028. April 18, 1989
FACTS: On the first week of July, 1968, Fausta Oh was told
that she had no assignment for the next semester. Oh was
shocked. She had been teaching in the school since 1932 for a
continuous period of almost 33 years. And now, out of the
blue, and for no apparent or given reason, this abrupt
dismissal. Oh sued. She demanded separation pay, social
security benefits, salary differentials, maternity benefits and
moral and exemplary damages.
The petitioner says the private respondent had not
been illegally dismissed because her teaching contract was on
a yearly basis and the school was not required to rehire her in
1968. The argument is that her services were terminable at the
end of each year at the discretion of the school. Significantly,
no explanation was given by the petitioner, and no advance
notice either, of her relief. After teaching year in and, year out
for all of thirty-two years, the private respondent was simply
told she could not teach any more.
ISSUE: Whether or not Fausta Oh was illegally dismissed
HELD: The private respondents position is no different from
that of the rank and file employees involved in Gregorio
Araneta University Foundation v. NLRC, of whom the Court
had the following to say:
Undoubtedly, the private respondents positions as
deans and department heads of the petitioner university are
necessary in its usual business. Moreover, all the private
respondents have been serving the university from 18 to 28
years. All of them rose from the ranks starting as instructors
until they became deans and department heads of the
university. A person who has served the University for 28
years and who occupies a high administrative position in
addition to teaching duties could not possibly be a temporary
employee or a casual.
The applicable law is the Termination Pay Law,
which provided:SECTION 1. In cases of employment, without
a definite period, in a commercial, industrial, or agricultural
establishment or enterprise, the employer or the employee may
terminate at any time the employment with just cause or
without just cause in the case of an employee by serving
written notice on the employer at least one month in advance,
or in the case of an employer, by serving such notice to the
employee at least one month in advanceor one-half month for
every year of service of the employee, whichever, is longer, a
fraction of at least six months being considered as one whole
year. The employer, upon whom no such notice was served in
case of termination of employment without just cause may
hold the employee liable for damages. The employee, upon
whom no such notice was served in case of termination of
employment without just cause shall be entitled to
compensation from the date of termination of his employment
in an amount equivalent to his salaries or wages corresponding
to the required period of notice. x xx.
Parenthetically, R.A. No. 4670, otherwise known as
the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers, confers security
of tenure on the teacher upon appointment as long as he
possesses the required qualification. And under the present
policy of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports, a
teacher becomes permanent and automatically acquires
security of tenure upon completion of three years in the
Page 19
service. While admittedly not applicable to the case at bar,
these rules nevertheless reflect the attitude of the government
on the protection of the workers security of tenure, which is
now guaranteed by no less than the Constitution itself. We
find that the private respondent was arbitrarily treated by the
petitioner, which has shown no cause for her removal nor had
it given her the notice required by the Termination Pay Law.
As the respondent court said, the contention that she did not
report one week before the start of classes is a flimsy
justification for replacing her. She had been in its employ for
all of thirty-two years. Her record was apparently
unblemished. There is no showing of any previous strained
relations between her and the petitioner. Oh had every reason
to assume, as she had done in previous years, that she would
continue teaching as usual.
23. Espiritu Santo Parochial School vs. NLRC
G.R. No. 82325.September 26, 1989
FACTS: The seven individual private respondents were hired
by the petitioner school
on a probationary basis on June 1, 1984,1 whereupon,
sometime between April 1 and 15, 1985,their services were
terminated. On May 8, 1985, they charged the petitioner
school with unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal. The
labor arbiter ruled finding respondents guilty of unfair labor
practice. The school appealed to the National Labor
RelationsCommission, but the decision of the labor arbiter
wasaffirmed on February 29, 1988 except for the charge
ofunfair labor practice which was dismissed for
insufficiencyof evidence. In the present petition, the school
submits the followingissues:
1. The respondents teachers were not dismissed. Their
contracts have, simply, expired and not renewed.
2. Their contracts subsist from schoolyear to
schoolyear, and unless renewed, the same
automatically expire
In their comment, however, the said seven private
respondents teachers contend as follows:
Under the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, teachers
undergo a probationary period of three years, during which,
they may be dismissedonly for a just cause. Since the said
seven teachers were laid off after less than one year of
probationary service, the layoff was illegal.
ISSUE:whether or not respondents committed acts of unfair
labor practice in terminating the services of individual
complainants
HELD: There is no dispute that the individual complainants
were probationary employees pursuant to the policy
enunciated by the Bureau of Private Schools extending the
probationary employment of teachers to three (3) years.The
above policy, however, did not repeal or render inoperative
Article 282 of the Labor Code, as amended which provides
that:x xx The services of an employee who has been engaged
on a probationary basis may be terminated for a just cause or
when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance
with reasonable standards made known to the employee at the
time of his engagement.xxx
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
We see no clear evidence that the individual
complainants were terminated either for a just cause or that
they have failed to qualify as regular employees in accordance
with the standards set by respondent school made known to
the former at the time ofhiring. In fact, it is shown that the
individual complainants were issued individual certifications
of employment and whose performance ratings ranged from
85% to 90% It is not denied that the complainants were hired
as probationary teachers, but the reason for their termination
should nevertheless be for a valid cause or causes. It must be
clearly shown that they have failed to meet certain standards
or criteria made known to them beforehand. It cannot be said
that they failed to meet respondents standards because of their
high marks of performance. Hence, We see no valid reason for
the school not to rehire them, except, of course, for some
reasons known only to the school authorities but which they
did not make known to herein complainants.
24. HANJIN HEAVY INDUSTRIES AND
CONSTRUCTION
CO., LTD., vs. FELICITO IBAEZ ET AL
G.R. No. 170181. June 26, 2008
FACTS: Petitioner HANJIN is a foreign company duly
registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission to
engage in the construction business in the Philippines.
Petitioners HakKon Kim and JhunieAdajar were employed as
Project Director and Supervisor, respectively, by HANJIN. On
11 April 2002, respondents FelicitoIbaez, AligwasCarolino,
Elmer Gacula, Enrique Dagotdot, RuelCalda, and four other
coworkers filed a complaint before theNLRC, for illegal
dismissal with prayer for reinstatement and full backwages
against petitioners.
In their Position Paper dated 29 July 2002,
respondents alleged that HANJIN hired them for various
positions on different dates,Respondents stated that their tasks
were usual andnecessary or desirable in the usual business or
trade ofHANJIN. Respondents additionally averred that they
wereemployed as members of a work pool from which
HANJINdraws the workers to be dispatched to its
variousconstruction projects with the exception of
RuelCalda,who as a warehouseman was required to work
inHANJINs main office.Among the various construction
projects to which they were supposedly assigned, respondents
named the North Harbor project in 1992-1994 Manila
International Port in 1994-1996 Batangas Port in 1996-1998
theBatangas Pier, and La Mesa Dam.On 15 April 2002, Hanjin
dismissed respondents from employment. Respondents
claimed that at the time of their dismissal, HANJIN had
several construction projects that were still in progress, such
as Metro Rail Transit (MRT) II and MRT III, and continued to
hire employees to fill the positions vacated by the respondents.
Petitioners denied the respondents allegations. They
maintained that respondents were hired as project employees
for the construction of the LRT/MRT Line 2 Package 2 and 3
Project. HANJIN and respondents purportedly executed
contracts of employment, in which it was clearly stipulated
that the respondents were to be hired as project employees for
a period of only three months, but that the contracts may be
renewed. Petitioners call attention to the fact that they
complied with two of the indicators of project employment, as
prescribed under Section 2.2(e) and (f) of Department Order
Page 20
No. 19, Series of 1993, entitled Guidelines Governingthe
Employment of Workers in the Construction Industry, issued
by the DOLE:
2.2 Indicators of project employment.Either one or more
of the following circumstances, among others, may be
considered as indicators that an employee is a project
employee.
(a) The duration of the specific/identified undertaking for
which the worker is engaged is reasonably determinable.
(b) Such duration, as well as the specific work/service to be
performed, is defined in an employment agreement and is
made clear to the employee at the time of hiring.
(c) The work/service performed by the employee is in
connection with the particular project/undertaking for which
he is engaged.
(d) The employee, while not employed and awaiting
engagement, is free to offer his services to any other
employer.
(e) The termination of his employment in the particular
project/undertaking is reported to the Department of
Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional
Office having jurisdiction over the workplace within 30
days following the date of his separation from work, using
the prescribed form on employees
terminations/dismissals/suspensions.
(f) An undertaking in the employment contract by the
employer to pay completion bonus to the project employee
as practiced by most construction companies. (Emphasis
provided.)
Petitioners argue that the Termination Report filed
before the DOLE Regional Office (IV) in Cainta, Rizal on 11
April 2002 signifies that respondents services were engaged
merely for the LRT/MRT Line 2 Package 2 and 3
Project.Petitioners also insist that the payment to the
respondents of a completion bonus indicates that respondents
were project employees.
ISSUE:whether respondents were project employees
HELD: Article 280 of the Labor Code distinguishes a project
employee from a regular employee thus:Article 280.
Regular and Casual EmploymentTheprovisions of written
agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of
the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be
deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to
perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in
the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the
employment has been fixed for aspecific project or
undertaking the completion or termination of which has been
determined at the time ofthe engagement of the employee or
where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in
nature and the employment is for theduration of the season.
An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is
not covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, That, any
employee who has rendered at least one year service, whether
such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a
regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is
employed and hisemployment shall continue while such
activity exists.
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
From the foregoing provision, the principal test for
determining whether particular employees are properly
characterized as project employees as distinguished from
regular employees is whether or not the project employees
were assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking,
the duration and scope of which were specified at the time the
employees were engaged for that project.
In Abesco Construction and Development
Corporation v.Ramirez,which also involved a construction
company and its workers, this Court considered it crucial that
the employees were informed of their status as project
employees:
The principal test for determining whether employees are
project employees or regular employees is whether they
are assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking, the
duration and scope of which are specified at the time they are
engaged for that project. Such duration, as well as the
particularwork/service to be performed, is defined in an
employmentagreement and is made clear to the employees at
the time of
hiring.
In this case, petitioners did not have that kind of
agreement with respondents. Neither did they inform
respondents of the nature of the latters work at the time of
hiring. Hence, for failure of petitioners to substantiate their
claim that respondents were project employees, we are
constrained to declare them as regular employees. even
though the absence of a written contractdoes not by itself grant
regular status to respondents, sucha contract is evidence that
respondents were informed ofthe duration and scope of their
work and their status asproject employees. In this case, where
no other evidencewas offered, the absence of an employment
contract putsinto serious question whether the employees were
properlyinformed at the onset of their employment status as
projectemployees. It is doctrinally entrenched that in illegal
dismissal cases, the employer has the burden of proving with
clear, accurate, consistent and convincing evidence that a
dismissal was valid.
Absent any other proof that the project employees
were informed of their status as such, it will be presumed that
they are regular employees in accordance with Clause 3.3(a)
of Department Order No. 19, Series of 1993, which states that:
a) Project employees whose aggregate period of continuous
employment in a construction company is at least one year
shall be considered regular employees, inthe absence of a day
certain agreed upon by the parties for the termination of their
relationship. Project employees who have become regular
shall be entitled to separation pay. A day as used herein, is
understood to be that which must necessarily come, although
it may not be known exactly when. This means that where the
final completion of a project or phase Thereof is in fact
determinable and the expected completion is made known to
the employee, such project employee may not beconsidered
regular, notwithstanding the oneyear duration of employment
in the project or phase thereof or the oneyear duration of two
or more employments in the same project or phase of the
project.
On Termination Report
Page 21
 Given the particular facts established in this case,
petitioners argument fails to persuade this Court. Petitioners
were not able to offer evidence to refute or
controvert the respondents claim that they were assigned to
various construction projects, particularly the North Harbor
Project in 19921994
Manila International Port in 1994-1996 Batangas Port in
19961998
theBatangas Pier and La Mesa Dam.3 It also bears to note
that petitioners did not present other Termination Reports
apart from that filed on 11 April
2002. The failure of an employer to file a Termination Report
with the DOLE every time a project or a phase thereof is
completed indicates that respondents were not project
employees.
On Completion Bonus
A completion bonus, if paid as a mere afterthought,
cannot be used to determine whether or not the employment
was regular or merely for a project. Otherwise, an employer
may defeat the workers security of
tenure by paying them a completion bonus at any time it is
inclined to unjustly dismiss them. Furthermore, after
examining the payroll documents submitted by petitioners,
this Court finds that the payments termed as completion
bonus are not the completion bonus paid in connection with
the termination of the project. The payrolls, bears no relevance
to a completion bonus. A completion bonus is paid in
connection with the completion of the project, and is not based
on a fifteen day period.
Secondly, the amount paid to each employee as his completion
bonus was uniformly equivalent to his fifteen day wages,
without consideration of the number of years of service
rendered.
25. Coco Mangas Beach Resort v. Visca
G.R. No. 167045 August 29, 2008
FACTS: The controversy stemmed from the five individual
complaint of illegal dismissal filed by FredericoVisca et al,
composed of carpenter, mason and foreman, against
Cocomangas Beach Resort and its owner.
On May 8, 1999, Maria NidaIigo-Taala, the Front
Desk Officer/Sales Manager, informed them not to report for
work since the ongoing constructions and repairs would be
temporarily suspended because they caused irritation and
annoyance to the resort's guests; as instructed, they did not
report for work the succeeding days; John Munro, husband of
petitioner Susan Munro, subsequently visited respondent
foreman Visca and informed him that the work suspension
was due to budgetary constraints; when respondent Visca later
discovered that four new workers were hired to do
respondents' tasks, he confronted petitioner Munro who
explained that respondents' resumption of work was not
possible due to budgetary constraints; when not less than ten
workers were subsequently hired by petitioners to do repairs in
two cottages of the resort and two workers were retained after
the completion without respondents being allowed to resume
work, they filed their individual complaints for illegal
dismissal.
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
Respondent countered that Visca was an independent
contractor and was called from time to time for contractual
works and be determined as project employees.
ISSUE/s: What are the indicators of Project Employment
Read with Sec. 2.2 of DO 19
HELD: In the present case, respondents cannot be classified
as project employees, since they worked continuously for
petitioners from three to twelve years without any mention of
a "project" to which they were specifically assigned. While
they had designations as "foreman," "carpenter" and "mason,"
they performed work other than carpentry or masonry. They
were tasked with the maintenance and repair of the furniture,
motor boats, cottages, and windbreakers and other resort
facilities. There is likewise no evidence of the project
employment contracts covering respondents' alleged periods
of employment. More importantly, there is no evidence that
petitioners reported the termination of respondents' supposed
project employment to the DOLE as project employees.
Department Order No. 19, as well as the old Policy
Instructions No. 20, requires employers to submit a report of
an employees termination to the nearest public employment
office every time his employment is terminated due to a
completion of a project. Petitioners' failure to file termination
reports is an indication that the respondents were not project
employees but regular employees.
This Court has held that an employment ceases to be
coterminous with specific projects when the employee is
continuously rehired due to the demands of employers
business and re-engaged for many more projects without
interruption.
A project employee is 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."34 Before an
employee hired on a per-project basis can be dismissed, a
report must be made to the nearest employment office, of the
termination of the services of the workers every time
completes a project, pursuant to Policy Instruction No. 20.
26. Abesco Construction v. Ramirez
G.R. No. 141168 April 10, 2006
FACTS: Petitioner company was engaged in a construction
business where respondents were hired on different dates from
1976 to 1992 either as laborers, road roller operators, painters
or drivers.
Respondents filed two separate complaints[1] for
illegal dismissal against the company and its General Manager
without valid reason. Petitioners allegedly dismissed them
without a valid reason and without due process of law. The
LA later on ordered the consolidation of the two complaints.
Petitioners denied liability to respondents and
countered that respondents were project employees since their
Page 22
services were necessary only when the company had projects
to be completed. Petitioners argued that, being project
employees, respondents employment was coterminous with
the project to which they were assigned. They were not regular
employees who enjoyed security of tenure and entitlement to
separation pay upon termination from work.
Petitioners countered that respondents were project
employees since their services were necessary only when the
company had projects to be completed.
