labor standards case digests compiled - 7.01-7.06

8/11/2019 Labor Standards Case Digests Compiled - 7.01-7.06

1/122


2/122

and that they ere illegally dismissed for lac$ of =ust cause and non-o&servance of due process.

n appeal, the 6'R8 a>rmed the :ndings of the 'a&or 0r&iter.

+o ever, upon motion for reconsideration, the 6'R8 reversed and set asideits earlier decision and dismissed the complaint for lac$ of merit.

o The 6'R8 ruled that respondents ere pro=ect employees and thattheir employment as terminated upon e%piration of their employmentcontracts.

Respondents1 motion for reconsideration as denied hence, they :led apetition for certiorari &efore the 80.

n ! " 3 *, the appellate court granted the petition.

Petitioner1s motion for reconsideration as denied hence, this petition.

ISSUE: ?hether or not respondents ere regular employees.

Held: YES.

The 8ourt notes that there are three $inds of employees as provided under0rticle 3" of the 'a&or 8ode, thus@

( ) Reg l!" e#$l%&ee' %" ()%'e *)% )!+e ee e g!ged

(% $e" %"# !/( + ( e' *) /) !"e ' !ll& e/e''!"& %"de' "! le ()e ' !l ' e'' %" ("!de % ()ee#$l%&e" A

(3) Pro=ect employees or those hose employment has &een:%ed for a speci:c pro=ect or underta$ing, the completion ortermination of hich has &een determined at the time of theengagement of the employee or here the or$ or service to&e performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is forthe duration of the seasonA and

(/) 8asual employees or those ho are neither regular nor

pro=ect employees There is no merit in petitioner1s claim that respondents ere pro=ect

employees hose employment as coterminous ith the transaction ithGlory Japan.

Respondents1 e#$l%e ( /% ("!/(' ! led (% '(!(e ()e '$e/ / $"% e/(%" de"(!3 g %" *) /) ()e& *e"e !llegedl& e g!ged .

Page 2 of 122


3/122

?hile petitioner claims that respondents ere hired for the transaction ithGlory Japan, the same as not indicated in the contracts.

0s o&served &y the 80, nothing therein suggested that their employment asdependent on the continuous patronage of Glory Japan.

4urther, the employment contracts did not indicate the d "!( % ! d '/%$eof the pro=ect or underta$ing as re9uired &y la .

It is not enough that an employee is hired for a speci:c pro=ect or phase of or$ to 9ualify as a pro=ect employee.

T)e"e # '( !l'% e ! de(e"# !( % % , %" ! /le!" !g"ee#e ( % , ()e/%#$le( % %" (e"# !( % % ()e $"% e/( !( ()e ( #e ()e e#$l%&ee*!' e g!ged , hich is a&sent in this case.

The factual circumstances negate petitioner1s claim that respondents erepro=ect employees.


4/122


5/122

The petitionersF motion for reconsideration of the decision having &eendenied &y the 6'R8, they :led a petition for certiorari &efore the 8ourt of 0ppeals.

The 80 rendered a decision a>rming decision of the 6'R8. The 80 ruled that here the duties of the employee consist of activities

usually necessary or desira&le in the usual &usiness of the employer, it doesnot necessarily follo that the parties are for&idden from agreeing on aperiod of time for the performance of such activities.

ISSUE: ?hether or not the petitioners ere regular employees of the respondentG58 hen their employment as terminated.

HEL : NO. The petitioners ere employees ith a :%ed period, and, as such, ere not

regular employees. 0rticle 3" of the 'a&or 8ode comprehends three $inds of employees@

(a) regular employees or those hose or$ is necessary ordesira&le to the usual &usiness of the employerA

(&) pro=ect employees or those hose employment has &een:%ed for a speci:c pro=ect or underta$ing the completion ortermination of hich has &een determined at the time of theengagement of the employee or here the or$ or servicesto &e performed is seasonal in nature and the employment isfor the duration of the seasonA and,

(c) casual employees or those ho are neither regular norpro=ect employees. 0 regular employee is one ho is engaged to perform activities hich are

necessary and desira&le in the usual &usiness or trade of the employer asagainst those hich are underta$en for a speci:c pro=ect or are seasonal.

There are t o separate instances here&y it can &e determined that anemployment is regular@

( ) if the particular activity performed &y the employee isnecessary or desira&le in the usual &usiness or trade of theemployerA and,

(3) if the employee has &een performing the =o& for at least ayear.

Indeed, in the leading case of #rent School nc. v. $amora , e laid do n theguideline &efore a contract of employment may &e held as valid, to it@

Page of 122


6/122

( $ l!( % ' e#$l%e ( /% ("!/(' $"%+ d g %" (e"#e#$l%e ( %" ?ed $e" %d e#$l%e ( !"e +!l d *)e ()e$e" %d *e"e !g"eed $% 3 %* gl& ! d +%l (!" l& & ()e$!"( e' * ()% ( %"/e, d "e'' %" #$"%$e" $"e'' "e, e g"% g)( (% e!" $% ()e e#$l%&ee ! d ! 'e ( ! & %()e"

/ "/ #'(! /e' + ( !( g ) ' /% 'e (, %" *)e"e ( '!( ' !/(%" l&!$$e!"' ()!( ()e e#$l%&e" ! d e#$l%&ee de!l( * () e!/) %()e"% #%"e %" le'' e@ !l (e"#' * () % #%"!l d%# ! /e*)!(e+e" e g e?e"/ 'ed & ()e %"#e" %+e" ()e l!((e" .

