case no. 2 termination

8/11/2019 Case No. 2 Termination

1/4

Case #2 Termination

G.R. No. 70705 August 21, 1989MOI ! "! !ON, petitioner,

vs.

NATIONA A$OR R! ATION COMMI ION an% A TON"!&AINC., respondents.

'ACT (Petitioner Moises de Leon was employed by the private respondent at the

Maintenance Section of its Engineering Department doing painting works oncompany buildings and e uipments as well as other odd !obs relating tomaintenance. "fter more than one year of service to the company, petitionerre uested private respondent that he be included in the payroll of regularworker instead of being paid through petty cash voucher. #n response to the

re uest, respondent distillery company dismissed petitioner de Leon. $helatter demanded for his reinstatement but it was repeatedly refused. %or thisreason, Moises de Leon &led a complaint of #llegal Dismissal, reinstatementand payment of back wages before the '(ce of the Labor "rbiter.

Labor "rbiter )ienvenido *ernande+ &nds the complaint meritorious andrendered a decision in favor of Moises De Leon. #t ruled that the dismissalwas illegal and orders respondent company to reinstate the petitioner withfull back wages and other bene&ts. $he Labor "rbiter concluded that thedismissal of the petitioner from service to the company after it re uested tobe treated as a regular employee is an attempt to circumvent the legalobligations of the employer towards a regular employee

'n appeal, L- reversed the decision of the labor "rbiter was -E/E-SED byma!ority decision. Motion for -econsideration was denied.

$he Solicitor 0eneral recommends that the petition which seeks to annul andset aside 1a2 the ma!ority decision of the L- 3 and 1b2 the -esolutiondenying the Motion for -econsideration.

)etitioner*s Argument( $he ommission erred and gravely abused itsdiscretion in reversing the decision of L.". the commission did not considerthe fact that the tasks performed included not only painting but maintenancework necessary and desirable in the usual business of the respondent. *isdismissal violates the onstitutional and statutory protection of labor.


2/4

Res+on%ents Argument( Petitioner was hired only to repaint a buildingspeci&cally Mama -osa building which task of repainting is not part of theirmain business and he was informed that his engagement on the task is oncasual basis.I ! ( 4hether or not respondent is a regular employee hence thedismissal of the respondent by the company is #llegal.

-! "( ! . "rticle 567 of the Labor ode de&nes regular and casualemployment as follows8

Art. 281. Regu/ar an% asua/ em+/o ment . The provisionsof a written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding andregardless of the oral agreements of the parties, anemployment shall be deemed to be regular where theemployee has been engaged to perform activities which areusually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been xedfor a speci c project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of theengagement of the employee or where the work or services tobe performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.

An employment shall be deemed to be casua l if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph: rovided, That any employee who has rendered at least one year of service,whether such service is continuous or broken, shall beconsidered a regular employee with respect to the activity inwhich he is employed and his employment shall continue whilesuch actually exists

$he provision reinforces onstitutional mandate for protection of labor, itmanifests the tenurial interest of the worker who may be denied the rightsand bene&ts due a regular employee by virtue of lopsided agreements withthe economically powerful employer who can maneuver to keep anemployee on a casual status for as long as convenient.

#n the case at bar, the respondent company, which is engaged in thebusiness of manufacture and distillery of wines and li uors, claims thatpetitioner was contracted on a casual basis speci&cally to paint a certaincompany building and that its completion rendered petitioner9s employmentterminated. $his may have been true at the beginning, and had it beenshown that petitioner9s activity was e:clusively limited to painting that


3/4

certain building, respondent company9s theory of casual employment wouldhave been worthy of consideration.

*owever, during petitioner9s period of employment, the records reveal thatthe tasks assigned to him included not only painting of company buildings,

e uipment and tools but also cleaning and oiling machines, even operatinga drilling machine, and other odd !obs assigned to him when he had nopainting !ob.

#t is not tenable to argue that the painting and maintenance work of petitioner are not necessary in respondent9s business of manufacturingli uors and wines, !ust as it cannot be said that only those who are directlyinvolved in the process of producing wines and li uors may be considered asnecessary employees. 'therwise, there would have been no need for theregular Maintenance Section of respondent company9s EngineeringDepartment, manned by regular employees like Emiliano $an ue ;r., whom

petitioner often worked with.

%urthermore, the petitioner performed his work of painting and maintenanceactivities during his employment in respondent9s business which lasted formore than one year, until early ;anuary, 7


4/4

Month Pay, ?2 and other bene&ts under pertinent ollective )argaining"greements, if any.

case no. 2 termination

Documents