ISSUE/s: Effect of not being notified of their status as project
employees
HELD: The principal test for determining whether employees
are project employees or regular employees is whether they
are assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking, the
duration and scope of which are specified at the time they are
engaged for that project. Such duration, as well as the
particular work/service to be performed, is defined in an
employment agreement and is made clear to the employees at
the time of hiring.
In this case, petitioners did not have that kind of
agreement with respondents. Neither did they inform
respondents of the nature of the latters work at the time of
hiring. Hence, for failure of petitioners to substantiate their
claim that respondents were project employees, we are
constrained to declare them as regular employees.
27. RaycorAircontrol System (RAS) v. NLRC
G.R. No. 114290. September 9, 1996
FACTS: Petitioner's sole line of business is installing
airconditioning systems in the buildings of its clients. In
connection with such installation work, petitioner hired private
respondents. They insist that they had been regular employees
all along, but petitioner maintains that they were project
employees who were assigned to work on specific projects of
petitioner, and that the nature of petitioner's business-- mere
installation (not manufacturing) of aircon systems and
equipment in buildings of its clients -- prevented petitioner
from hiring private respondents as regular employees.
They filed for regularization but were denied and was
successively given a termination of employment.. Private
respondents felt they were given their walking papers after
they refused to sign a "Contract Employment" providing for,
among others, a fixed period of employment which
"automatically terminates without necessity of further notice"
or even earlier at petitioner's sole discretion
NLRC believed that the projects shown was
contrived and not reliable as no name of the project appears in
the contract of employment.
ISSUE/s: When the employment contract is only signed by
the president and the manager but not the employee
concerned.
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
HELD: In the instant case, there needs to be a finding as to
whether or not the duration and scope of the project or projects
were determined or specified and made known to herein
private respondents at the time of their engagement.
The labor arbiter tried to do this, relying heavily on
the "Contract(s) Employment" presented in petitioner's
Annexes as well as on private respondents' own Annex
"A"[10] attached to their Position Paper, and citing the fact
that the said contracts of employment indicated the duration of
the projects to which the private respondents had been
assigned. He then held that "(t)here is no denial that
complainants were assigned to work in these projects,"[11]
and concluded that they were indeed project employees.
But the arbiter completed ignored the fact that all the
"Contract(s) Employment" presented in evidence by both
petitioner and private respondents had been signed only by
petitioner's president and general manager, Luis F. Ortega, but
not by the employees concerned, who had precisely refused to
sign them. The said contracts therefore could in no wise be
deemed conclusive evidence. Thus, private respondents
faulted the labor arbiter for giving credence and probative
value to said contracts. Besides, they claimed, only seven
contracts in all were presented in evidence, pertaining to seven
individual employees, while there are fifteen employees
involved in the complaints. Moreover, these contracts,
purportedly issued either in July or December of 1991, except
for one dated May 1992), were all one-shot contracts of short
duration, the longest being for about five months. Now,
inasmuch as petitioner had not denied nor rebutted private
respondents' allegations that they had each worked several
years for the petitioner, the obvious question is, why didn't
petitioner produce in evidence similar contracts for all the
other years that private respondents had worked as project
employees? To these points, petitioner offered no explanation
whatsoever.
Even if the contracts presented by petitioner had been
signed by the employees concerned, still, they would not
constitute conclusive proof of petitioner's claim.
28. Caramol v. NLRC
G.R. No. 102973 August 24, 1993
FACTS: Rogelio Caramol, a worker hired by respondent
ATLANTIC GULF, on a "project-to-project" basis but whose
employment was renewed forty-four (44) times by the latter.
The Labor Arbiter had earlier declared respondent
ATLANTIC GULF guilty of unfair labor practice, ordered it
to cease and desist from further committing unfair labor
practice against petitioner, declared illegal the constructive
dismissal of petitioner and directed respondent ATLANTIC
GULF to immediately reinstate petitioner to his former
position without loss of seniority rights and others.
The factual findings of the Labor Arbiter show that
petitioner was hired by respondent ATLANTIC GULF on 2
June 1983 for the position of rigger. Until the occurrence of
Page 23
the strike on 10 May 1986, his last assignment was at
respondent ATLANTIC GULF's plant in Batangas.
Petitioner claims that because of his involvement in
unionism, particularly in actively manning the picket lines, he
was among those who were not re-admitted after the strike.
Respondent asserted that his employment was
covered by Project Employment Contract for a particular
project and for a definite period of time and was dismissed
after Nauru project for the expiration of employment contract.
ISSUE/s: Was the Consent knowingly and voluntarily without
force, duress or improper pressure
HELD: There is no question that stipulation on employment
contract providing for a fixed period of employment such as
"project-to-project" contract is valid provided the period was
agreed upon knowingly and voluntarily the parties, without
any force, duress or improper pressure being brought to bear
upon the employee and absent any other circumstances
vitiating his consent, or where it satisfactorily appears that the
employer and employee dealt with each other on more or less
equal terms with no moral dominance whatever being
exercised by the former over the latter. 4 However, where
from the circumstances it is apparent that periods have been
imposed to preclude the acquisition of tenurial security by the
employee, they should be struck down as contrary tenurial
security by the employee, they should be struck down as
contrary to public policy, morals, good custom or public order.
In the case before us, we find sufficiently established
circumstances showing that the supposed fixed period of
employment by way of a project-to-project contract has been
imposed to preclude acquisition of tenurial security by the
petitioner.
29. Brent School vs. Zamora
G.R. No. L-48494 February 5, 1990
FACTS: An employment contract in virtue of which Doroteo
R. Alegre was engaged as athletic director by Brent School.
The contract fixed a specific term for its existence, five (5)
years. Some three months before the expiration of the
stipulated period,
Alegre was given a copy of the report filed by Brent
School advising of the termination of his services. The stated
ground for the termination was "completion of contract,
expiration of the definite period of employment."
However, at the investigation conducted by a Labor
Conciliator of said report of termination of his services,
Alegre protested the announced termination of his
employment. He argued that although his contract did stipulate
that the same would terminate on July 17, 1976, since his
services were necessary and desirable in the usual business of
his employer, and his employment had lasted for five years, he
had acquired the status of a regular employee and could not be
removed except for valid cause.
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
Labor Code, at the time of their agreement or
employment contract, was not yet promulgated. Code of
Commerce, instead, governs fixed term employment.
ISSUE/s: Exception to Art. 280, a fixed period employment,
a day certain; requisites
HELD: The concept of the employee's duties as being
"usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade
of the employer" is not synonymous with or identical to
employment with a fixed term. Logically, the decisive
determinant in term employment should not be the activities
that the employee is called upon to perform, but the day
certain agreed upon by the parties for the commencement and
termination of their employment relationship, a day certain
being understood to be "that which must necessarily come,
although it may not be known when." Seasonal employment,
and employment for a particular project are merely instances
of employment in which a period, where not expressly set
down, is necessarily implied.
It should be apparent that this settled and familiar
notion of a period, in the context of a contract of employment,
takes no account at all of the nature of the duties of the
employee; it has absolutely no relevance to the character of his
duties as being "usually necessary or desirable to the usual
business of the employer," or not.
Under American law 15 the principle is the same.
"Where a contract specifies the period of its duration, it
terminates on the expiration of such period. "A contract of
employment for a definite period terminates by its own terms
at the end of such period."
-respondent Alegre's employment was terminated
upon the expiration of his last contract with Brent School on
July 16, 1976 without the necessity of any notice. The advance
written advice given the Department of Labor with copy to
said petitioner was a mere reminder of the impending
expiration of his contract, not a letter of termination, nor an
application for clearance to terminate.
30. Price v. Innodata Philippines Inc.
G.R. No. 178505 September 30, 2008
FACTS: INNODATA was a domestic corporation engaged in
the data encoding and data conversion business. It employed
encoders, indexers, formatters, programmers, quality/quantity
staff, and others, to maintain its business and accomplish the
job orders of its clients.
Petitioners Cherry J. Price, Stephanie G. Domingo,
and Lolita Arbilera were employed as formatters by
INNODATA. The parties executed an employment contract
denominated as a "Contract of Employment for a Fixed
Period," stipulating that the contract shall be for a period of
one year.
According to INNODATA, petitioners employment
already ceased due to the end of their contract. Petitioners
claimed that they should be treated regular employees as they
are necessary and desirable to the usual business.
Page 24

Petitioners finally argued that they could not be
considered project employees considering that their
employment was not coterminous with any project or
undertaking, the termination of which was predetermined.
Respondents explained that INNODATA was
engaged in the business of data processing, typesetting,
indexing, and abstracting for its foreign clients. The bulk of
the work was data processing, which involved data encoding.
Data encoding, or the typing of data into the computer,
included pre-encoding, encoding 1 and 2, editing,
proofreading, and scanning. Almost half of the employees of
INNODATA did data encoding work, while the other half
monitored quality control. Due to the wide range of services
rendered to its clients, INNODATA was constrained to hire
new employees for a fixed period of not more than one year.
Respondents asserted that petitioners were not illegally
dismissed, for their employment was terminated due to the
expiration of their terms of employment. Petitioners contracts
of employment with INNODATA were for a limited period
only, commencing on 6 September 1999 and ending on 16
February 2000.
ISSUE/s: Effect of absence in the provision in the contract of
employment of a specific project or undertaking.
HELD: Scrutinizing petitioners employment contracts with
INNODATA, however, failed to reveal any mention therein of
what specific project or undertaking petitioners were hired for.
Although the contracts made general references to a "project,"
such project was neither named nor described at all therein.
The one-year period for which petitioners were hired
was simply fixed in the employment contracts without
reference or connection to the period required for the
completion of a project. More importantly, there is also a
dearth of evidence that such project or undertaking had
already been completed or terminated to justify the dismissal
of petitioners. In fact, petitioners alleged - and respondents
failed to dispute that petitioners did not work on just one
project, but continuously worked for a series of projects for
various clients of INNODATA.
31. Chua v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 125837 October 6, 2004
FACTS: Private respondents Paguio et al filed a Petition. with
the SSC for SSS coverage and contributions against petitioner
Reynaldo Chua, owner of Prime Mover Construction
Development, claiming that they were all regular employees
of the petitioner in his construction business.
Respondents claimed that they were assigned by petitioner in
his various construction projects continuously. Chua claimed
that they were not regular employees but only project
employees, hence, not subject to SSS coverage.
ISSUE/s: Effect of having no notice to the employees of the
nature of employment, the specific projects or specific phrase
thereof.
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
HELD: It is not enough that an employee is hired for a
specific project or phase of work. There must also be a
determination of, or a clear agreement on, the completion or
termination of the project at the time the employee was
engaged if the objectives of Article 280 are to be achieved.
This second requirement was not met in this case.
32. Maraguinot vs. NLRC
G.R. No. 120969. January 22, 1998
FACTS: Petitioner Alejandro Maraguinot, part of the filming
crew, then became assistant electrician also the other
petitioner, Enero, employed Maraguinot as member of
shooting crew. Petitioner requested for minimum wage law
compliance but was conditioned to sign a blank employment
contract. Petitioner was terminated for refusing to sign twice
the blank employment contract. Thus filed the complaint.
Private respondent assert that they contract producers,
associate producers, to produce or make movies for private
respondents and the petitioners are project employees or
independent contractors.
ISSUE/s: What are the elements before a project employee
attains the status of a regular employee
HELD: "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, pursuant to Article 280 of the
Labor Code and jurisprudence."
33. Tomas Lao Construction vs. NLRC
GR 116781, Sept. 5, 1997
FACTS: Respondents were construction workers hired in
different capacities for various periods alleging they were
illegally dismissed by Petitioners Tomas Lao Construction
(TLC) Thomas and James Developers (T&J) and LVM
Construction Corporation (LVM) however their case was
dismissed by Labor Arbiter Velasquez on Nov. 10, 1992 after
finding that respondents were project employees whose
employments could be terminated upon project completion.
NLRC however reversed the Labor Arbiters decision
declaring private respondents as regular employees who were
illegally dismissed.
ISSUE: Whether or not Respondent employees were regular
employees?
HELD: NLRC held that private respondents were regular
employees who were illegally dismissed. The repeated re-
hiring and the continuing need for private respondents'
services over a long span of time (the shortest, at seven [7]
years) undeniably made them regular employees. Thus, we
ordered petitioners to reinstate private respondents to their
former positions without loss of seniority rights and other
privileges with full back wages, inclusive of allowances,
computed from the time compensation was withheld up to the
time of actual reinstatement.
Page 25

34. IMBUIDO, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION, INTERNATIONAL
INFORMATION SERVICES, INC. and GABRIEL
LIBRANDO, respondents.
[G.R. No. 114734. March 31, 2000]
FACTS: Petitioner was employed as a data encoder by private
respondent International Information Services, Inc., a
domestic corporation engaged in the business of data encoding
and keypunching, from August 26, 1988 until October 18,
1991 when her services were terminated. From August 26,
1988 until October 18, 1991, petitioner entered into thirteen
(13) separate employment contracts with private respondent,
each contract lasting only for a period of three (3) months. In
September 1991, petitioner and twelve (12) other employees
of private respondent allegedly agreed to the filing of a
petition for certification election involving the rank-and-file
employees of private respondent. Subsequently, on October
18, 1991, petitioner received a termination letter from Edna
Kasilag, Administrative Officer of private respondent,
allegedly "due to low volume of work. Petitioner alleged that
her employment was terminated not due to the alleged low
volume of work but because she "signed a petition for
certification election among the rank and file employees of
respondents," thus charging private respondent with
committing unfair labor practices. Petitioner further
complained of non-payment of service incentive leave benefits
and underpayment of 13th month pay maintained that it had
valid reasons to terminate petitioners employment and
disclaimed any knowledge of the existence or formation of a
union among its rank-and-file employees at the time
petitioners services were terminated. Private respondent
stressed that its business "relies heavily on companies availing
of its services. Its retention by client companies with particular
emphasis on data encoding is on a project to project
basis," usually lasting for a period of "two (2) to five (5)
months." Private respondent further argued that petitioners
employment was for a "specific project with a specified period
of engagement." According to private respondent, "the
certainty of the expiration of complainants engagement has
been determined at the time of their (sic) engagement (until 27
November 1991) or when the project is earlier completed or
when the client withdraws," as provided in the contract. "The
happening of the second event [completion of the project] has
materialized, thus, her contract of employment is deemed
terminated per the Brent School ruling
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is a project employee?
HELD: The courts held that "a project employee or a member
of a work pool may acquire the status of a regular employee
when the following concur:
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
1) There is a continuous rehiring of project
employees even after [the] cessation of a
project; and
2) The tasks performed by the alleged
"project employee" are vital, necessary and
indispensable to the usual business or trade
of the employer
In the case at bar, the courts find the petitioner to be a
regular employee. A work pool may exist although the
workers in the pool do not receive salaries and are free to seek
other employment during temporary breaks in the business,
provided that the worker shall be available when called to
report for a project. Although primarily applicable to regular
seasonal workers, this set-up can likewise be applied to project
workers insofar as the effect of temporary cessation of work is
concerned. This is beneficial to both the employer and
employee for it prevents the unjust situation of "coddling labor
at the expense of capital" and at the same time enables the
workers to attain the status of regular employees.
The Court's ruling here is meant precisely to give life
to the constitutional policy of strengthening the labor sector,
but, we stress, not at the expense of management. Lest it be
misunderstood, this ruling does not mean that simply because
an employee is a project or work pool employee even outside
the construction industry, he is deemed, ipso jure, a regular
employee. All that we hold today is that once a project or
work pool employee has been: (1) continuously, as opposed to
intermittently, re-hired 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, pursuant to Article 280 of the Labor Code and
jurisprudence. To rule otherwise would allow circumvention
of labor laws in industries not falling within the ambit of
Policy Instruction No. 20/Department Order No. 19, hence
allowing the prevention of acquisition of tenurial security by
project or work pool employees who have already gained the
status of regular employees by the employer's conduct."
35. MAGCALAS vs. NLRC
[G.R. No. 100333. March 13, 1997]
FACTS: In their basic complaint and counter position paper,
the complainants alleged (inter alia) that they were all regular
employees of the respondent company, having rendered
continuous services in various capacities, ranging from
leadman, tinsmith, tradeshelper to general clerk; that the
respondent has been engaged in the business of installing air
conditioning (should be air-conditioning) and refrigeration
equipment in its different projects and jobsites where the
complainants have been assigned; that the complainants have
worked for a number of years, the minimum of which was one
and a half years and the maximum (was) eight years under
several supervisors; that on August 30, 1988, they were
dismissed (en masse) without prior notice and investigation,
and that their dismissals were effected for no other cause than
their persistent demands for payment of money claims as
mandated by law.