0n e%amination of the contracts entered into &y the petitioners sho ed thattheir employment as limited to a :%ed period, usually :ve or si% months,and did not go &eyond such period.

The records reveal that the stipulations in the employment contracts ere$no ingly and voluntarily agreed to &y the petitioners ithout force, duress

or improper pressure, or any circumstances that vitiated their consent. #imilarly, nothing therein sho s that these contracts ere used as a

su&terfuge &y the respondent G58 to evade the provisions of 0rticles 3 !and 3" of the 'a&or 8ode.

0rticle 3" of the 'a&or 8ode does not proscri&e or prohi&it an employmentcontract ith a :%ed period.

?e furthered that it does not necessarily follo that here the duties of theemployee consist of activities usually necessary or desira&le in the usual

&usiness of the employer, the parties are for&idden from agreeing on a periodof time for the performance of such activities.

There is thus nothing essentially contradictory &et een a de:nite period of employment and the nature of the employeeFs duties.

The petitioners ere hired as Bemergency or$ersB and assigned as chic$endressers, pac$ers and helpers at the 8ainta Processing Plant.

?hile the petitionersF employment as chic$en dressers is necessary anddesira&le in the usual &usiness of the respondent, they ere employed on a

mere temporary &asis, since their employment as limited to a :%ed period. 0s such, they cannot &e said to &e regular employees, &ut are merely

Bcontractual employees.B

There as no illegal dismissal hen the petitionersF services ere terminated&y reason of the e%piration of their contracts.

Page 6 of 122


7/122

'ac$ of notice of termination is of no conse9uence, &ecause hen thecontract speci:es the period of its duration, it terminates on the e%piration of such period.

0 contract for employment for a de:nite period terminates &y its o n term at

the end of such period.

UNIVERSAL RO INA e(/. +'. CA ALLE A

FACTS:

Respondent 0gripino 8a&alleda (0gripino) or$ed as elder for CniversalRo&ina from 5arch !"! until June 3/, !! ith a salary of P 32. per day,hile respondent 0le=andro 8adalin (0le=andro) or$ed as crane operatorfrom ! * up to June 7, !! ith a salary of P3 !./ per day.

In !! , the President of Cniversal Ro&ina, issued a 5emorandumesta&lishing the company policy on B8ompulsory RetirementB (5emorandum)of its employees.

It provides that any employee of Cniversal Ro&ina shall &e considered retired/ days after he attains age * .

#u&se9uently, in !!3, R0 6o. *2 as enacted into la , and it too$ eDectin !!/, amending 0rticle 3" of the 'a&or 8ode, to read@

0rt. 3" . Retirement. -- 0ny employee may &e retired uponreaching the retirement age esta&lished in the collective

&argaining agreement or other applica&le employment contract. In 0pril !!/, Cniveral Ro&ina and the 6ational 4ederation of 'a&or (64'), a

legitimate la&or organi ation and e%clusive &argaining representative of Cniversal Ro&ina, of hich 0le=andro as a mem&er, entered into a 8ollectiveEargaining 0greement (8E0).

0rticle H of the said 8E0 particularly provided that the retirement &ene:ts of the mem&ers of the collective &argaining unit shall &e in accordance ith la .

0gripino and 0le=andro, having reached the age of * , ere allegedly forcedto retire &y Cniveral Ro&ina.

0gripino and 0le=andro :led a 8omplaint for illegal dismissal. The '0 rendered a ;ecision declaring the Cniversal Ro&ina guilty of illegal

dismissal. The 6'R8 held that 0le=andro voluntarily retired and ith respect to 0gripino,

the 6'R8 held that 0gripino as not a mere casual employee. The 80 declared that Cniversal Ro&ina illegally dismissed the respondents. The 80 found that there is no e%isting 8E0 or employment contract &et een

the parties that provides for early compulsory retirement.

Page 7 of 122


8/122

Petitioners su&mit that there is a need to revie the records and evidence inthis case since the factual :ndings of the '0 and the 80 are in con ict iththose of the 6'R8.

ISSUE: ?hether 0gripino is a seasonal or pro=ect employee.

HEL :

I( ' ! *ell-e'(! l ')ed " le ()!( ! $e( ( % %" "e+ e* % certiorari de" R le 9 % ()e R le' % C% "( ')% ld "! 'e % l& @ e'( % ' %

l!* , su&=ect to certain e%ceptions. B)e()e" %" %( Ag" $ % *!' ! 'e!'% !l $"% e/( e#$l%&ee %" !