Page 26
 On the other hand, the respondents interposed the
defense of contract/project employment. The respondent
company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and
installation of air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment.
The manufacturing aspect of its operation is handled
by its regular employees, while the installation aspect, by
reason of its intermittence, is carried out by its project or
contract employees. The installation of the air-conditioning
equipment at the Asian Development Bank Building and (the)
Interbank building was awarded to the respondent herein. The
complainants herein were among the contract employees hired
by the respondent to install the air-conditioning equipment at
the Asian Development Bank and Interbank projects
The aforesaid employees were engaged to work on
the installation projects until August 31, 1988, when their task
was expected to be completed. This is evidenced by their
respective employment contracts. With the completion of their
task on August 31, 1988 in their respective installation
projects, the employment of the complainants (ipso facto)
expired as they had no more work to do. They now claim that
they were illegally dismissed.
ISSUE: Are Petitioners Regular Workers?
HELD: Regular employees cannot at the same time be project
employees. Article 280 of the Labor Code states that regular
employees are those whose work is necessary or desirable to
the usual business of the employer. The two exceptions
following the general description of regular employees refer to
either project or seasonal employees. It has been ruled in the
case of ALU-TUCP vs. National Labor Relations Commission
that in the realm of business and industry, we note, that
'project' could refer to one or the other of at least two (2)
distinguishable types of activities. Firstly, a project could refer
to particular job or undertaking that is within the regular or
usual business of the employer company, but which is distinct
and separate, and identifiable as such, from the other
undertakings of the company. Such job or undertaking begins
and ends at determined or determinable times. The typical
example of this first type of project is a particular construction
job or project of a construction company. A construction
company ordinarily carries out two or more discrete (should
be distinct) identifiable construction projects: e.g., a twenty-
five-storey hotel in Makati; a residential condominium
building in Baguio City; and a domestic air terminal in Iloilo
City. Employees who are hired for the carrying out of one of
these separate projects, the scope and duration of which has
been determined and made known to the employees at the
time of employment, are properly treated as 'project
employees,' and their services may be lawfully terminated at
completion of the project/
The employment of seasonal employees, on the other
hand, legally ends upon completion of the project or the
season, thus clearly, therefore, petitioners being project
employees, or to use the correct term, seasonal employees,
their employment legally ends upon completion of the project
or the season. The termination of their employment cannot and
should not constitute an illegal dismissal.
36. Villa vs. NLRC
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
[G.R. No. 117043. January 14, 1998]
FACTS: Respondent National Steel Corporation (NSC), one
of the biggest modern steel mills in Southeast Asia, produces
hot rolled products, cold rolled products, tinplates and billets.
These products are in turn transformed by downstream
industries into truss assemblies, farm implements, pipe
structures, shipbuilding and repairing materials, automotive
structures and machine parts, GI roof sheets or galvanized
iron, drums, nails, fasteners and wires. The NSC embarked on
a Five-Year Expansion Program (FYEP) the first phase of
which consisted of the various projects.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners are regular employees?
HELD: Contracts for project employment are valid under the
law. By entering into such a contract, an employee is deemed
to understand that his employment is coterminous with the
project. He may not expect to be employed continuously
beyond the completion of the project. It is of judicial notice
that project employees engaged for manual services or those
for special skills like those of carpenters or masons, are, as a
rule, unschooled. However, this fact alone is not a valid reason
for bestowing special treatment on them or for invalidating a
contract of employment.
A project employment terminates as soon as the project is
completed. Thus, an employer is allowed by law to reduce the
work force into a number suited for the remaining work to be
done upon the completion or proximate accomplishment of the
project. However, the law requires that, upon completion of
the project, the employer must present proof of termination of
the services of the project employees at the nearest public
employment office.
The fact that petitioners were required to render
services necessary or desirable in the operation of NSCs
business for a specified duration did not in any way impair the
validity of their contracts of employment which stipulated a
fixed duration therefor.
Extant in the record are the findings of the NLRC
that the petitioners in this case were utilized in operations
other than billet making or other components of the FYEP I
and II, such as shipbreaking. We are constrained to rule that
while it is true that they performed other activities which were
necessary or desirable in the usual business of the NSC and
that the duration of their employment was for a period of more
than one year, these factors did not make them regular
employees in contemplation of Article 280 of the Labor Code.
Thus, the fact that petitioners worked for NSC under
different project employment contracts for several years
cannot be made a basis to consider them as regular employees,
for they remain project employees regardless of the number of
projects in which they have worked. Length of service is not
the controlling determinant of the employment tenure of a
project employee.[40] In the case of Mercado, Sr. v.
NLRC,[41] this Court ruled that the proviso in the second
paragraph of Article 280, providing that an employee who has
served for at least one year, shall be considered a regular
employees, relates only to casual employees and not to project
employees.
37. Tucor vs. NLRC
[G.R. Nos. 96608-09 May 20, 1991]
Page 27

FACTS: Petitioner is a corporation principally engaged in the
moving and storage of various goods owned by military
personnel residing within the United States military facilities
in the Philippines. On various dates herein private respondents
were hired as packers, drivers and utilitymen/carpenters. They
signed uniform company-prepared master employment
contracts. In a memorandum-letter dated July 17, 1989, the
Chief of Traffic Management of Clark Air Base reminded all
agents, including petitioner of the base policy that "Employees
who already have passes in their possession and who fail the
polygraph administered by an acknowledged security
company will be required to return their passes. On the same
day petitioner terminated the employment of private
respondents by sending them separate identical notices of
termination. All of private respondents had continuously been
employed by petitioner for more than a year before the
services were terminated.On August 2, 1989, private
respondents, except PacificoDizon, filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal against petitioner.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondents are regular employees
under Art. 280 of the Labor Code?
HELD: An examination of the contract of employment does
not show that private respondents were hired for a "specific
project or undertaking" nor was the completion or termination
of the alleged project for which private respondents were hired
determined at the start of the employment.
The term "specific project or undertaking" under
Article 280 of the Labor Code contemplates an activity which
was commonly or habitually performed or such type of work
which is not done on a daily basis but only for a specific
duration of time or until the completion of the project. The
services employed are thus necessary or desirable in the
employer's usual business only for the period of time it takes
to complete the project. Without the performance of such
services on a regular basis, the employer's main business is not
expected to grind to a halt.
In the case at bar, private respondents were assigned
to do carpentry work, packing and driving, activities which are
usually necessary and desirable in petitioners' usual business
and which thus had to be done on a regular basis.
The fact that private respondents had rendered more
than one year of service at the time of their dismissal overturns
the petitioner's allegation that private respondents were hired
for a specific or a fixed undertaking for a limited period of
time.
Private respondents are therefore regular employees
of petitioner the provisions of their contract of employment
notwithstanding.
38. PNOC-Energy Dev Corp vs. NLRC
G.R. No. 169353 April 13, 2007
FACTS: Petitioner PNOC-Energy Development Corporation
is a government-owned and controlled corporation engaged in
the exploration, development, and utilization of energy. It
undertakes several projects in areas where geothermal energy
has been discovered. Each geothermal project undergoes
the stages of exploration, development, and utilization or
production. For each stage, several activities are undertaken
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
such as drilling, construction, civil works, structural works,
mechanical works, and electrical works until the project is
finally completed. Aside from its projects in Negros Oriental,
petitioner also had geothermal projects in other areas.
Petitioners Southern Negros Geothermal Production Field in
Negros Oriental is divided into two phases: Palinpinon I (PAL
I) and Palinpinon II (PAL II).
To augment its manpower requirement occasioned by
the increased activities in the development of PAL II,
petitioner hired respondents with termination/expiration of
their respective employment were specified in their initial
employment contracts, which, however, were renewed and
extended on their respective expiry dates. n May 29, 1998,
petitioner submitted report to the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) Regional Sub-Branch No. VII
in Dumaguete City, stating that six of its employees were
being terminated. Petitioner thereafter furnished the
employees uniformly worded notices of termination, stating
that they were being terminated from employment
effective June 30, 1998 due to the substantial completion of
the civil works phase of PAL II. On October 29, 1998, the six
employees, herein respondents, filed before the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a complaint for illegal
dismissal against petitioner.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondents are considered regular
employees?
HELD: As defined by Art. 280 of the Labor Code, project
employees are those workers hired (1) for a specific project or
undertaking, and (2) the completion or termination of such
project or undertaking has been determined at the time of the
engagement of the employee. However, petitioner failed to
substantiate its claim that respondents were hired merely as
project employees. A perusal of the records of the case reveals
that the supposed specific project or undertaking of petitioner
was not satisfactorily identified in the contracts of
respondents.
Unmistakably, the alleged projects stated in the
employment contracts were either too vague or imprecise to be
considered as the specific undertaking contemplated by
law. Petitioners act of repeatedly and continuously hiring
respondents to do the same kind of work belies its contention
that respondents were hired for a specific project or
undertaking. The absence of a definite duration for the
project/s has led the Court to conclude that respondents are, in
fact, regular employees.
39. Olongapo Maintenance Services Inc. vs. Chantengco
GR. 156146 June 21, 2007
FACTS: OMSI is a corporation engaged in the business of
providing janitorial and maintenance services to various
clients, including government-owned and controlled
corporations. On various dates beginning 1986, OMSI hired
the respondents as janitors, grass cutters, and degreasers, and
assigned them at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport
(NAIA). On January 14, 1999, OMSI terminated respondents'
employment.
Page 28
 Claiming termination without just cause and non-
payment of labor standard benefits, respondents filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, and
non-payment of holiday and service incentive leave pays, with
prayer for payment of separation pay, against OMSI. For its
part, OMSI denied the allegations in the complaint. It averred
that when Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA)
awarded to OMSI the service contracts for the airport, OMSI
hired respondents as janitors, cleaners, and degreasers to do
the services under the contracts. OMSI informed the
respondents that they were hired for the MIAA project and
their employments were coterminous with the contracts. As
project employees, they were not dismissed from work but
their employments ceased when the MIAA contracts were not
renewed upon their expiration. The termination of
respondents employment cannot, thus, be considered illegal.
ISSUE: Where or not respondents are project employees?
HELD: The principal test in determining whether an
employee is a project employee is whether he/she is assigned
to carry out a specific project or undertaking, the duration and
scope of which are specified at the time the employee is
engaged in the project,[7] or where the work or service to be
performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the
duration of the season.[8] A true project employee should be
assigned to a project which begins and ends at determined or
determinable times, and be informed thereof at the time of
hiring. In the instant case, the record is bereft of proof that the
respondents engagement as project employees has been
predetermined, as required by law. OMSI did not provide
convincing evidence that respondents were informed that they
were to be assigned to a specific project or undertaking when
OMSI hired them. Notably, the employment contracts for the
specific project signed by the respondents were never
presented. All that OMSI submitted in the proceedings a
quo are the service contracts between OMSI and the
MIAA. Clearly, OMSI utterly failed to establish by substantial
evidence that, indeed, respondents were project employees and
their employment was coterminous with the MIAA contract.
40. Saberola vs. Suarez
G.R. No. 151227 July 14, 2008
FACTS: Petitioner is the owner and manager of G.S. Saberola
Electrical Services, a firm engaged in the construction
business specializing in installing electrical devices in
subdivision homes and in commercial and non-commercial
buildings. Respondents were employed by petitioner as
electricians. They worked from Monday to Saturday and,
occasionally, on Sundays, with a daily wage of P110.00.
Respondent Ronald Suarez (Suarez) was employed
by petitioner from February 1995 until October 1997; while
respondent RaymundoLirasan, Jr. (Lirasan) worked from
February 1995 until September 1997.[4] Respondent Lirasan
alleged that he was dismissed without cause and due process.
He was merely informed by petitioner that his services were
no longer needed without any explanation why he was
terminated. Both respondents claimed that they received
compensation below the minimum wage. In his defense,
petitioner averred that respondents were part-time project
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
employees and were employed only when there were electrical
jobs to be done in a particular housing unit contracted by
petitioner. He maintained that the services of respondents as
project employees were coterminous with each project. As
project employees, the time of rendition of their services was
not fixed. Thus, there was no practical way of determining the
appropriate compensation of the value of respondents
accomplishment, as their work assignment varied depending
on the needs of a specific project.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondents are considered project
employees?
HELD: Petitioners business, specializing in installing
electrical devices, needs electricians only when there are
electrical devices to be installed in subdivision homes or
buildings covered by an appropriate contract. Petitioner, as an
electrical contractor, depends for his business on the contracts
that he is able to obtain from real estate developers and
builders of buildings. Thus, the work provided by petitioner
depends on the availability of such contracts or projects. The
duration of the employment of his work force is not permanent
but coterminous with the projects to which the workers are
assigned. Viewed in this context, the respondents are
considered as project employees of petitioner. A project
employee is 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.
41. Sandoval Shipyard Inc. V. NLRC
G.R. No. L-65689 and 66119, May 31, 1985
FACTS: These cases are about the dismissal of alleged
project workers. Petitioner has been engaged in the building
and repair of vessels. It contends that each vessel is a separate
project and that the employment of workers is terminated with
the completion of each project. The workers contend that they
are regular workers and that the termination of one project
does not mean the end of their employment since they can be
assigned to unfinished projects.
In G.R No. 65689, the private respondents were
assigned to the construction of LCT Catarman and after three
months of work, the project was completed and the five
workers were served a termination notice. The five workers
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. In G.R No. 66119, the
respondents were assigned to worked on a construction of a
tanker ordered by Mobil Oil Philippines. Upon the yard
managers recommendation, the manager terminated the
services of the welders, helpers and construction workers. All
the termination was duly reported to the Ministry of Labor and
Employment.
Three days later, 27 out of the 55 workers were hired
for a new project and the 27 included 4 of the 17 respondents
who filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
ISSUE: W/N the workers are project employees?
RULING:
Yes. SC hold that private respondents were project
employees whose work was coterminous with the project for
which they were hired. Project employees, as distinguished
Page 29
from regular or non-project employees, are mentioned in
section 281 of the Labor Code as those "where the
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."
Policy Instructions No. 20 of the Secretary of Labor,
which was issued to stabilize employer-employee relations in
the construction industry, provides:
Project employees are those employed in connection
with a particular construction project. Non-project
(regular) employees are those employed by a
construction company without reference to any
particular project.
Project employees are not entitled to termination pay
if they are terminated as a result of the completion of
the project or any phase thereof in which they are
employed, regardless of the number of projects in
which they have been employed by a particular
construction company. Moreover, the company is not
required to obtain clearance from the Secretary of
Labor in connection with such termination.
The petitioner cited three of its own cases wherein the
National Labor Relations Commission, Deputy Minister of
Labor and Employment Inciong and the Director of the
National Capital Region held that the layoff of its project
employees was lawful. The public respondents in the instant
two cases acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack of jurisdiction in disregarding these precedents.
42. Cartagenas v Romago Electric Co. Inc.
G.R. No. 82973, September 15, 1989
FACTS: Respondent Romago is a general contractor engaged
in contracting and subcontracting of specific building
construction projects or undertaking such as electrical,
mechanical and civil engineering aspects in the repair of
buildings and from other kindred services. Individual
complainants and Lawrence Deguit were temporarily laid-off
by virtue of a memorandum issued by the respondent. In said
memorandum they were also informed that a meeting
regarding the resumption of operation will be held on July 16,
1986 and that they will be notified as to when they will
resume work. On July 28, 1986, complainants filed the instant
case for illegal dismissal but before the respondent could
receive a copy of the complaint and the notification and
summons issued by the NLRC National Capital Region
(actually received only on August 22, 1986, page 4, records)
individual complainants re-applied with the respondent and
were assigned to work with its project at Robinson-EDSA.
ISSUE: Whether the petitioners are project employees of the
private respondent Romago Electric Company, Inc.
RULING: As an electrical contractor, the private respondent
depends for its business on the contracts it is able to obtain
from real estate developers and builders of buildings. Since its
work depends on the availability of such contracts or
"projects," necessarily the duration of the employment of its
work force is not permanent but co-terminus with the projects
to which they are assigned and from whose payrolls they are
paid. It would be extremely burdensome for their employer
who, like them, depends on the availability of projects, if it
would have to carry them as permanent employees and pay
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
them wages even if there are no projects for them to work on.
We hold, therefore, that the NLRC did not abuse its discretion
in finding, based on substantial evidence in the records, that
the petitioners are only project workers of the private
respondent.
43. Samson v. NLRC
G.R. No. 113166, February 1, 1996
FACTS: This is a petition for review on certiorari under rule
65 , herein petitioner Ismael Samson assails the decision of
public respondent NLRC dated November 29, 1993, which
declared that he was a project employee, in effect reversing
the earlier finding of Labor Arbiter Felipe T. Garduque II that
he is actually a regular employee. Petitioner has been
employed with private respondent AGPC Manila in a various
construction projects since April 1965. On November,
petitioner filed a complaint for the conversion of his
employment status from project employee to regular
employee. Petitioner alleged therein that on the basis of his
considerable and continuous length of service with AGP, he
should be considered a regular employee therefore entitled to
the benefits and privileges appurtenant thereto.
Labor Arbiter, declared in his decision that petitioner
should be considered a regular employee on the ground that it
has not been shown that AGP&P had made the corresponding
report to the nearest Public Employment Office every time a
project wherein petitioner assigned had been completed and
his employment contract terminated as required under DOLE
Policy Instruction No. 20. Furthermore, petitioner was not free
to leave anytime and to offer his services to other employees,
he should considered an employee for an indefinite period
because he is a member of work pool from AG&P draws its
project employees and is considered employee thereof during
his membership therein, hence the completion of project does
not mean termination of the employer-employee relationship.
On appeal, NLRC reversed the decision of the labor
arbiter and dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. NLRC
ruled that the evidence shows that petitioner was engaged for a
fixed and determinable period, and there was noevidence
presented nor any allegation made by petitioner to support the
labor arbiters decision. According to NLRCPolicy Instruction
No. 20 was superseded by D.O No. 19, Series of 1993, which
provides that non-compliance with the required report to the
nearest PEO no longer affixes a prescription of regular
employment, and that the repeated constant hiring of project
workers for subsequent projects is permitted without such
workers being considered regular employees.
ISSUE: W/N Petitioner is a project or regular employee.
RULING: Petitioner argues that his being a regular employee
is supported by evidence. It shows that he performed the same
kind of work as rigger throughout his period of employment,
and his task is necessary and desirable to private respondents
usual trade or business.
SC agrees with petitioner, with the observation that after a
particular project has been accomplished, petitioner would
rehired immediately the following day save for a gap of one
day to one week from the last project, and that between 1965
Page 30
to 1977, and there was 50 occasions wherein petitioner was
hired by private respondent for a continuous period of time.
Respondent AG&P insists that a petitioner is a project
employee for several reasons:
The factual findings of respondent commission which
is supported by substantial evidence is already conclusive and
binding.
D.O No. 19 amended Policy Instruction No. 20 by
doing away with the required notice of termination upon
completion of the project.
His services were engaged for a fixed and
determinable period which thus makes each employment for
every project separate and distinct from one another
It falls under the exception in Article 280 of the
Labor Code to the effect that the provisions of written
agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of
the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be
deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to
perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in
the usual business or trade of the employer, except the
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.
It is not disputed that petitioner had been working for
private respondent for approximately twenty-eight (28) years
as of the adjudication of his plaint by respondent NLRC, and
that his "project-to-project" employment was renewed several
times. With the successive contracts of employment wherein
petitioner continued to perform virtually the same kind of
work, i.e., as rigger, throughout his period of employment, it is
manifest that petitioner's assigned tasks were usually
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of private
respondent.8 The repeated re-hiring and continuing need for
his services are sufficient evidence of the necessity and
indispensability of such services to private respondent's
business or trade. Where from the circumstances it is apparent
that periods have been imposed to preclude the acquisition of
tenurial security by the employee, they should be struck down
as contrary to public policy, morals, good customs or public
order. As observed by the Solicitor General, the record of this
case discloses, as part of petitioner's position paper, a
certification 11 duly issued by private respondent clearly
showing that the former's services were engaged by private
respondent on a continuing basis since 1965. The certification
indubitably indicates that after a particular project has been
accomplished, petitioner would be re-hired immediately the
following day save for a gap of one (1) day to one (1) week
from the last project to the succeeding one. 12 There can,
therefore, be no escape from the conclusion that petitioner is a
regular employee of private respondent.
44. D.M Consunji, Inc. v. NLRC
G.R. No. 116572, December 18, 2000
FACTS: The petitioner executed a contract by virtue of terms
and conditions of employment which stipulated for a period of
(1) month. On March 2, 1993, private respondents terminated
allegedly without regard to the date of termination as specified
in the contracts. The private respondents then filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal. LA rendered a decision finding
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
the dismissal of the private respondents without just cause and
ordering petitioner to reinstate them without loss of benefits
and seniority rights and to pay back wages. The LA explained
that their dismissal was not actually based on the expiration of
the terms of employment because some of them were
dismissed before the end of the contract and others after its
expiration. The NLRC also affirmed the decision of LA. It
ruled that the employment period need not reach six months in
order that the private respondents could not be considered
contract workers because they worked even after the
expiration of their contracts of employment.
Dissatisfied with the decision of NLRC, petitioner
appealed to this Court by way of special civil action of
certiorari under Rule 65 of Rules of Court. Petitioner
maintains that the private respondents were project employees
since they were hired on a project-to-project basis. They
cannot be regular employees because they were all employed
for less than six (6) months such that even assuming that they
were not project employees, they have not attained that status
of regular employment.
Private claims that they were dismissed form their
employment on March 2, 1993, even though the project was
not yet completed. They were terminated without just cause.
ISSUE: W/O private respondents were project employees
RULING: The petition is with merit.
Project employee is 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 services to
be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for
the duration of the season. The court held that the length of
service of a project employee is not the controlling test of
employment tenure but whether or not the employment has
been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion
or termination of which has been determined at the time of
engagement of the employee. The contracts of employment
show that the private respondents were employed with respect
to specific project. The contracts of employment provide that
the term is one (1) month which was the estimated project to
be finished. Private respondents claim not as regular
employees but were terminated before the completion of the
project without just cause and due process.
The court has examined the standard contracts signed by
respondents and enunciated the three ways by which their
employment may be terminated: One, the expiration of the one
month period, which was the estimated period for the
completion of the project; Two, the completion of the project
or phase of the project for which they were engaged prior to
the expiration of the one month period; three, upon the finding
of unsatisfactory services or other just cause. The private
respondents admitted before the LA that they signed their
contract voluntarily, hence they bound themselves to be
employed for a fixed duration knowingly and voluntarily
without force, duress or improper pressure. Being a valid
contract between the private respondents and petitioners, the
one (1) month period has the force of law between the parties.
Page 31
Other respondents were terminated because their respective
contracts were already expired.
But however, the contracts of Alexander Agraviador
and JovencioMendrez had not expired when their services
were terminated on March 2, 1993. Petitioner claims that all
private respondents were terminated because of the expiration
of the period of the contract. Petitioner did not alleged that the
premature termination of the services of private respondents
(Alexander Agraviador and JovencioMendrez) was due to the
earlier completion of the project or any phases thereof to
which they were assigned or the services is unsatisfactory.
In termination cases, the burden of proving that an
employee has been lawfully dismissed lies with the employer.
The inescapable conclusion is that Alexander Agraviador and
JovencioMendrez were terminated prior to the expiration of
the period of their employment without just cause, hence
termination is illegal. However they cannot be reinstated
because the project was finished. What they are entitled is the
payment of their salaries corresponding to the unexpired
portions of their employment. They are entitled to the payment
of their salaries equivalent to their salary from the time of
termination until the expiration of their employment period of
one (1) month, the estimated period the project was to be
completed.
Petitioner is ordered to pay private respondents, the
unexpired portion of their contract.
45. Cioco v . C.E. Construction Corp.,
G.R. No. 156748, September 8, 2004
FACTS: Isaac Cioco, et al. were hired by C.E. Construction
Corporation, a domestic corporation engaged in the
construction business, hired workers as carpenters and
laborers in various construction projects from 1990 to 1999.
The latest of which was GTI Tower in Makati. Prior to the
start of every project, the workers signed individual
employment contracts. The contract stipulated that the period
of employment shall be co-terminus with the completion of
the project, unless sooner terminated by you prior to the
completion of the projects.
May and June 1999, workers were terminated by the company
on the ground of completion of the phases of the GTI Tower
project. Alleging that they were regular employees, they filed
for illegal dismissal.
LA arbiter rendered judgment in favor of the
company on April 17, 2000. He ruled that the workers were
project employees as evident in the employment contracts;
that due notice were afforded; required termination reports
were submitted to DOLE.
The NLRC affirmed the LAs decision on appeal.
The workers filed special civil action for certiorari with CA.
On August 28, 2002, the CA rendered its now
assailed decision, the dispositive portion of which is:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is
partially given DUE COURSE. The assailed Decision of the
National Labor Relations Commission dated October 26, 2001
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
affirming the Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated April 17,
2000 dismissing the petitioners complaint for illegal
dismissal and claims for under payment (sic) and non-
payment of monetary benefits for lack of merit, and its
Resolution of November 29, 2001 denying petitioners Motion
for Reconsideration are hereby AFFIRMED, but MODIFIED,
in that although petitioners were project employees, their
dismissal as such project employees is hereby declared
ILLEGAL, and private respondent C.E. Construction
Corporation is directed to pay back wages computed from the
date of termination, i.e., May 27, 1999 for petitioners Isaac
Cioco, Jr., Carmelo Juanzo, Cecelio (sic) Soler and Benito
Galvadores and from June 5, 1999 for petitioners Rebie
Mercado, Baysa Benjamin (sic) and Rodrigo Napoles, up to
the date of completion of the construction of the GTI Tower
project.
The workers contend that they are regular employees,
hence entitled to reinstatement and back wages from the time
of their illegal dismissal.
The company, however, contends that the workers are its
project employees, that they are not illegally dismissed.
ISSUE: W/N the workers were regular employees of the
company.
RULING: The LA, NLRC, CA unanimously found that the
workers were project employees. They hold that fact the
workers have been employed with company for several years,
did not automatically make them regular employees
considering that the definition of regular employment in
Article 280 of the Labor Code, makes specific exception with
respect to project employment. The re-hiring of petitioners on
a project-to-project basis did not confer upon them regular
employment status. The practice was dictated by the practical
consideration that experienced construction workers are more
preferred.It did not change their status as project employees
The next issue is whether the WORKERS were
illegally dismissed. The CA ruled that they were illegally
dismissed as:
There was no evidence presented by the COMPANY
to show that the WORKERS had been duly notified or
informed beforehand of their dismissal and the reasons
therefore.
Furthermore, the COMPANY allegedly failed to
present evidence conclusively proving completion of the GTI
Tower project or phases thereof for which the services of the
WORKERS had been engaged.
Individual notices of termination had been sent to the
WORKERS
Section 2(III), Rule XXIII, Book V of the Omnibus
Rules Implementing the Labor Code provides that no prior
notice of termination is required if the termination is brought
about by completion of the contract or phase thereof for which
the worker has been engaged. This is because completion of
the work or project automatically terminates the employment,
in which case, the employer is, under the law, only obliged to
Page 32
render a report to the DOLE on the termination of the
employment.
COMPANY failed to present evidence conclusively
showing actual completion of the GTI Tower project or
respective phases thereof for which the WORKERS had been
hired
The court again review the records and it shows that
hat the COMPANY submitted the needed evidence. In its
motion for reconsideration of the CAs decision, the
COMPANY attached the following:
a. Progress Billing Reports clearly showing that the GTI
Tower project was already 80.9203% and 81.3747%
accomplished as of May 31, 1999 and June 30, 1999,
respectively
b. Specifically, the particular form, concreting and
masonry works for which the WORKERS had been hired and
assigned were already completed or near completion
The WORKERS did not question the veracity of the evidence
presented and just insisted that they are regular employees of
the COMPANY, hence, not liable for termination on mere
ground of project completion.
Considering the foregoing, we hold that the
COMPANY complied with the procedural as well as the
substantive requirements of due process with respect to the
WORKERS termination, as found by the Labor Arbiter and
the NLRC. We reverse the CA.
The termination from employment of project
employees Isaac Cioco, Jr., Their award of backwages
computed from the date of their termination is set aside
46. Caseres v. Univeral Robina Sugar Milling Corp.,
G.R. No. 159343, Septemberr 28, 2007
FACTS: URSMC is a corporation engaged in the sugar cane
milling business. The petitioner started working 1989 and
AnditoPael in 1993 to the respondent. At the start, they signed
a contract of Employment for Specific Project or Undertaking.
It will be renewed from time to time, until May 1999, that they
informed that they no longer be renewed. Petitioners filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal, regularization and other
claims.
August 24, 1999, LA dismissed the complaint for not being
substantiated with clear and convincing evidence.
NLRC affirmed the LAs dismissal.
Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the petition filed
before it. Hence, petitioner petitions for review on Certiorari
under Rule 65 of Rules of Court.
ISSUE: W/N petitioners are seasonal/ Project/ Term
Employees not regular Employees of Respondents
RULING: The LA, NLRC, CA are one in ruling that
petitioners were not illegally dismissed as they were not
regular but contractual or project employees.
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
Article 280 of the Labor Code provides the three
kinds of employees a.) Regular employees are those who have
been engaged to perform activities which are usually
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the
employer; b.) Project employees are those 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 services to
be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for
the duration of the season; c.) casual employees those who are
neither regular nor project employees.
An employee shall be deemed to be casual if it not covered by
the Article 280 of the Labor Code. Provided, that any
employee who has rendered at least one year of service,
whether such service is continuous or broken shall be
considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in
which he is employed and his employment shall continue while
such actually exists.
The principal test for determining whether an
employee is a project employee or a regular employee is
whether the employment has been fixed for a specific project
or undertaking the completion or termination of which has
been determined at the time of the employee. A project
employee is 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.
A true project employee should be assigned to a project which
begins and ends at determined or determinable times, and be
informed thereof at the time of hiring.
However, petitioners contend that repeated hiring of
their services qualifies them to the status of regular
employees.
On this score, the LA ruled:
This is further buttress[ed] by the fact that
the relationship between complainants and the
respondent URSUMCO, would clearly reveal that the
very nature of the terms and conditions of their hiring
would show that complainants were required to
perform phases of special projects which are not
related to the main operation of the respondent for a
definite period, after which their services are
available to any farm owner.
The NLRC, agreeing with the LA, further ruled that:
We note that complainants never bothered to
deny that they voluntarily, knowingly and willfully
executed the contracts of employment. Neither was
there any showing that respondents exercised moral
dominance on the complainants. it is clear that the
contracts of employment are valid and binding on the
complainants.
Finally, the CA noted:
Upon application, Caseres was interviewed and made
to understand that his employment would be co-terminus with
the phase of work to which he would be then assigned, that is
Page 33
until February 5, 1989 and thereafter he would be free to seek
employment elsewhere. Caseres agreed and signed the
contract of employment for specific project or undertaking.
After an absence of more than five (5) months, Caseres re-
applied with respondent as a seasonal project worker assisting
in the general underchassis reconditioning to transport units on
July 17, 1989. It must be noted that there were intervals in
petitioners' respective employment contracts, and that their
work depended on the availability of such contracts or
projects.
Petitioners' repeated and successive re-employment on the
basis of a contract of employment for more than one year
cannot and does not make them regular employees. Length of
service is not the controlling determinant of the employment
tenure of a project employee
The Court ruled:
By stressing the ruling in Villa v. National Labor
Relations Commission that by entering into such contract, an
employee is deemed to understand that his employment is
coterminous with the project. He may not expect to be
employed continuously beyond the completion of the project.
The fact that petitioners were constantly re-hired does not ipso
facto establish that they became regular employees. Their
respective contracts with respondent show that there were
intervals in their employment.
In petitioner Caseres's case, while his employment
lasted from August 1989 to May 1999, the duration of his
employment ranged from one day to several months at a time,
and such successive employments were not continuous.