"eg l!" e#$l%&ee ' ! @ e'( % % !/( . 0s such, () ' C% "( ' %( !( l e"(& (% "e+ e* ()e '! d !/( !l '' e

e/! 'e % " " 'd /( % ' ge e"!ll& l # (ed (% "e+ e* g e""%"' %

l!* ()!( ()e CA #!& )!+e /%## ((ed . Time and again, e have held that () ' C% "( ' %( ! (" !l % !/(' , and (

' %( %" ' (% "e-e?!# e ! d "e-e+!l !(e ()e $"% !( +e +!l e % e+ de /e $"e'e (ed e %"e ()e LA, ()e NLRC ! d ()e CA , hich formedthe &asis of the assailed decision.

I deed, *)e ()e " d g' !"e ! '%l (e !g"ee#e (, ()e '!#e !"e!//%"ded %( % l& "e'$e/( ( e+e !l (& !' l% g !' ()e& !"e !#$l&' $$%"(ed & ' '(! ( !l e+ de /e .

In this case, it is note orthy that the '0, the 6'R8 and the 80 are one inruling that 0gripino as not a casual employee much less a seasonal or

pro=ect employee. In their :ndings, 0gripino as considered a regular employee of CR#C58 . 8onse9uently, such uniform :nding of the '0, the 6'R8, and the 80 &inds this

8ourt. ?e :nd no cogent reason to depart from this ruling.

SAN 8IGUEL CORP V. NLRC 2;7 SCRA 277 D1;;

FACTS:

In 6ovem&er !! , 4rancisco ;e Gu man Jr. as hired &y #58 ashelper &ric$layer for a speci:c pro=ect, the repair and upgrading of furnace 8at its 5anila Glass Plant.

+is contract of employment provided that said temporary employment asfor a speci:c period of appro%imately 2 months.

Page of 122


9/122


10/122

agreements hich the economically po erful employer ho can maneuver to$eep an employee on a casual or contractual status for as long as it isconvenient to the employer.

M?hile the 8onstitution is committed to the policy of social =ustice and theprotection of the or$ing class, it should not &e supposed that every dispute

ill &e automatically decided in favor of la&or. 5anagement has also rights, hich, as such, are entitled to respect and

enforcement in the interest of fair play. 0lthough the #upreme 8ourt has inclined more often than not to ard the

or$er and has upheld his cause in his con icts ith the employer, suchfavoritism has not &linded the 8ourt to the rule that =ustice is in every casefor the deserving, to &e dispensed in the light of the esta&lished facts and theapplica&le la and doctrine.N

The nature of one1s employment does not depend on the ill or ord of theemployer nor on the procedure of hiring and the manner of designating the

employee, &ut on the nature of the activities to &e performed &y theemployee, considering the employer1s nature of &usiness and the durationand scope of the or$ to &e done.

Private respondent as hired for a speci:c pro=ect that as not ithin theregular &usiness of the corporation.

4or petitioner is not engaged in the &usiness of repairing furnaces. 0lthough the activity as necessary to ena&le petitioner to continue

manufacturing glass, the necessity therefor arose only hen a particularfurnace reached the end of its life or operating cycle.

r, as in the second underta$ing, hen a particular furnace re9uired an

emergency repair. In other ords, the underta$ings here private respondentas hired primarily as helper &ric$layer have speci:ed goals and purposes,hich are ful:lled once the designated or$ as completed.

5oreover, such underta$ings ere also identi:a&ly separate and distinct fromthe usual, ordinary or regular &usiness operations of petitioner, hich is glassmanufacturing.

These underta$ings, the duration and scope of hich had &een determinedand made $no n to private respondent at the time of his employment,clearly indicated the nature of his employment as a pro=ect employee.

Thus, his services ere terminated legally after the completion of the pro=ect. Pu&lic respondent 6'R81s decision (that Private respondent is a regular

employee), if upheld, ould amount to negating the distinctions made in0rticle 3" 'a&or 8ode.

It ould shunt aside the rule that since a pro=ect employee1s or$ dependson the availa&ility of a pro=ect, necessarily, the duration of his employment iscoterminous ith the pro=ect to hich he is assigned. It ould &ecome a

Page 10 of 122


11/122

&urden for an employer to retain an employee and pay him his correspondingages if there as no pro=ect for him to or$ on.

TA AS vs CALIFORNIA 8ANUFACTURING CO. and NLRC

FACTS:

n 3 !"*, 3/ !"*, and 3" !"*, the petitioners petitioned the 6'R8for reinstatement and payment of various &ene:ts against the respondent,the 8alifornia 5anufacturing 8ompany.

n !"*, after the cases had &een consolidated, the 8alifornia :led amotion to dismiss as ell as a position paper denying the e%istence of anemployer-employee relation &et een the petitioners and the company. nmotion of the petitioners, 'ivi 5anpo er #ervices, Inc. as impleaded as aparty-respondent.

Petitioners ere employees of 'ivi hich assigned them to or$ asBpromotional merchandisersB for 8alifornia $ "' ! ( (% ! #! $%*e"' $$l& !g"ee#e ( .