With regard to petitioner Pael, his employment never
lasted for more than a month at a time. These support the
conclusion that they were indeed project employees, and since
their work depended on the availability of such contracts or
projects, necessarily the employment of respondents work
force was not permanent but co-terminous with the projects to
which they were assigned and from whose payrolls they were
paid
Moreover, even if petitioners were repeatedly and
successively re-hired, still it did not qualify them as regular
employees, as length of service is not the controlling
determinant of the employment tenure of a project
employee,1[19] but whether the employment has been fixed for
a specific project or undertaking, its completion has been
determined at the time of the engagement of the employee. 2[20]
Further, the provisoin Article 280, stating that an employee
who has rendered service for at least one (1) year shall be
considered a regular employee, pertains to casual employees
and not to project employees
Petition is denied.
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
47. Tomas Lao Construction v NLRC
G.R. No. 116781
FACTS: A complaint before the Labor Arbiter private
respondents Mario O. Labendia Sr., et al., construction
workers hired in different capacities for various periods,
claimed they were illegally dismissed by petitioners Tomas
Lao Construction (TLC), Thomas and James Developers (T &
J) and LVM Construction Corporation (LVM), 1 Altogether
informally referred to as the "Lao Group of Companies." for
which private respondents alternatively worked.
On 10 November 1992 Labor Arbiter Gabino A.
Velasquez Jr. dismissed the complaints after finding that
private respondents were project employees whose
employments could be terminated upon completion of the
projects or project phase for which they were hired.
In its Decision of 5 August 1994 the 4th Division of
the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter. It declared that private
respondents were regular employees who were dismissed
without just cause and denied due process. The NLRC also
overruled the Labor Arbiter in the fixing of the terms of
employment of complainants uniformly at five (5) years since
their periods of employment as alleged in their complaints
were never refuted by petitioners.In granting monetary awards
to complainants, the NLRC disregarded the veil of corporate
fiction and treated the three (3)corporations as forming only
one (1) entity on the basis of the admission of petitioners that
"the three (3)operated as one (1)intermingling and
commingling resources, including manpower facility."
Petitioners came to us on certiorari questioning the
reversal by the NLRC of the Labor Arbiter's Decision.
On 5 September 1997 we dismissed the petition and affirmed
the 5 August 1994 Decision of the NLRC.
ISSUE: W/N private respondents were illegally dismissed.
RULING: The main thrust of petitioners expostulation is that
respondents have no valid cause to complain about their
employment contracts since these documents merely
formalized their status as project employees.They cite Policy
Instruction No. 20 of the Department of Labor which defines
project employees as those employed in connection with a
particular construction project. It applies squarely to the
instant case because there the Court declared that the
employment of project employees is co-terminous with the
completion of the project regardless of the number of projects
in which they have worked. Petitioners thus argue that their
dismissal from the service of private respondents was legal
since the projects for which they were hired had already been
completed.
We are not convinced. The principal test in determining
whether particular employees are project employees
distinguished from regular employees is whether the
project employees are assigned to carry out specific project
or undertaking, the duration (and scope) of which are
specified at the time the employees are engaged for the
project. Project in the realm of business and industry refers
to a particular job or undertaking that is within the regular or
usual business of employer, but which is distinct and separate
Page 34
and identifiable as such from the undertakings of the
company. Such job or undertaking begins and ends at
determined or determinable times
We held that private respondents were regular
employees who were illegally dismissed. The repeated re-
hiring and the continuing need for private respondents'
services over a long span of time (the shortest, at seven [7]
years) undeniably made them regular employees.
While length of time may not be a controlling test for
project employment, it can be a strong factor in determining
whether the employee was hired for a specific undertaking or
in fact tasked to perform functions which are vital, necessary
and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the
employer. In the case at bar, private respondents had already
gone through the status of project employees. But their
employments became non-coterminous with specific projects
when they started to be continuously re-hireddue to the
demands of petitioners business and were re-engaged for
many more projects without interruption. Moreover, if private
respondents were indeed employed as project employees,
petitioners should have submitted a report of termination to
the nearest public employment office every time their
employment was terminated due to completion of each
construction project. The records show that they did not.
Clearly, here was an attempt to circumvent labor laws on
tenurial security. Settled is the rule that when periods have
been imposed to preclude the acquisition of tenurial security
by the employee, they should be struck down as contrary to
public morals, good customs or public order.
Thus, we ordered petitioners to reinstate private
respondents to their former positions without loss of seniority
rights and other privileges with full back wages, inclusive of
allowances, computed from the time compensation was
withheld up to the time of actual reinstatement. Art. 279 of the
Labor Code which provides that "[a]n employee who is
unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement
without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his
full back wages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other
benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time
his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his
actual reinstatement.
48. Mercado v NLRC
G.R. No. 79869, September 5, 1991
FACTS: Petitioners alleged in their complaint that they were
agricultural workers utilized by private respondents in all the
agricultural phases of work on the 7 1/2 hectares of ace land
and 10 hectares of sugar land owned by the Aurora L. Cruz,
Francisco Borja, Leticia C. Borja and Sto. Nio Realty
Incorporated. Fortunato Mercado, Sr. and Leon Santillan
worked in the farm of private respondents since 1949,
Fortunato Mercado, Jr. and Antonio Mercado since 1972 and
the rest of the petitioners since 1960 up to April 1979, when
they were all allegedly dismissed from their employment.
Private respondent Aurora Cruz in her answer to petitioners'
complaint denied that said petitioners were her regular
employees and instead averred that she engaged their services,
through Spouses Fortunato Mercado, Sr. and Rosa Mercado,
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
their "mandarols", that is, persons who take charge in
supplying the number of workers needed by owners of various
farms, but only to do a particular phase of agricultural work
necessary in rice production and/or sugar cane production,
after which they would be free to render services to other farm
owners who need their services. Respondent Labor Arbiter
Luciano P. Aquino ruled in favor of private respondents and
held that petitioners were not regular and permanent workers
of the private respondents, for the nature of the terms and
conditions of their hiring reveal that they were required to
perform phases of agricultural work for a definite period of
time after which their services would be available to any other
farm owner. The NLRC ruled in favor of private respondents
affirming the decision of the respondent Labor Arbiter, with
the modification of the deletion of the award for financial
assistance to petitioners.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners employment that
continued for so many years could be considered regular and
permanent by express provision of Article 280.
RULING: NO. The contention of petitioners that the second
paragraph of Article 280 of the Labor Code should have been
applied in their case presents an opportunity to clarify the
aforementioned provision of law. The first paragraph of
Article 280 answers the question of who are employees. It
states that, regardless of any written or oral agreement to the
contrary, an employee is deemed regular where he is engaged
in necessary or desirable activities in the usual business or
trade of the employer, except for project employees. A project
employee has been defined to be 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 as in the present
case. The second paragraph of Art. 280 demarcates as "casual"
employees, all other employees who do not fan under the
definition of the preceding paragraph. The proviso, in said
second paragraph, deems as regular employees those "casual"
employees who have rendered at least one year of service
regardless of the fact that such service may be continuous or
broken. Petitioners, in effect, contend that the proviso in the
second paragraph of Art. 280 is applicable to their case and
that the Labor Arbiter should have considered them regular by
virtue of said proviso. The contention is without merit. That in
all things, God may be glorified. The general rule is that the
office of a proviso is to qualify or modify only the phrase
immediately preceding it or restrain or limit the generality of
the clause that it immediately follows. The proviso is
applicable only to the employees who are deemed "casuals"
but not to the "project" employees nor the regular employees
treated in paragraph one of Art. 280. Clearly, therefore,
petitioners being project employees, or, to use the correct
term, seasonal employees, their employment legally ends upon
completion of the project or the season. The termination of
their employment cannot and should not constitute an illegal
dismissal.
Page 35

49. TACLOBAN SAGKAHAN RICE and CORN MILLS,
CO., and/ or TAN CHENG PIAN (alias PIANA), Owner,
petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION, SECOND DIVISION, THE
HONORABLE EXECUTIVE LABOR ARBITER,
REGIONAL ARBITRATION BRANCH NO. VIII,
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,
TACLOBAN CITY, and, CARLITO CODILAN,
MAXIMO DOCENA, TEOFILO TRANGRIA, EUGENIO
GO, and, REYNALDO TULIN, respondents.
G.R. No. 73806. March 21, 1990
Labor Law Illegal Dismissal Regular and Casual
Employment Private respondents employment was not fixed
for a specific project or undertaking the completion of which
has been determined at the time of their appointment or hiring.
Nor the services performed or to be performed seasonal in
nature.The evidence on record has established that private
respondents CarlitoCodilan and MaximoDocena had been
working for petitioners for 25 years, respondent Eugenio Go
for 22 years, respondent TeofiloTrangria for 15 years and
respondent Reynaldo Tulin for 6 years. Aside from their
lengthy service, it should be noted that private respondents
employment was not
fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or
termination of which has been determined at the time of their
appointment or hiring. Likewise, it must be borne in mind that
petitioners never rebutted private respondents claim that they
performed activities usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business of the former. Furthermore, the services performed or
to be performed by private respondents are not seasonal in
nature. While it may be true that the harvest of palay is
seasonal, the milling operations which is the main business of
petitioners are not seasonal. The fact is that big rice mills such
as the one owned by petitioners continue to operate and do
business throughout the year even if there are only two or
three harvest seasons within the year. It is a common practice
among farmers and rice dealers to store their palay and to have
the same milled as the need arises. Thus, the milling
operations have no letup.
FACTS :Petitioners submit these allegations: It appears that
private respondents, before their termination on July 25, 1983,
were all regular employees of petitioners. CarlitoCodilan and
MaximoDocena started working in 1958 Eugenio Go in 1961
TeofiloTrangria in 1968 and Reynaldo Tulin in 1977. On July
25, 1983, petitioner Tan Cheng Pian alias Piana told private
respondents to look for another job without giving any
reason. Private respondents thus filed their complaint for
illegal dismissal with the Regional Office, NLRC at Tacloban
City on August 23, 1983. At the hearing of September 28,
1983, private respondents, who had been employed elsewhere,
demanded payment of separation pay instead of seeking
reinstatement.
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
Petitioners also aver that private respondents are
seasonal workers whose work with the mill solely depends on
the availability of items or products to be worked upon in the
mill and who could, therefore, be temporarily laid-off or
considered on leave of absence without pay and, that the
operation of a rice and corn mill is inherently seasonal in
nature so much so that in its normal operation, workers are
either temporarily laid-off and/ or deemed on leave of
absence without pay during off milling season and sometimes,
even during on milling season as was done in this case.
Respondents, however, argue Contrary to petitioners
assertion, private respondents employment does not fall under
any of the two (2) exceptions provided in Art. 281 of the
Labor Code, to wit: (a) where the employment has been fixed
for a specific project or undertaking the completion or
termination of which has been determined at the time of
engagement of the employee or (b) where the work or
services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the
employment is for the duration of the season.
ISSUE :Whether or not private respondents are
considered regular employees?
RULING :We do not find merit in petitioners
position. We must first determine the real status of the former
as employees. The pertinent provision of the Labor Code
reads:
ART. 280.Regular and Casual Employment.
The provisions of written agreement to the contrary
notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the
parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where
the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are
usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of
the employer, except where the 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 services to be performed is seasonal in
nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.
An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not
covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, That, any
employee who has rendered at least one year of service,
whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be
considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in
which he is employed and his employment shall continue
while such actually exists.
The evidence on record has established that private
respondents CarlitoCodilan and MaximoDocena had been
working for petitioners for 25 years, respondent Eugenio Go
for 22 years, respondent TeofiloTrangria for 15 years and
respondent Reynaldo Tulin for 6 years. Aside from their
lengthy service, it should be noted that private respondents
employment was not fixed for a specific project or
undertaking the completion or termination of which has been
determined at the time of their appointment or hiring.
Likewise, it must be borne in mind that petitioners never
rebutted private respondents claim that they performed
activities usually necessary or desirable in the usual business
of the former.
Furthermore, the services performed or to be
performed by private respondents are not seasonal in nature.
While it may be true that the harvest of palay is seasonal, the
Page 36
milling operations which is the main business of petitioners
are not seasonal. The fact is that big rice mills such as the one
owned by petitioners continue to operate and do business
throughout the year even if there are only two or three harvest
seasons within the year. It is a common practice among
farmers and rice dealers to store their palay and to have the
same milled as the need arises. Thus, the milling operations
have no letup.
And finally, considering the number of years that
they have worked for petitioners (the lowest is 6 years),
private respondents have long attained the status of regular
employees as defined under Art. 280 of the Labor Code.
50. HACIENDA FATIMA and/or PATRICIO
VILLEGAS, ALFONSO VILLEGAS and CRISTINE
SEGURA,
petitioners, vs. NATIONAL FEDERATION OF
SUGARCANE WORKERS FOOD AND GENERAL
TRADE, respondents.
G.R. No. 149440. January 28, 2003
Labor Law Employment Regular Employee
Definition. [T]he test of whether or not an employee is a
regular employee has been laid down in De Leon v. NLRC, in
which this Court held: The primary standard, therefore, of
determining regular employment is the reasonable connection
between the particular activity performed by the employee in
relation to the usual trade or business of the employer. The test
is whether the former is usually necessary or desirable in the
usual trade or business of the employer. The connection can be
determined by considering the nature of the work performed
and its relation to the scheme of the particular business or
trade in its entirety. Also if the employee has been performing
the job for at least a year, even if the performance is not
continuous and merely intermittent, the law deems repeated
and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence
of the necessity if not indispensability of that activity to the
business. Hence, the employment is considered regular, but
only with respect to such activity and while such activity
exists. x xxxxxxxx x xx [T]he fact that [respondents] do not
work continuously for one whole year but only for the
duration of the x xx season does not detract from considering
them in regular employment since in a litany of cases this
Court has already settled that seasonal workers who are called
to work from time to time and are temporarily laid off during
offseason are not separated from service in said period, but
merely considered on leave until reemployed.
FACTS :The facts are summarized in the NLRC Decision as
follows:
Contrary to the findings of the Labor Arbiter that
complainants [herein respondents] refused to work and/or
were choosy in the kind of jobs they wanted to perform, the
records is replete with complainants persistence and dogged
determination in going back to work. The CA affirmed that
while the work of respondents was seasonal in nature, they
were considered to be merely on leave during the offseason
and were therefore still employed by petitioners. Moreover,
the workers enjoyed security of tenure. Any infringement
upon this right was deemed by the CA to be tantamount to
illegal dismissal. The appellate court found neither rhyme nor
reason in petitioners argument that it was the workers
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
themselves who refused to or were choosy in their work. As
found by the NLRC, the record of this case is replete with
complainants persistence and dogged determination in going
back to work.
ISSUE :Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding
that respondents, admittedly seasonal workers, were regular
employees?
RULING :The petition has no merit. Contrary to petitioners
contention, the CA did not err when it held that respondents
were regular employees. Article 280 of the Labor Code, as
amended, states:
ART. 280.Regular and Casual
Employment.The provisions of written
agreement to the contrary notwithstanding
and regardless of the oral agreement of the
parties, an employment shall be deemed to
be regular where the employee has been
engaged to perform activities which are
usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer, except
where the 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 services to be performed
is seasonal in nature and the employment is
for the duration of the season. An
employment shall be deemed to be casual if
it is not covered by the preceding paragraph:
Provided, That, any employee who has
rendered at least one year of service,
whether such service is continuous or
broken, shall be considered a regular
employee with respect to the activity in
which he is employed and his employment
shall continue while such actually exists.
For respondents to be excluded from those classified
as regular employees, it is not enough that they perform work
or services that are seasonal in nature. They must have also
been employed only for the duration of one season. The
evidence proves the existence of the first, but not of the
second, condition. The fact that respondentswith the
exception of Luisa Rombo, Ramona Rombo, BobongAbriga
and Boboy Silvarepeatedly worked as sugarcane workers
for petitioners for several years is not denied by the latter.
Evidently, petitioners employed respondents for more than
one season. Therefore, the general rule of regular employment
is applicable.
The fact that [respondents] do not work continuously
for one whole year but only for the duration of the x xx season
does not detract from considering them in regular employment
since in a litany of cases this Court has already settled that
seasonal workers who are called to work from time to time
and are temporarily laid off during off season are not
separated from service in said period, but merely considered
on leave until reemployed.
Page 37

51. ELVIRA ABASOLO Et Al., petitioners vs. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, LABOR
ARBITER RICARDO N. OLAIREZ, LA UNION
TOBACCO REDRYING CORPORATION and SEE LIN
CHAN, respondents.
G.R. No. 118475. November 29, 2000
Labor Law Classification of Employment Nature of ones
employment does not depend solely on the will or word of the
employer nor on the procedure for hiring and the manner of
designating the employee, but on the nature of the activities to
be performed by the employee, considering the employers
nature of business and the duration and scope of work to be
done.The nature of ones employment does not depend
solely on the will or word of the employer. Nor on the
procedure for hiring and the manner of designating the
employee, but on the nature, of the activities to be performed
by the employee, considering the employers nature of
business and the duration and scope of work to be done.
FACTS :Petitioners have been under the employ of
LUTORCO for several years until their employment with
LUTORCO was abruptly interrupted sometime in March 1993
when Compania General de Tabaccos de Filipinas (also
known as TABACALERA) took over LUTORCOs tobacco
operations.
On March 17, 1993, the disgruntled employees
instituted before the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch No.
1, San Fernando, La Union a complaint for separation pay
against private respondent LUTORCO on the ground
that there was a termination of their employment due to the
closure of LUTORCO as a result of the sale and turnover to
TABACALERA.
On December 29, 1993, Labor Arbiter Ricardo N.
Olairez rendered his decision dismissing the complaint for
lack of merit. Petitioners appealed then the decision of the
Labor Arbiter to the public respondent NLRC where it was
assigned to the Third Division
In its Opposition to Appeal dated February 5, 1994
private respondent LUTORCO presented new allegations and
a different stand for denying separation pay. It alleged that
LUTORCO never ceased to operate but continues to operate
even after TABACALERA took over the operations of its
redrying plant in Aringay, La Union. Petitioners were not
terminated from employment but petitioners instead refused to
work with TABACALERA, despite the notice to petitioners to
return to work in view of LUTORCOs need for workers at its
Agoo plant which had approximately 300,000 kilos of
Virginia tobacco for processing and redrying. Furthermore,
petitioners are not entitled to separation pay because
petitioners are seasonal workers.
ISSUE :Whether petitioners are regular or seasonal workers,
as defined by law?
RULING :The test of whether or not an employee is a regular
employee has been laid down in De Leon v. NLRC,25
in which this Court held:
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
The primary standard, therefore, of
determining regular employment is the
reasonable connection between the
particular activity performed by the
employee in relation to the usual trade or
business of the employer. The test is
whether the former is usually necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade of the
employer. The connection can be
determined by considering the nature of the
work performed and its relation to the
scheme of the particular business or trade in
its entirety. Also if the employee has been
performing the job for at least a year, even if
the performance is not continuous and
merely intermittent, the law deems repeated
and continuing need for its performance as
sufficient evidence of the necessity if not
indispensability of that activity to the
business. Hence, the employment is
considered regular, but only with respect to
such activity and while such activity exists.
Thus, the nature of ones employment does not
depend solely on the will or word of the employer. Nor on the
procedure for hiring and the manner of designating the
employee, but on the nature of the activities to be performed
by the employee, considering the employers nature of
business and the duration and scope of work to be done.
In the case at bar, while it may appear that the work
of petitioners is seasonal, inasmuch as petitioners have served
the company for many years, some for over 20 years,
performing services necessary and indispensable to
LUTORCOs business, serve as badges of regular
employment. Moreover, the fact that petitioners do not work
continuously for one whole year but only for the duration of
the tobacco season does not detract from considering them in
regular employment since in a litany of cases this Court has
already settled that seasonal workers who are called to work
from time to time and are temporarily laid off during off-
season are not separated from service in said period, but are
merely considered on leave until reemployed.
52. KIMBERLY-CLARK (PHILS.), INC., petitioner, vs.
SECRETARY OF LABOR, Respondent
G.R. No. 156668. November 23, 2007
Labor Law Regular Employees Owing to their
length of service with the company, these workers became
regular employees, by operation of law, one year after they
were employed by KIMBERLY through RANK. While the
actual regularization of these employees entails the
mechanical act of issuing regular appointment papers and
compliance with such other operating procedures as may be
adopted by the employer, it is more in keeping with the intent
and spirit of the law to rule that the status of regular
employment attaches to the casual worker on the day
immediately after the end of his first year of service.
FACTS :On November 13, 1986, MOLE issued an Order
stating, among others, that the casual workers not performing
janitorial and yard maintenance services had attained regular
status on even date. Pursuant thereto, on August 1, 2000, the
Bureau of Working Conditions (BWC) submitted its report
Page 38
finding 47 out of the 76 complainants as entitled to be
regularized.
Kimberly filed a motion for reconsideration of the
DOLE Order as well as the BWC Report, arguing in the main
that the decision in G.R. Nos. 77629 and 78791 only pertained
to casuals who had rendered one year of service as of April 21,
1986, the filing date of KILUSANOLALIAs petition for
certification election.
Kimberly, in this case, contends that the reckoning
point in determining who among its casual employees are
entitled to regularization should be April 21, 1986, the date
KILUSANOLALIA filed a petition for certification election to
challenge the incumbency of UKCEO-PTGWO.
ISSUE :Whether or not the petitioners are considered regular
employees?
RULING :We do not agree with KIMBERLY.
The law thus provides for two kinds of regular
employees, namely: (1) those who are engaged to perform
activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer and (2) those who have
rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or
broken, with respect to the activity in which they are
employed. The individual petitioners herein who have been
adjudged to be regular employees fall under the second
category. These are the mechanics, electricians, machinists,
machine shop helpers, warehouse helpers, painters, carpenters,
pipefitters and masons. It is not disputed that these workers
have been in the employ of KIMBERLY for more than one
year at the time of the filing of the petition for certification
election by KILUSAN-OLALIA.
Owing to their length of service with the company,
these workers became regular employees, by operation of law,
one year after they were employed by KIMBERLY through
RANK. While the actual regularization of these employees
entails the mechanical act of issuing regular appointment
papers and compliance with such other operating procedures
as may be adopted by the employer, it is more in keeping with
the intent and spirit of the law to rule that the status of regular
employment attaches to the casual worker on the day
immediately after the end of his first year of service. To rule
otherwise, and to instead make their regularization dependent
on the happening of some contingency or the fulfillment of
certain requirements, is to impose a burden on the employee
which is not sanctioned by law.
53. ROLANDO Y TAN, petitionervs LEOVOGILDO
LAGRAMA and THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS, respondents.
G.R. No. 151228. August 15, 2002
Labor Law Employee-Employee Relationship
Four-Fold Test to Determine the Existence of an
Employer-Employee Relationship. The right to hire and fire is
another important element of the employer-employee
relationship.By stating that he had the right to fire Lagrama,
petitioner in effect acknowledged Lagrama to be his
employee. For the right to hire and fire is another important
element of the employer-employee relationship. Indeed, the
fact that, as petitioner himself said, he waited for Lagrama to
report for work but the latter simply stopped reporting for
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
work reinforces the conviction that Lagrama was indeed an
employee of petitioner.
FACTS :Petitioner Rolando Tan is the president of Supreme
Theater Corporation and the general manager of Crown and
Empire Theaters in Butuan City. Private respondent
LeovigildoLagrama is a painter, making ad billboards and
murals for the motion pictures shown at the Empress,
Supreme, and Crown Theaters for more than 10 years.
Lagrama filed a complaint with the Sub-Regional
Arbitration Branch No. X of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) in Butuan City. He alleged that he had
been illegally dismissed and sought reinvestigation and
payment of 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay,
salary differential, and damages.
Petitioner Tan denied that Lagrama was his
employee. He asserted that Lagrama was an independent
contractor who did his work according to his methods, while
he (petitioner) was only interested in the result thereof.
ISSUE : Whether or not an employer- employee relationship
existed between petitioner and private respondent?
RULING :In determining whether there is an
employeremployee relationship, we have applied a fourfold
test, to wit: (1) whether the alleged employer has the power
of selection and engagement of employees (2) whether he has
control of the employee with respect to the means and
methods by which work is to be accomplished (3) whether he
has the power to dismiss and (4) whether the employee was
paid wages. These elements of the employer-employee
relationship are present in this case.
First. The existence in this case of the first element is
undisputed. It was petitioner who engaged the services of
Lagrama without the intervention of a third party.
Second. That petitioner had the right to hire and fire
was admitted by him in his position paper submitted to the
NLRC.
By stating that he had the right to fire Lagrama,
petitioner in effect acknowledged Lagrama to be his
employee. For the right to hire and fire is another important
element of 13 the employer-employee relationship. Indeed, the
fact that, as petitioner himself said, he waited for Lagrama to
report for work but the latter simply stopped reporting for
work reinforces the conviction that Lagrama was indeed an
employee of petitioner. For only an employee can nurture such
an expectancy, the frustration of which, unless satisfactorily
explained, can bring about some disciplinary action on the part
of the employer.
Third. Payment of wages is one of the four factors to
be considered in determining the existence of employer-
employee relation. That Lagrama worked for Tan on a fixed
piece-work basis is of no moment. Payment by result is a
method of compensation and does not define 15 the essence of
the relation.
This Court has held that if the employee has been
performing the job for at least one year, even if not
continuously but intermittently, the repeated and continuing
need for its performance is sufficient evidence of the
necessity, if not indispensability, of that activity to the
business of his employer. Hence, the employment is also
Page 39
considered regular, although with respect only to such 24
activity, and while such activity exists.
54.BRENT SCHOOL, INC., and REV. GABRIEL
DIMACHE, petitioners, vs. RONALDO ZAMORA, the
Presidential Assistant for Legal Affairs, Office of the
President, and DOROTEO R. ALEGRE, respondents.
G.R. No. 48494. February 5, 1990.
Same Same Same Stipulations in employment
contracts providing for term employment or fixed period
employment are valid when the period where agreed upon
knowingly, and voluntarily by the parties without force, duress
or improper pressure exerted on the employee and when such
stipulations were not designed to circumvent the laws on
security of tenure. Accordingly, and since the entire purpose
behind the development of legislation culminating in the
present Article 280 of the Labor Code clearly appears to have
been, as already observed, to
FACTS : The root of the controversy at bar is an employment
contract in virtue of which Doroteo R. Alegre was engaged as
athletic director by Brent School, Inc. at a yearly
compensation of P20,000.00. The contract fixed a specific
term for its existence, five (5) years, i.e., from July 18, 1971,
the date of execution of the agreement, to July 17, 1976. Some
three months before the expiration of the stipulated period, or
more precisely on April 20, 1976, Alegre was given a copy of
the report filed by Brent School with the Department of Labor
advising of the termination of his services effective on July 16,
1976.
The Director pronounced the ground relied upon by
the respondent (Brent) in terminating the services of the
complainant (Alegre) x xx (as) not sanctioned by P.D. 442,
and, quite oddly, as prohibited by Circular No. 8, series of
1969, of the Bureau of Private Schools.Brent School filed a
motion for reconsideration. The Regional Director denied the
motion and forwarded the 8 case to the Secretary of Labor 9
for review. The latter sustained the Regional Director.
ISSUE :Is it then the legislative intention to outlaw
stipulations in employment contracts laying down a definite
period therefor?
RULING :From the premisethat the duties of an employee
entail activities which are usually necessary or desirable in
the usual business or trade of the employerthe conclusion
does not necessarily follow that the employer and employee
should be forbidden to stipulate any period of time for the
performance of those activities. There is nothing essentially
contradictory between a definite period of an employment
contract and the nature of the employees duties set down in
that contract as being usually necessary or desirable in the
usual business or trade of the employer. The concept of the
employees duties as being usually necessary or desirable in
the usual business or trade of the employer is not
synonymous with or identical to employment with a fixed
term. Logically, the decisive determinant in term employment
should not be the activities that the employee is called upon to
perform, but the day certain agreed upon by the parties for the
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
commencement and termination of their employment
relationship, a day certain being understood to be that which
must necessarily come, although it may not be known when.
Seasonal employment, and employment for a particular
project are merely instances of employment in which a period,
where not expressly set down, is necessarily implied.
Accordingly, and since the entire purpose behind the
development of legislation culminating in the present Article
280 of the Labor Code clearly appears to have been, as already
observed, to prevent circumvention of the employees right to
be secure in his tenure, the clause in said article
indiscriminately and completely ruling out all written or oral
agreements conflicting with the concept of regular
employment as defined therein should be construed to refer to
the substantive evil that the Code itself has singled out:
agreements entered into precisely to circumvent security of
tenure. It should have no application to instances where a
fixed period of employment was agreed upon knowingly and
voluntarily by the parties, without any force, duress or
improper pressure being brought to bear upon the employee
and absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent, or
where it satisfactorily appears that the employer and employee
dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no
moral dominance whatever being exercised by the former over
the latter. Unless thus limited in its purview, the law would be
made to apply to purposes other than those explicitly stated by
its framers it thus becomes pointless and arbitrary, unjust in
its effects and apt to lead to absurd and unintended
consequences.
55. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL OIL COMPANY-ENERGY
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION/FRANCIS
PALAFOX, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION and FRANCISCO MATA,
respondents.
G.R. No. 97747. March 31, 1993.
Labor Law Classification of laborers or employees
Private respondent Mata is a project employee considering
that he does not belong to a work pool.Paraphrasing Rada v.
NLRC, it is clear that private respondent Mata is a project
employee considering that he does not belong to a "work pool"
from which petitioner PNOC would draw workers for
assignment to other projects at its discretion. It is likewise
apparent from the facts of the case that private respondent
Mata was utilized only for one particular project, the
well-completion project which was part of the exploration
stage of the PNOC Bacon-Manito Geothermal Project. Hence,
private respondent Mata can be dismissed upon the
termination
FACTS :When petitioner Philippine National Oil
Company-Energy Development Corporation started to develop
the Bacon- Manito Geothermal Project in Bonga, Sorsogon,
one question which arose is whether or not an employee
contracted to drive for petitioner during the construction of the
steam wells is considered a project employee or a regular
employee.
On November 8, 1985, private respondent
complained of illegal dismissal, and accused petitioners of
withholding his backwages, overtime pay, and separation
pay.Petitioners maintained that private respondent was a
Page 40
project employee whose employment was for a definite period
and coterminous with the project for which he was hired. It
was for this reason that his employment was terminated.
ISSUE : Whether or not Mata is considered a project
employee?
RULING :As can be gleaned from the said case, the two
guidelines, by which fixed contracts of employments can be
said NOT to circumvent security of tenure, are either:
1. The fixed period of employment was
knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the
parties, without any force, duress or improper
pressure being brought to bear upon the employee
and absent any other circumstances vitiating his
consent or:
2. It satisfactorily appears that the employer
and employee dealt with each other on more or less
equal terms with no moral dominance whatever being
exercised by the former on the latter.
Paraphrasing Rada v. NLRC, it is clear that private respondent
Mata is a project employee considering that he does not
belong to a "work pool" from which petitioner PNOC would
draw workers for assignment to other projects at its discretion.
It is likewise apparent from the facts of the case that private
respondent Mata was utilized only for one particular project,
the well completion project which was part of the exploration
stage of the PNOC Bacon- Manito Geothermal Project. Hence,
private respondent Mata can be dismissed upon the
termination of the projects as there would be no need for his
services. We should not expect petitioner to continue on hiring
private respondent in the other phases of the project when his
services will no longer be needed.
56. AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE, PARAAQUE,
and/or AMABLE C. AGUILUZ IX, President, MRS.
CELESTE BANSALE, School Director, MS. SOCORRO,
MR. PATRICK AZANZA, GRACE BERANIA and
MAJAL JACOB, petitioners, vs. ROLANDO A.
AUSTRIA, respondent.
G.R. No. 164078. November 23, 2007
Same Labor Standards Fixedterm Employment
Article 280 of the Labor Code does not proscribe or prohibit
an employment contract with a fixed period. Even if the duties
of the employee consist of activities necessary or desirable in
the usual business of the employer, the parties are free to
agree on a fixed period of time for the performance of such
activities.We held that Article 280 of the Labor Code does
not proscribe or prohibit an employment contract with a fixed
period. Even if the duties of the employee consist of activities
necessary or desirable in the usual business of the employer,
the parties are free to agree on a fixed period of time for the
performance of such activities. There is nothing essentially
contradictory between a definite period of employment and
the nature of the employees duties.