Portions of the contract e%pressly stipulated the follo ing@ assignment of or$ers to 8alifornia shall &e on a Bseasonal and contractual &asisB and thatBcost of living allo ance and the legal holidays ill &e charged directly to8alifornia at cost.B

Thereafter, petitioners signed employment contracts ith durations of si%months and upon e%piration, they signed ne agreements ith the sameperiod.

Cnli$e regular 8alifornia employees, ho received not less than P3,"3/. amonth in addition to a host of fringe &ene:ts and &onuses, they receivedP/".7* plus P 7. in allo ance daily.

Petitioners allege that upon the rene al of the contract, they had &ecomeregular 8alifornia employee entitled similar &ene:ts.

+o ever, during the pendency of the proceedings, they ere noti:ed &y8alifornia that they ould not &e rehired.

0s a result, they :led an amended complaint charging 8alifornia ith illegaldismissal.

Page 11 of 122


12/122

4or 8alifornia1s defense, they deny lia&ility &ecause 'ivi is the petitionersFemployer and that the retrenchment as due to &usiness losses ande%piration of contracts.

It appears that thereafter, 'ivi re-a&sor&ed them into its la&or pool on a B ait-

in or stand&yB status.

The la&or ar&iterFs decision, a decision a>rmed on appeal, ruled against thee%istence of any employer-employee relation &et een the petitioners and8alifornia ostensi&ly in the light of the manpo er supply contract.

+o ever, the la&or ar&iter a&solved 'ivi from any o&ligation &ecause theretrenchment in 9uestion as allegedly B&eyond its control.B

+e assessed against the :rm, nevertheless, separation pay and attorneyFs

fees.

ISSUE: ?hether the petitioners are 8aliforniaFs or 'iviFs employees.

Held: YES.

Petitioners are employees of 8alifornia. Records sho that the petitionerssigned an initial si%-month contract, &ut it as rene ed for another si%months.

They had &ecome regular employees of 8alifornia and had ac9uired a secure

tenure. The fact that the petitioners have &een hired on a Btemporary or seasonalB&asis is no argument.

0s e held in Philippine #an% o& Communications v. NLRC, a (e#$%"!"& %"/!' !l e#$l%&ee , under 0RTI8'< 3 " of the 'a&or 8ode, e/%#e' "eg l!"! (e" 'e"+ /e % % e &e!" , unless he has &een contracted for a speci:cpro=ect.

5erchandising is not a speci:c pro=ect, &ut is an underta$ing that is related tothe day-to-day operations of 8alifornia.

'ivi, as a placement agency, supplied the manpo er necessary to carry out

8aliforniaFs merchandising activities, using 8aliforniaFs premises ande9uipment. Petitioners have &een made to perform merchandi ing promotion or sale of

8alifornia1s products, an activity that is an integral part of 8aliforniaFsmanufacturing &usiness.

The e%istence of an employer-employees relation is a 9uestion of la and&eing such, it /! %( e #!de ()e ' e/( % !g"ee#e ( .

Page 12 of 122


13/122

The designation of 'ivi as the petitioner1s employer and the a&solution of 8alifornia from any lia&ility as an employer in the supply agreement * ll %(e"!'e e ()e" $!"(& ' % l g!( % ' !' ! e#$l%&e".

0t any rate, since the agreement as &et een 'ivi and 8alifornia, they aloneare &ound &y it, and the petitioners cannot &e made to suDer from its adverseconse9uences.

4urther, the 8ourt notes that neither 'ivi nor 8alifornia can escape lia&ility,&ecause &ased on 0rticle *, '$ (e ()e ! 'e /e % ! d "e/( e#$l%&e"-e#$l%&ee "el!( % ') $ e(*ee ()e e#$l%&e" in hose favor or$ had&een contracted out &y a Bla&or-onlyB contractor and the employees, ()e%"#e" )!' ()e "e'$% ' l (& , (%ge()e" * () ()e l! %"-% l&/% ("!/(%", %" ! & +!l d l! %" /l! #', & %$e"!( % % l!* .

The reason is that the Bla&or-onlyB contractor is considered Bmerely an agentof the employer,B and lia&ility must &e shouldered &y either one or shared &y&oth.

The fact that the petitioners have allegedly admitted &eing 'iviFs BdirectemployeesB in their complaints is nothing conclusive.

4or one thing, the fact that the petitioners ere, ill not a&solve 8aliforniasince lia&ility has &een imposed &y legal operation.

4or another, and as e indicated, ()e "el!( % ' % $!"( e' # '( e dged"%# /!'e (% /!'e ! d ()e de/"ee % l!*, ! d %( & de/l!"!( % ' % $!"( e' .

It is not that &y dismissing the terms and conditions of the manpo er supplyagreement, e have, hence, considered it illegal.

U de" ()e L! %" C%de, ge e % /% ("!/(' !"e $e"# '' le,

$"%+ ded ()e& !"e ge e % /% ("!/('. Eut, as e held in Philippine #an% o& Communications, supra , hen such

arrangements are resorted to Bin anticipation of, and for the very purpose of ma$ing possi&le, the secondment of the employees from the true employer,the 8ourt ill &e =usti:ed in e%pressing its concern.