FACTS :Petitioner AMA Computer College, Paraaque
(AMA) is an educational institution duly organized under the
laws of the Philippines. The rest of the petitioners are principal
4 officers of AMA. Respondent Rolando A. Austria
(respondent) was hired by AMA on probationary 5
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
employment as a college dean on April 24, 2000. On August
22, 2000, respondents appointment as dean was confirmed.
Sometime in August 2000, respondent was charged with
violating AMAs Employees Conduct and Discipline 7
provided in its Orientation Handbook (Handbook)
On October 27, 2000, respondent filed a Complaint for Illegal
Dismissal, Illegal Suspension, Non-Payment of Salary and
13th Month Pay with prayer for Damages and Attorneys Fees
against AMA and the rest of the petitioners. Trial on the
merits ensued.
ISSUE : Whether respondent is a regular, probationary, or
fixed term employee?
RULING :Petitioners submit that the nature of respondents
employment as dean is one with a fixed term. We agree. We
held that Article 280 of the Labor Code does not pro- scribe or
prohibit an employment contract with a fixed period. Even if
the duties of the employee consist of activities necessary or
desirable in the usual business of the employer, the parties are
free to agree on a fixed period of time for the performance of
such activities. There is nothing essentially contradictory
between a definite period of employment and the nature of the
employees duties.
The letter of appointment was clear. Respondent was
confirmed as Dean of AMA College, Paraaque, effective
from April 17, 2000 to September 17, 2000. In numerous
cases decided by this Court, we had taken notice, that by way
of practice and tradition, the position of dean is normally an
employment for a fixed term. Although it does not appear on
recordand neither was it alleged by any of the partiesthat
respondent, other than holding the position of dean,
concurrently occupied a teaching position, it can be deduced
from the last paragraph of said letter that the respondent shall
be considered for a faculty position in the event he gives up
his deanship or fails to meet AMAs standards. Such provision
reasonably serves the intention set forth in Brent School that
the deanship may be rotated among the other members of the
faculty.
57. Pantranco North Express Inc. v. NLRC
G.R. No. 106654, Dec. 16, 1994
FACTS: Private respondent Peronila was employed as a
driver of Pantranco North Express, Inc. In 1973, Peronila was
administratively investigated by the corporation for his
absence from work of more than two and one-half months
without leave. According to an investigation report of
petitioners' area manager, Peronila claimed that he went on
absence without leave from his work from November 1, 1972
up to February 16, 1973 which was date of the investigation,
or one hundred seven calendar days continuously, because "he
went to Cotabato, Mindanao to visit his dead grandfather
during the period of his unofficial absence." Finding the
belated explanation of Peronila insufficient, the petitioner
dismissed the respondent from service upon receipt of the
approved clearance from the NLRC.Fifteen years after such
termination of his employment, Peronila reappeared in 1988
and implored petitioner to reconsider his dismissal, which plea
was initially denied by petitioner. However, due to insistent
appeals by Peronila, petitioner eventually acceded and hired
him as a driver, but on a contractual basis for a fixed period of
Page 41
one month.Barely fifteen days from such employment as a
contractual driver, or on April 20, 1988, private respondent
was involved in a vehicular mishap in Nueva Vizcaya wherein
the bus he was driving hit another vehicle. After an
administrative investigation conducted by petitioner
corporation, Peronila was found guilty thereof, hence his
employment contract was terminated and was no longer
renewed thereafter.
On January 18, 1989, private respondent filed a case for
illegal dismissal against petitioner in the Arbitration Branch of
the NLRC-NCR wherein he argued that he was refused
assignment after May 5, 1988, which refusal was tantamount
to constructive dismissal. Accordingly, he sought his
reinstatement and the payment of his back wages. Labor
Arbiter Patricio P. Libo-on dismissed the case on February 12,
1991. On appeal, public respondent NLRC set aside the
decision of the labor arbiter declaring that the dismissal was
illegal since there was no just cause. However, respondent
commission rejected the argument of Peronila that he was not
afforded the opportunity to adduce evidence before the labor
arbiter. The NLRC maintained that there was no error in the
procedure conducted by the labor arbiter because he is given
ample discretion to determine whether there is a need to
conduct further hearings after the parties have submitted their
position papers and supporting proofs. Petitioner's motion for
reconsideration was denied for lack of merit, hence this
petition alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
NLRC in ordering the reinstatement of private respondent and
the payment to him of one year back wages.
ISSUE: Whether or not NLRC committed grave abuse of
discretion
RULING: The Court Finds adequate and compelling merit in
the petition. The determinative issue in this case is whether or
not the employment contract which stipulates that there is no
employer-employee relationship between petitioner and
Peronila is valid. Relevant to this issue, we are persuaded to
hold that the re-employment of Peronila as a contractual bus
driver was merely an act of generosity on the part of
petitioner.
In the present dispute, the services of respondent
Peronila had been validly terminated by petitioner, when the
latter absented himself without official leave, fifteen years
before he was re-hired as a contractual driver for just one
month. Definitely, his re-hiring cannot be construed to mean
that Peronila reacquired his former permanent status.
Furthermore, as correctly pointed out by the Solicitor
General, "there is no evidence on record that private
respondent in fact held the position of a bus driver for nearly
seventeen years, except his bare and unsupported allegations
to that effect in his Position Paper. . . . There is ample and
unrebutted evidence that private respondent's employment by
PNEI in 1971 was illegally terminated on March 20, 1973.
The Order issued by the Mediator-Factfinder Loreto V.
Poblete of the Regional Office No. II, National Labor
Relations Commission, Tuguegarao, Cagayan in the case
entitled, 'Pantranco vs. Rodolfo Peronila' docketed as NLRC
Case No. 85, attests to this fact.
We once again reiterate that the findings of an
administrative agency, to be conclusive and binding, must be
supported by substantial evidence. A conflict between the
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
factual findings of the NLRC and the labor arbiter will
necessitate a review of such factual findings. The impugned
decision of respondent commission appears to have laid too
much stress on the conceptual principles of social justice in
labor cases without the corresponding specifics to support its
conclusions.
58. Caparoso v. NLRC, G.R. No. 155505, 02.15.200
FACTS: Composite Enterprises Incorporated (Composite) is
engaged in the distribution and supply of confectioneries to
various retail establishments within the Philippines. Emilio
M. Caporoso and Joeve P. Quindipan (Quindipan) were
Composites deliverymen. Caparoso alleged that he was hired
on 8 November 1998 while Quindipan alleged that he was
hired on intermittent basis since 1997. Quindipan further
alleged that he had been working continuously with
Composite since August 1998.On 8 October
1999, Caparoso and Quindipan (petitioners) were dismissed
from the service. They filed a consolidated position paper
before the Labor Arbiter charging Composite
and its Personnel Manager Edith Tan (Tan) with illegal
dismissal.Composite and Tan (respondents) alleged that
petitioners were both hired on 11 May 1999 as deliverymen,
initially for three months and then on a month-to-month
basis.Respondents alleged that petitioners termination from
employment resulted from the expiration of their contracts of
employment on 8 October 1999.
The Labor Arbiter ruled that petitioners are regular
employees of respondents.Respondents appealed to the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC
set aside the Labor Arbiters Decision and dismissed
petitioners complaint for illegal dismissal. The NLRC ruled
that the mere fact that the employees duties are necessary or
desirable in the business or trade of the employer does not
mean that they are forbidden from stipulating the period of
employment. The NLRC held that petitioners contracts of
employment are valid and binding between the contracting
parties and shall be considered as the law between them. The
NLRC ruled that petitioners are bound by their employment
contracts.Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the
Court of Appeals.The CA dismissed the petition and affirmed
the NLRCs decision. Hence, this petition.
ISSUES: 1. Whether petitioners are regular employees of
respondents; and2. Whether respondents are guilty of illegal
dismissal.
RULING: Petitioners are Not Regular Employees Under
Article 280 of the Labor Code, a regular employee is (1) one
who is engaged to perform activities that are necessary or
desirable in the usual trade or business of the employer, or (2)
a casual employee who has rendered at least one year of
service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the
activity in which he is employed.
The Court thus laid down the criteria under which fixed-
term employment could not be said to be in circumvention
of the law on security of tenure, thus:
1. The fixed period of employment was
knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties
without any force, duress, or improper pressure being
Page 42
 brought to bear upon the employee and absent any
other circumstances vitiating his consent; or
2. It satisfactorily appears that the employer
and the employee dealt
with each other on more or less equal terms with
no moral dominance exercised by the former or
the latter.
At most, petitioners employment for less than six months
can be considered probationary. Article 281 of the Labor Code
provides:
Art. 281. Probationary Employment. - Probationary
employment shall not exceed six (6) months from the date the
employee started working, unless it is covered by an
apprenticeship agreement stipulating a longer period. The
services of an employee who has been engaged on a
probationary basis may be terminated for a just cause or when
he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with
reasonable standards made known by the employer to the
employee at the time of his engagement. An employee who is
allowed to work after a probationary period shall be
considered a regular employee.
Petitioners were not Illegally Dismissed from
Employment Petitioners terms of employment are governed
by their fixed-term contracts. Petitioners fixed-term
employment contracts had expired. They were not illegally
dismissed from employment. This Court has ruled that if from
the circumstances it is apparent that periods have been
imposed to preclude acquisition of tenurial security by the
employee, they should be disregarded for being contrary to
public policy. In this case, it was not established that
respondents intended to deny petitioners their right to security
of tenure. Besides, petitioners employment did not exceed six
months. Thus, the Court of Appeals did not err in sustaining
petitioners dismissal from employment.
59. Pure Foods Corp. v. NLRC
G.R. No. 122653, Dec. 12, 1997
FACTS: The private respondents (numbering 906) were hired
by petitioner Pure Foods Corporation to work for a fixed
period of five months at its tuna cannery plant in Tambler,
General Santos City. After the expiration of their respective
contracts of employment in June and July 1991, their services
were terminated. They forthwith executed a Release and
Quitclaim stating that they had no claim whatsoever against
the petitioner.On 29 July 1991, the private respondents filed
before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch No. XI, General Santos City,
a complaint for illegal dismissal against the petitioner and its
plant manager, Marciano Aganon.
On 23 December 1992, Labor Arbiter Arturo P. Aponesto
handed down a decisiondismissing the complaint on the
ground that the private respondents were mere contractual
workers, and not regular employees; hence, they could not
avail of the law on security of tenure. The Labor Arbiter also
observed that an order for private respondents reinstatement
would result in the reemployment of more than 10,000
former contractual employees of the petitioner.Besides, by
executing a Release and Quitclaim, the private respondents
had waived and relinquished whatever right they might have
against the petitioner. The private respondents appealed from
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
the decision to the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision.
The petition having been denied, hence this petition.
Petitioners contend that grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack of jurisdiction by the NLRC.
ISSUE: Whether or not the NLRC committed grave abuse of
discretion.
RULING: No. Article 280 of the Labor Code defines regular
and casual employment as follows: ART. 280. Regular and
Casual Employment.-- The provisions of written agreement to
the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral
argument of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be
regular where the employee has been engaged to perform
activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer, except where the
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 services to be performed is seasonal in
nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.
An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is
not covered by the preceding paragraph; Provided, That, any
employee who has rendered at least one year of service,
whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be
considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in
which he is employed and his employment shall continue
while such activity exists.
The NLRC was, thus, correct in finding that the
private respondents were regular employees and that they
were illegally dismissed from their jobs. Under Article 279 of
the Labor Code and the recent jurisprudence,the legal
consequence of illegal dismissal is reinstatement without loss
of seniority rights and other privileges, with full back wages
computed from the time of dismissal up to the time of actual
reinstatement, without deducting the earnings derived
elsewhere pending the resolution of the case.
However, since reinstatement is no longer possible because
the petitioner's tuna cannery plant had, admittedly, been closed
the proper award is separation pay equivalent to one month
pay or one-half month pay for every year of service,
whichever is higher, to be computed from the commencement
of their employment up to the closure of the tuna cannery
plant. The amount of back wages must be computed from the
time the private respondents were dismissed until the time
petitioner's cannery plant ceased operation.
60. Universal Robina Corp. v. Catapang
G.R. No. 164736, Oct. 14, 2005
FACTS: Petitioner Universal Robina Corporation is a
corporation duly organized and existing under the Philippine
laws, while petitioner Randy Gregorio is the manager of the
petitioner companys duck farm in Calauan, Laguna. The
respondents were hired by petitioner to work at a duck farm in
Calauan, Laguna on five month period contract. After
expiration of contract, petitioner would renew them to
reemploy them. The said practice continued until the
respondents were informed that their contract were no longer
going to be renewed.
Page 43
 Respondents filed separate complaints for illegal
dismissal, reinstatement, backwages, damages and attorneys
fees against the petitioners. The complaints were later
consolidated.
After due proceedings, the Labor Arbiter rendered a
decision in favor of the respondents. On May 17, 1999, the
petitioners filed an Appeal Memorandum with the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on the ground that the
Labor Arbiter erred in ruling that the respondents are the
petitioner companys regular employees.Meanwhile, on May
18, 1999, the respondents filed a Motion for Enforcement of
Reinstatement Order with the Labor Arbiter. On June 3, 1999,
the latter issued an Order, which states that the respondents
should comply with the reinstatement in good faith. On June
21, 1999, the Labor Arbiter issued a Writ of Execution
enforcing the immediate reinstatement of the respondents as
mandated in the March 30, 1999 Decision.
However only 17 employees were reinstated because
there were no other available positions substantially similar to
the positions previously occupied by the other 13 respondents,
but that 10 of them could be accommodated at the farms Duck
Dressing Section which operates at an average of three days a
week only.On February 21, 2000, the respondents moved for
the issuance of a notice of garnishment to collect the
accumulated withheld wages of the 17 respondents who were
reinstated on December 16, 1999 amounting to P649,400.00.
The Labor Arbiter granted the motion and issued a Second
Alias Writ of Execution directing the Sheriff to proceed to
collect the said amount plus execution fees.Petitioners filed a
motion to quash. The Labor arbiter later on denied the
petitioners petition.On March 13, 2000, the petitioners filed a
Memorandum and Notice of Appeal with Prayer for the
Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order [15] with the NLRC,
assailing the February 9, 2000 and March 1, 2000 Orders and
the two Alias Writs of Execution issued by the Labor
Arbiter.On November 22, 2000, the NLRC affirmed the
decision of the Labor Arbiter with the modification that the
award of attorneys fees was reduced to 10% of the total
monetary award.Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a petition
for certiorari with thehold Court of Appeals (CA). On August
21, 2003, the CA denied the petition for lack of merit. Holding
that thePetitioners were regular emlployees.
ISSUE: Whether the petition was filed within the
reglamentary period
Ruling: Clearly, the period for filing a motion for
reconsideration and a petition for review with this Court are
the same, that is, 15 days from notice of the judgment. When
an aggrieved party files a motion for reconsideration within
the said period, the period for filing an appeal is suspended. If
the motion is denied, the aggrieved party is given another 15-
day period from notice of such denial within which to file a
petition for review under Rule 45. It must be stressed that the
aggrieved party will be given a fresh 15-day period only when
he has filed his motion for reconsideration in due time on or
before the expiration of the original 15-day period. Otherwise,
if the motion for reconsideration is filed out of time and no
appeal has been filed, the subject decision becomes final and
executory.[34] As such, it becomes immutable and can no
longer be attacked by any of the parties or be modified,
directly or indirectly, even by the highest court of the land.
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
The petitioners received the CA Decision on
September 8, 2003; hence, they had until September 23, 2003
within which to file a motion for reconsideration, or an appeal,
through a petition for review, with this Court. Instead, the
petitioners filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion
for reconsideration on September 23, 2003, which is a
prohibited pleading. Thus, it did not suspend the running of
the period for filing an appeal.
In filing their petition for review with this Court, the
petitioners counted the 15-day period from their receipt of the
July 19, 2004 CA Resolution on August 4, 2004. Hence,
according to their Motion for Extension of Time to File
Petition for Review which they filed on August 19, 2004, they
had until that day within which to file a petition for review.
They then asked the Court that they be granted an extension of
30 days, or until September 21, 2004 within which to file their
petition. The Court granted the motion on the belief that the
petitioners motion for reconsideration before the CA was duly
filed and that the assailed July 19, 2004 CA Resolution had
denied the said motion. Thereafter, the petitioners filed their
petition for review on September 20, 2004. It is, therefore,
evident from the foregoing that the present petition was filed
way beyond the reglementary period. Hence, its outright
dismissal would be proper. The perfection of an appeal in the
manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only
mandatory but jurisdictional, and failure to perfect an appeal
has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory.
61. Viernes v. NLRC
G.R. No. 108405, April 4, 2003
FACTS: Fifteen (15) in all, these are consolidated cases for
illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages and claim for
indemnity pay against a common respondent, the Benguet
Electric Cooperative, Inc., (BENECO for short) represented
by its Acting General Manager, Gerardo P.
Versoza.Complainants services as meter readers were
contracted for hardly a months duration, or from October 8 to
31, 1990. Their employment contracts, couched in identical
terms, read:You are hereby appointed as METER READER
(APPRENTICE) under BENECO-NEA Management with
compensation at the rate of SIXTY-SIX PESOS AND
SEVENTY-FIVE CENTAVOS (P66.75) per day from
October 08 to 31, 1990.The said term notwithstanding, the
complainants were allowed to work beyond October 31, 1990,
or until January 2, 1991. On January 3, 1991, they were each
served their identical notices of termination dated December
29, 1990.The complainants filed separate complaints for
illegal dismissal.The contention of the complainants that they
were not apprentices but regular employees whose services
were illegally and unjustly terminated in a manner that was
whimsical and capricious.
On the other hand, the respondent invokes Article 283 of
the Labor Code in defense of the questioned dismissal. The
labor arbiter dismissed the complaints for illegal dismissal
filed by the complainants for lack of merit. Aggrieved by the
LaborArbiters decision, the complainants and the respondent
filed their respective appeals to the NLRC. The NLRC
modified its judgment declaring complainants dismissal
illegal, thus ordering their reinstatement to their former
position as meter readers or to any equivalent position with
payment of backwages limited to one year and deleting the
Page 44
award of indemnity and attorneys fees.On August 27, 1992,
complainants filed a Motion for Clarification and Partial
Reconsideration On September 24, 1992, the NLRC issued a
resolution denying the complainants motion for
reconsideration. Hence this petition.
ISSUES: Whether the respondent NLRC committed grave
abuse of discretion in ordering the reinstatement of petitioners
to their former position as meter readers on probationary status
in spite of its finding that they are regular employees under
Article 280 of the Labor Code.
Whether the respondent NLRC committed grave
abuse of discretion in limiting the backwages of petitioners to
one year only in spite of its finding that they were illegally
dismissed, which is contrary to the mandate of full backwages
until actual reinstatement but not to exceed three years.
Whether the respondent NLRC committed grave
abuse of discretion in deleting the award of indemnity pay
which had become final because it was not appealed and in
deleting the award of attorneys fees because of the absence of
a trial-type hearing.
RULING: First Issue: The Court sustain petitioners claim
that they should be reinstated to their former position as meter
readers, not on a probationary status, but as regular
employees. Reinstatement means restoration to a state or
condition from which one had been removed or separated. In
case of probationary employment, Article 281 of the Labor
Code requires the employer to make known to his employee at
the time of the latters engagement of the reasonable standards
under which he may qualify as a regular employee. A review
of the records shows that petitioners have never been
probationary employees. While it is true that initially they
were employed on a fixed term basis, later on they were
allowed to work beyond their employment period which
renders them to be regular employees. Under Article 280 of
the Labor Code, a regular employee is one who is engaged to
perform activities which are necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer, or a casual employee who
has rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous
or broken, with respect to the activity in which he is
employed.
Second Issue: Article 279 provides that an illegally
dismissed employee is entitled to full backwages, inclusive of
allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary
equivalent computed from the time his compensation was
withheld from him up to the time of his actual
reinstatement. Since petitioners were employed on October 8,
1990, the amended provisions of Article 279 of the Labor
Code shall apply to the present case. Hence, it was patently
erroneous, tantamount to grave abuse of discretion on the part
of the public respondent in limiting to one year the backwages
awarded to petitioners.
Third Issue: The Court does not agree with the
ruling of the NLRC that indemnity is incompatible with the
award of backwages. These two awards are based on different
considerations. Backwages are granted on grounds of equity to
workers for earnings lost due to their illegal dismissal from
work. On the other hand, the award of indemnity, as we have
earlier held, is meant to vindicate or recognize the right of an
employee to due process which has been violated by the
employer. In the present case, the private respondent, in
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
effecting the dismissal of petitioners from their employment,
failed to comply with the provisions of Article 283 of the
Labor Code which requires an employer to serve a notice of
dismissal upon the employees sought to be terminated and to
the Department of Labor, at least one month before the
intended date of termination. Hence NLRC committed grave
abuse of discretion in deleting the award of indemnity.
62. Megascope General Services v. NLRC
G.R. No. 109224, June 19, 1997
FACTS: Petitioner Megascope General Services is a sole
proprietorship engaged in contracting out general services. In
1977, it entered into a landscaping contract with the System
and Structures, Inc. (SSI) which subcontracted the
construction of the National Power Corporation Housing
Village in Bagac, Bataan. Between February 15, 1977 and
January 1, 1989, it contracted the services of the nineteen (19)
private respondents as gardeners, helpers and maintenance
workers. They were deployed at the National Power
Corporation (NPC) in Bagac, Bataan. Except for Gener J. del
Rosario whose employment ended on April 30, 1989, the work
of the other workers ceased on January 31, 1991. At the time,
private respondents Nestor Seril and Gener J. del Rosario were
receiving P65.00 a day; private respondent Reynaldo
Magtanong, P56.00 a day, and the rest of the private
respondents, P54.00 a day.
Private respondents filed before Regional
Arbitration Branch No. III in San Fernando, Pampanga, a
complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of
salaries, nonpaymentof five-day service incentive leave credits
and holiday pay against petitioner and Andres M. David.
On October 7, 1992, Labor Arbiter Ariel C. Santos
promulgated his decision finding that, by the nature of their
employment, private respondents were "usually contractual
employees." Nonetheless, he opined, in view of the length of
their service, that private respondents had attained the status of
"regular contractual employees" who, pursuant to Policy
Instruction No. 20, "cannot just be terminated after the
expiration of a contract in an area to where they are assigned
without paying them the corresponding separation pay from
the time they have served respondent's company." He also
held that since private respondents' termination of
employment was the result of the expiration of petitioner's
contract with the NPC, there was no unlawful dismissal.
Respoents were directed to pay separation pay based on one-
half month for every year of service. The other monetary
claims were dismissed for lack of merit. Petitioner and David
appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC). On November 20, 1992, the NLRC, affirmed the
decision of the Labor Arbiter. Hence this petition.
ISSUE/S:1.Whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion
made by the NLRC in its decision. ; Whether or not private
respondents were regular employees of petitioner.
RULING: 1. No. Petitioner's allegations are premised on its
stand that the complaint was not supported by facts. It avers
that the Labor Arbiter should have conducted a trial on the
merits of the case in order that the parties could fully ventilate
their respective sides of the controversy. the determination of
the existence of an employer-employee relationship consists of
Page 45
these four (4) elements: (1) the selection and engagement of
the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of
dismissal, and (4) the power to control the employee's
conduct, All these elements are present in this case. They drew
their salaries from petitioner which eventually dismissed
them. Petitioner's control over private respondents was
manifest in its power to assign and pull them out of clients at
its own discretion. Power of control refers merely to the
existence of the power and not to the actual exercise thereof.
Based on the recorded admission, the petitioner cannot claim
that the decision of the NLRC with regard to the existence of
employee employer relationship was based on conjuncture.
Moreover, proceedings before administrative and quasi-
administrative bodies, substantial evidence is sufficient to
establish a fact in issue. Hence, grave abuse of discretion
cannot be attributed to the public respondents for holding that
an employee employer relationship did exist between
petitioner and private respondents.
2. On whether or not private respondents were
regular employees of petitioner, the Labor Code provides:
"ART. 280. Regular and Casual Employment.- The provisions
of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and
regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment
shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been
engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except
where the 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 services to be performed is seasonal in
nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.
An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is
not covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, That, any
employee who has rendered at least one year of service,
whether such service is continuous or broken shall be
considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in
which he is employed and his employment shall continue
while such actually exists."
The cessation of the NPC operations in Bagac and
Morong did not in any way affect the employer-employee
relationship between petitioner and private respondents. While
this might have severed the contractual relationship between
petitioner and the NPC, as regards the supply of services, it
did not and will not, under the law, affect the employer-
employee relationship between petitioner and private
respondents.Petitioner asserts that private respondents were
not prejudiced because all along they knew that they were
employed for the specific NPC "project" and therefore when
the NPC ceased operations in Bagac and Morong, private
respondents knew that their employment perforce ceased.
Petitioner's assertion would have been tenable if it were
successfully established that private respondents were indeed
project employees. By not redeploying private respondents to
other clients, there being no evidence that petitioner itself had
ceased its business operations, petitioner is deemed to have
constructively dismissed private respondents. Constructive
dismissal exists when there is a quitting because continued
employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or
unlikely. In the instant case, the failure of petitioner to
redeploy private respondents to other projects without
showing that it had ceased its operations after the termination
of its contract with NPC may be deemed unreasonable
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
considering that private respondents have been the former's
regular employees for periods ranging from two to fourteen
years. This is the correct basis of the award of separation pay
to private respondents.
63. AgusandelNorte Electric Coop, Inc. v. Cagampang and
Garzon
G.R. No. 167627, Oct. 10, 2008
FACTS: Respondents Joel Cagampang and Glenn Garzon
started working as linemen for petitioner AgusandelNorte
Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ANECO) on October 1, 1990,
under an employment contract which was for a period not
exceeding three months. They were both allegedly required to
work eight hours a day and sometimes on Sundays, getting a
daily salary of P122.00. When the contract expired, the two
were laid-off for one to five days and then ordered to report
back to work but on the basis of job orders. After several
renewals of their job contracts in the form of job orders for
similar employment periods of about three months each, the
said contracts eventually expired on April 31, 1998 and July
30, 1999. Respondents contracts were no longer renewed,
resulting in their loss of employment. Thus, on January 11,
2001, respondents filed an illegal dismissal case against
petitioners before the HonorableLabor Arbiter Alim D.
Pangandaman, Regional Arbitration Branch No. XIII, Butuan
City. They prayed for payment of backwages, salary
differential, allowances, premium for alleged work during
holidays and rest days,service incentive leave, and separation
pay.
On June 22, 2001, the Labor Arbiter declared the
dismissal illegal and directed petitioners to pay respondents
the amount of P371,596.84 representing their money claims.
Petitioners appealed the decision to the NLRC Fifth Division.
On October 14, 2002, the NLRC set aside the decision of the
Labor Arbiter except the portions granting service incentive
leave pay attorneys fees, fixed at ten percent (10%) of the
total money award to both respondents; and salary differential
to respondent Garzon.After their motion for reconsideration
was denied, respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the
Court of Appeals. On January 25, 2005, the Court of Appeals
granted the petition. Hence, the instant petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondents were illegally
dismissed.
RULING: Yes. After considering the facts and the
submissions of the parties the Court finds that the respondents
were illegaly dismissed. There is no dispute that the
respondents work as linemen was necessary or desirable in
the usual business of ANECO. Additionally, the respondents
have been performing the job for at least one year. The law
deems the repeated and continuing need for its performance as
sufficient evidence of the necessity, if not indispensability, of
that activity to the business.
The test to determine whether employment is regular
or not is the reasonable connection between the particular
activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual
business or trade of the employer. Also, if the employee has
been performing the job for at least one year, even if the
performance is not continuous or merely intermittent, the law
deems the repeated and continuing need for its performance as
Page 46
sufficient evidence of the necessity, if not indispensability of
that activity to the business. Thus, we held that where the
employment of project employees is extended long after the
supposed project has been finished, the employees are
removed from the scope of project employees and are
considered regular employees.
While length of time may not be the controlling test
for project employment, it is vital in determining if the
employee was hired for a specific undertaking or tasked to
perform functions vital, necessary and indispensable to the
usual business or trade of the employer. Here, private
respondent had been a project employee several times over.
His employment ceased to be coterminous with specific
projects when he was repeatedly re-hired due to the demands
of petitioners business. Where from the circumstances it is
apparent that periods have been imposed to preclude the
acquisition of tenurial security by the employee, they should
be struck down as contrary to public policy, morals, good
customs or public order.
Respondents in the present case being regular
employees, ANECO as the employer had the burden of proof
to show that the respondents termination was for a just cause.
Unfortunately, however, what petitioners did was merely to
refuse, without justifiable reason, to renew respondents work
contracts for the performance of what would otherwise be
regular jobs in relation to the trade or business of the former.
Such conduct dismally falls short of the requirements of our
labor laws egarding dismissals. No twin notices of termination
were issued to the employees, hence the employer did not
observe due process in dismissing them from their
employment. Their dismissals were patently illegal.
64. Philips Semiconductors v. Fadriquela
G.R. No. 141717, 04.14, 2004
FACTS: Respondent Eloisa Fadriquela executed a Contract of
Employment with the petitioner in which she was hired as a
production operator with a daily salary of Php118. Her initial
contract was for a period of three months up to August 8,
1992, but was extended for two months when she garnered a
performance rating of 3.15 Her contract was again renewed
for two months or up to December 16, 1992, when she
received a performance rating of 3.8. After the expiration of
her third contract, it was extended anew, for three months, that
is, from January 4, 1993 to April 4, 1993.
After garnering a performance rating of 3.4 the
respondents contract was extended for another three months,
that is, from April 5, 1993 to June 4, 1993. She, however,
incurred five absences in the month of April, three absences in
the month of May and four absences in the month of June.
Line supervisor Shirley F. Velayo asked the respondent why
she incurred the said absences, but the latter failed to explain
her side. The respondent was warned that if she offered no
valid justification for her absences, Velayo would have no
other recourse but to recommend the non-renewal of her
contract. The respondent still failed to respond, as a
consequence of which her performance rating declined to
2.8. Velayo recommended to the petitioner that the
respondents employment be terminated due to habitual
absenteeism, in accordance with the Company Rules and
Regulations. Thus, the respondents contract of employment
was no longer renewed.
Dan Gloria// Kat Ramirez// Jessica Bernardo// Joseph De Mesa// Arvin Figueroa// ChriszelQueano// Marvin Villardo Jr.// Bowdy Sales
The respondent filed at the NLRC for illegal
dismissal against the petitioner. Labor arbiter dismissed the
complaint for lack of merit. NLRC affirmed the decision of
the Labor arbiter. The NLRC explained that the respondent
was a contractual employee whose period of employment was
fixed in the successive contracts of employment she had
executed with the petitioner. Thus, upon the expiration of her
contract, the respondents employment automatically
ceased. The respondents employment was not terminated;
neither was she dismissed. The CA rendered a decision
reversing the decisions of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter
and granting the respondents petition.Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent was still a contractual
employee of the petitioner as of June 4, 1993.
RULING: In ruling for the respondent, the appellate court
applied Article 280 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as
amended, which reads:
Art. 280. Regular and Casual Employment. The provisions of
written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and
regardless of the oral argument of the parties, an employment
shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been
engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except
where the 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 services to be performed is seasonal in
nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.
An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is
not covered by the preceding paragraph; Provided, That, any
employee who has rendered at least one year of service,
whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be
considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in
which he is employed and his employment shall continue
while such activity exists.
The Court agrees with the appellate court. In this
case, the respondent was employed by the petitioner on May
8, 1992 as production operator. She was assigned to wire
building at the transistor division. There is no dispute that the
work of the respondent was necessary or desirable in the
business or trade of the petitioner. She remained under the
employ of the petitioner without any interruption since May 8,
1992to June 4, 1993 or for one (1) year and twenty-eight (28)
days. The original contract of employment had been extended
or renewed for four times, to the same position, with the same
chores. Such a continuing need for the services of the
respondent is sufficient evidence of the necessity and
indispensability of her services to the petitioners business By
operation of law, then, the respondent had attained the regular
status of her employment with the petitioner, and is thus
entitled to security of tenure as provided for in Article 279 of
the Labor Code.
Page 47