4or then that ould compromise the rights of the or$ers, especially theirright to security of tenure.

ISPOSITION @ Petition is GR06T


14/122

n 5ay ", !!3, respondent ce for a&senteeism.

o 4inally, it held that the dialogue &et een the respondent and linesupervisor as insu>cient as to amount to notice, and thus the formeras deprived of due process.

Page 19 of 122


15/122

Petitioner :led a motion for reconsideration in hich petitioner claimed thatits hiring policy as neither ne nor prohi&ited and that it as a valide%ercise of its management prerogative since demand for its semiconductorsis cyclical in nature.

It added that it had the prerogative to set reasona&le standards of employment 9uali:cation as provided &y la .

The motion as denied, hence this petition for revie .

ISSUE: ?hether or not the respondent as still a contractual employee of thepetitioner as of June 2, !!/.

HEL : The respondent is a regular employee.

0rt. 3" . Regular and Casual 'mplo ment . O The provisions of ritten

agreement to the contrary not ithstanding and regardless of the oralargument of the parties, an employment shall &e deemed to &e regularhere the employee has &een engaged to perform activities hich areusually necessary or desira&le in the usual &usiness or trade of theemployer, e%cept here the employment has &een :%ed for a speci:cpro=ect or underta$ing the completion or termination of hich has &eendetermined at the time of the engagement of the employee or here theor$ or services to &e performed is seasonal in nature and theemployment is for the duration of the season.

0n employment shall &e deemed to &e casual if it is not covered &y thepreceding paragraphA Provided, That, any employee ho has rendered atleast one year of service, hether such service is continuous or &ro$en,shall &e considered a regular employee ith respect to the activity inhich he is employed and his employment shall continue hile such

activity e%ists.

There are t o $inds of regular employees under the la @( ) those engaged toperform activities hich are necessary or desira&le in the usual &usiness ortrade of the employerA and (3) those casual employees ho have rendered atleast one year of service, hether continuous or &ro$en, ith respect to the

activities in hich they are employed. The primary standard to determine a regular employment is the reasona&le

connection &et een the particular activity performed &y the employee inrelation to the &usiness or trade of the employer.

The test is hether the former is usually necessary or desira&le in the usual&usiness or trade of the employer.

Page 1 of 122


16/122

If the employee has &een performing the =o& for at least one year, even if theperformance is not continuous or merely intermittent, the la deems therepeated and continuing need for its performance as su>cient evidence of the necessity, if not indispensa&ility of that activity to the &usiness of theemployer.

+ence, the employment is also considered regular, &ut only ith respect tosuch activity and hile such activity e%ists.

The la does not provide the 9uali:cation that the employee must :rst &eissued a regular appointment or must &e declared as such &efore he canac9uire a regular employee status.

The respondent as employed &y the petitioner on 5ay ", !!3 asproduction operator. #he as assigned to ire&uilding at the transistor

division.

There is no dispute that the or$ of the respondent as necessary ordesira&le in the &usiness or trade of the petitioner.

#he remained under the employ of the petitioner ithout any interruptionsince 5ay ", !!3 to June 2, !!/ or for one ( ) year and t enty-eight (3")days.

The original contract of employment had &een e%tended or rene ed for four

times, to the same position, ith the same chores. #uch a continuing need for the services of the respondent is su>cient

evidence of the necessity and indispensa&ility of her services to thepetitioner1s &usiness.

Ey operation of la , then, the respondent had attained the regular status of her employment ith the petitioner, and is thus entitled to security of tenureas provided for in 0rticle 3 ! of the 'a&or 8ode hich reads@

0rt. 3 !. Securit o& enure . O In cases of regular employment,the employer shall not terminate the services of an employeee%cept for a =ust cause or hen authori ed &y this Title. 0nemployee ho is un=ustly dismissed from or$ shall &e entitledto reinstatement ithout loss of seniority rights and otherprivileges and to his full &ac$ ages, inclusive of allo ances, andto his other &ene:ts or their monetary e9uivalent computed

Page 16 of 122


17/122

from the time his compensation as ithheld from him up to thetime of his actual reinstatement.

0rticle 3" of the 'a&or 8ode of the Philippines as emplaced in our statute&oo$s to prevent the circumvention &y unscrupulous employers of the

employee1s right to &e secure in his tenure &y indiscriminately andcompletely ruling out all ritten and oral agreements inconsistent ith theconcept of regular employment de:ned therein.

The language of the la manifests the intent to protect the tenurial interestof the or$er ho may &e denied the rights and &ene:ts due a regularemployee &ecause of lopsided agreements ith the economically po erfulemployer ho can maneuver to $eep an employee on a casual or temporarystatus for as long as it is convenient to it.

In tandem ith 0rticle 3" of the 'a&or 8ode, 0rticle 3" as designed to put

an end to the pernicious practice of ma$ing permanent casuals of our lo lyemployees &y the simple e%pedient of e%tending to them temporary orpro&ationary appointments, ad in*nitum .

Cnder #ection /, 0rticle H I of the 8onstitution, it is the policy of the #tate toassure the or$ers of security of tenure and free them from the &ondage of uncertainty of tenure oven &y some employers into their contracts of employment. The guarantee is an act of social =ustice.

?hen a person has no property, his =o& may possi&ly &e his only possessionor means of livelihood and those of his dependents.

?hen a person loses his =o&, his dependents suDer as ell.

The or$er should therefore &e protected and insulated against any ar&itrarydeprivation of his =o&.

UNIVERSAL RO INA e(/. +'. CA ALLE A (please refer to . 3)

8AGSALIN V. NATIONAL ORGANI ATION 90 SCRA 1;; D200

FACTS:

8oca-8ola Eottlers Phils. Inc engaged the services of respondent or$ers asMsales route helpersN for a limited period of :ve months.

Page 17 of 122


18/122

0fter :ve months, respondent or$ers ere employed &y Petitioner 8ompanyon a day-to-day &asis to su&stitute for regular sales route helpers heneverthe latter ould &e unavaila&le or hen there ould &e an une%pectedshortage of manpo er in any of its or$ places or an unusually high volumeof or$.

The practice as for the or$ers to ait every morning outside the gates of the sales o>ce of petitioner company.

If thus hired, the or$ers ould then &e paid their ages at the end of theday.

Cltimately, respondent or$ers as$ed Petitioner 8ompany to e%tend to themregular appointments.

Pe( ( % e" /%#$! & "e 'ed. 6ovem&er , !! - t enty-three (3/) of the NtemporaryN or$ers (herein

respondents) :led ith the 6'R8 a /%#$l! ( %" ()e "eg l!" J!( % % ()e " e#$l%e ( ith petitioner company.

The complaint as amended a num&er of times to include othercomplainants that ultimately totaled :fty-eight (7") or$ers.

8laiming that petitioner company mean hile terminated their services,respondent or$ers :led a notice of stri$e and a complaint for illegaldismissal and unfair la&or practice ith the 6'R8.

0pril !!" - +%l (!"& !" ("!( % " 5ay !!" - the voluntary ar&itrator rendered a decision d '# '' g the

complaint on the thesis that respondents (then complainants) ere notregular employees of petitioner company.

0ugust 3 , the 8ourt of 0ppeals "e+e"'ed ! d 'e( !' de the ruling of the voluntary ar&itrator A (Petitioners ere declared regular employees of 8oca 8ola EottlersA dismissal illegalA ordered to reinstate the or$ers)

ISSUES:

. ? 6 the nature of or$ of respondents in the company is of such nature asto &e deemed necessary and desira&le in the usual &usiness or trade of petitioner that could 9ualify them to &e regular employees

3. ? 6 the 9uitclaims e%ecuted &y the /* individual respondents ere valid

HEL :

. L


19/122

. Intentionalist approach -


20/122

?or$ers of +acienda 4atima organi ed themselves into a union. +o ever, theorgani ation as not favored &y the petitioners.

Thus, hen the union as certi:ed as the collective &argainingrepresentative in the certi:cation elections, petitioners refused to sit do nith the union for the purpose of entering into a collective &argaining

agreement. In protest, complainants staged a stri$e hich as settled upon the signing of

a 5emorandum of 0greement. 0nother dispute arose &et een the parties, it as alleged that respondent

union failed to load the :fteen agons, so petitioners reneged on itscommitment to sit do n and &argain collectively.

Petitioners prevented the organi ers from entering the premises and starting#eptem&er !! , did not assign any or$ forcing the union to stage a stri$eon 3 !!3.

Eut due to the conciliation eDorts &y the ; '


21/122

HEL : The or$ers are regular employees.

The lo er courts did not err in its :ndings that respondents ere regularemployees.

0rticle 3" of the 'a&or 8ode, as amended, states@

B0rt. 3" . Regular and 8asual


22/122

0lso if the employee has &een performing the =o& for at least a year, even i& the per&ormance is not continuous and merel intermittent, the la deems"e$e!(ed ! d /% ( g eed for its performance as ' 5/ e (e+ de /e % ()e e/e'' (& %( d '$e '! l (& % ()!( !/( + (& (%()e ' e'' .

+ence, the employment is considered regular, &ut only ith respect to suchactivity and hile such activity e%ists.

The 8ourt has already settled that seasonal or$ers ho are called to or$from time to time and are temporarily laid oD during oD-season are notseparated from service in said period, &ut merely considered on leave untilre-employed.

The 80 did not err hen it ruled that ercado v. NLRC as not applica&le tothe case at &ar.

In the earlier case, the or$ers ere re9uired to perform phases of agricultural or$ for a de:nite period of time, after hich their services ould

&e availa&le to any other farm o ner. They ere not hired regularly and repeatedly for the same phase s of

agricultural or$, &ut on and oD for any single phase thereof. n the other hand, herein respondents, having performed the same tas$s for

petitioners every season for several years, are considered the latterFs regularemployees for their respective tas$s. PetitionersF eventual refusal to use theirservices even if they ere ready, a&le and illing to perform their usualduties henever these ere availa&le and hiring of other or$ers toperform the tas$s originally assigned to respondents amounted to illegaldismissal of the latter.

The 8ourt :nds no reason to distur& the 80Fs dismissal of hat petitionersclaim as their valid e%ercise of a management prerogative.

The sudden changes in or$ assignments ree$ed of &ad faith. These changes ere implemented immediately after respondents had

organi ed themselves into a union and started demanding collective&argaining.

Those ho ere union mem&ers ere eDectively deprived of their =o&s.PetitionersF move actually amounted to un=usti:ed dismissal of respondents,in violation of the 'a&or 8ode.

?here there is no sho ing of clear, valid and legal cause for the termination

of employment, the la considers the matter a case of illegal dismissal andthe &urden is on the employer to prove that the termination as for a validand authori ed cause.

In the case at &ar, petitioners failed to prove any such cause for the dismissalof respondents ho, as discussed a&ove, are regular employees.

ISPOSITION: Petition is ENIE . ;ecision of 80 is AFFIR8E .

Page 22 of 122


23/122

S3 $$e"' U (ed +' NLRC 9;9 SCRA 661

FACTS:

Private respondent Gervasio Rosaroso as employed as a Third


24/122

#ection . one Claims. O In case of termination of overseasemployment ithout =ust, valid or authori ed cause as de:ned&y la or contract, the or$er shall &e entitled to the fullreim&ursement of his placement fee ith interest at t elvepercent ( 3 ) per annum, plus his salaries for the une%pired

portion of his employment contract or for three (/) months forevery year of the une%pired term, hichever is less.

The a ard of salaries for the une%pired portion of his employment contract orfor three (/) months for every year of the une%pired term, hichever is less,is not an a ard of &ac$ ages or separation pay, &ut a form of indemnity forthe or$er ho as illegally dismissed.

The 'a&or 0r&iter may have misla&eled it as separation pay, nonetheless, thea ard as made in conformity ith la .

LOPE vs. 8ETROPOLITAN BATERBORKS AN SEBERAGE SYSTE8

FACTS:

Ey virtue of an +greement , petitioners ere engaged &y the 5?## ascollectors-contractors, herein the former agreed to collect from theconcessionaires of 5?##, charges, fees, assessments of rents for ater,se er and or plum&ing services hich the 5?## &ills from time to time.

In !! , 5?## entered into a 8oncession 0greement ith 5anila ?ater#ervice herein the collection of &ills as transferred to said privateconcessionaires, eDectively terminating the contracts of service &et eenpetitioners and 5?##.

Regular employees of the 5?## ere paid their retirement &ene:ts, &ut notpetitioners.

5?## relied on a resolution of the 8ivil #ervice 8ommission (8#8) thatcontract-collectors of the 5?## are not its employees and therefore notentitled to the &ene:ts due regular government employees.

Petitioners :led a complaint ith the 8#8. 8#8 denied their claims, statingthat petitioners ere engaged &y 5?## through a contract of service, hiche%plicitly provides that a &ill collector-contractor is not an 5?## employee.

Relying on Part of 8#8 5emorandum 8ircular 6o. /", #eries of !!/, the8#8 stated that contract services =o& orders are not considered governmentservices, hich do not have to &e su&mitted to the 8#8 for approval, unli$econtractual and plantilla appointments.

To further strengthen their case, petitioners refer to 8#8 Resolution !3-3 "dated " ;ecem&er !!3, hich states in part@

Page 29 of 122


25/122


26/122

To augment its manpo er re9uirement occasioned &y the increased activitiesin the development of P0' II, P6 8-


27/122

o They li$e ise theori ed that the contracts they signed ere short-termcontracts covering a long period of the same activity, not for a speci:cpro=ect or underta$ing.

ISSUE: ? 6 private respondents ere pro=ect employees.HEL : 6o, private respondents ere regular employees of P6 8-


28/122

Petitioner had &een or$ing as a seafarer for #mith Eell 5anagement, Inc. fora&out :ve years. n 3 / !!", petitioner signed a ne contract of employment ith respondent, ith the duration of ! months.

The contract as approved &y the P


29/122

HEL :

DA YES, Petitioner may recover damages &ut he is not entitled to overtime pay. There is no 9uestion that the parties entered into an employment contract

on 3 / !!", here&y petitioner as contracted &y respondent to render

services on &oard B5# #easpreadB for the consideration of C#Q7 7.per month for ! months, plus overtime pay.

+o ever, respondent failed to deploy petitioner from the port of 5anila to8anada.

8onsidering that petitioner as not a&le to depart from the airport orseaport in the point of hire, the employment contract did not commenceand no employer-employee relationship as created &et een the parties.

+o ever, a distinction must &e made &et een the perfection of theemployment contract and the commencement of the employer-employeerelationship.

The $e" e/( % % ()e /% ("!/( occurred hen petitioner andrespondent agreed on the o&=ect and the cause, as ell as the rest of theterms and conditions therein.

The /%##e /e#e ( % ()e e#$l%&e"-e#$l%&ee "el!( % ') $ ouldhave ta$en place had petitioner &een actually deployed from the point of hire.

T) ', e+e e %"e ()e '(!"( % ! & e#$l%&e"-e#$l%&ee"el!( % ') $, /% (e#$%"! e% ' * () ()e $e" e/( % % ()ee#$l%e ( /% ("!/( *!' ()e "() % /e"(! " g)(' ! d% l g!( % ' , the &reach of hich may give rise to a cause of action

against the erring party. ?hile the P


30/122

?hile the contract indicated a :%ed overtime pay, it is not a guaranteethat he ould receive said amount regardless of hether or not herendered overtime or$.

cient proof that said or$ as actuallyperformed are conditions to &e satis:ed &efore a seaman could &e entitledto overtime pay T)e /% ("!/( $"%+ ' % g !"! (ee' ()e " g)( (%%+e"( #e $!& ( ()e e ( (le#e ( (% ' /) e e ( # '( "'( ee'(! l ')ed .

Realistically spea$ing, ! 'e!#! , & ()e +e"& !( "e % ) ' % , '(!&'% %!"d ! ') $ %" +e''el e&% d ()e "eg l!" e g)(-)% " *%"3 '/)ed le .

4or the e#$l%&e" (% g +e ) # %+e"( #e $!& %" ()e e?("! )% "'hen he might &e sleeping or attending to his personal chores or even

=ust lulling a ay his time *% ld e e?("e#el& ! " ! d"e!'% ! le.

D NO. The 8ourt did not sustain petitioner1s claim that respondent1s failure todeploy petitioner is an act designed to prevent the latter from attaining thestatus of a regular employee.


31/122

Petitioner +06JI6 is a foreign company duly registered ith the #ecurities and


32/122

completion &onus upon phase completion, and the uitclaimse%ecuted &y the respondents in favor of +06JI6.

8ourt of 0ppeals reversed the 6'R8 ;ecision, it ad=udged the TerminationReport as inconclusive proof that respondents ere pro=ect employees.

o


33/122

In a num&er of cases, the 8ourt has held that the length of service or the re-hiring of construction or$ers on a pro=ect-to-pro=ect &asis does not conferupon them regular employment status, since their re-hiring is only a naturalconse9uence of the fact that e%perienced construction or$ers are preferred.


34/122


35/122

8omplainant 5ali$si as one of those employed &y P+I'##


36/122

RAYCOR AIRCON SYSTE8 V. SAN PE RO 26 SCRA 92; D2007

FACTS:

Raycor 0ircontrol systems hired #an Pedro as tinsmith operator su&=ect to thecondition that his employment shall commence on 0ugust !!7 until thecompletion of the Cni ide 'as Pinas pro=ect.

?hen the :rst pro=ect as completed, petitioner again e%tended respondent1semployment until ;ecem&er !!* (second pro=ect).

#u&se9uently, petitioner rehired respondent as ducting man and assignedhim to a third pro=ect until 0pril !! . Thereafter, respondent1s employmentas e%tended several times ithout any issuance of a ne contract everytime his employment as e%tended.

In 6ovem&er !! , Raycor informed #an Pedro that his contract as set toe%pire on 6ovem&er , !! and as to ta$e eDect on 6ovem&er /, !! .

?hen he reported for or$ on 6ovem&er /, he as informed that he had&een terminated. #an Pedro, then :led, a complaint for illegal dismissal.

'0 held in favor of respondent citing that the complainant as illegallydismissed ithout =ust cause and ithout due process of la .

6'R8 a>rmed the same.o 6'R8 found #an Pedro to &e a regular employee of petitioner &ecause

of the e%istence of a reasona&le connection &et een the formerFsregular activities in relation to the latterFs &usiness. They &ased this:nding on the uncontroverted fact that petitioner repeatedly rehiredrespondent in :ve successive pro=ects for 3/ continuous months

ISSUE: ? 6 #an Pedro as a regular employee of Raycor.

HEL : Les.

0s held in an earlier case decided &y the #8, petitioner utterly failed toadduce additional evidence that@

) each time it hired and rehired respondent, it intended for himto accomplish speci:c tas$s in the particular pro=ect to hich heas assignedA

3) it intended for respondent to carry out these speci:c tas$s inaccordance ith the pro=ect plan it had dra n out and ithin thelimited time it had to complete the sameA and

/) it made such restrictions on each engagement $no n torespondent, and the same ere freely accepted &y him.

Page 6 of 122


37/122

PetitionerFs failure to present such evidence is ine%cusa&le, given its accessto such documents as pro=ect contracts, payment remittances, employmentrecords and pay slips.

0s such, the respondent &ecame a regular employee after 3/ months of rehiring.

PAUL V. SANTIAGO vs CF SHARP CREB 8ANAGE8ENT, INC .

ISSUE: ?hether or not the petitioner1s continuous employment on &oard the samevessel and su&se9uent e%tension of the contract to ! months merits his claimthat he should &e considered a regular employee.

HEL : NO.

The 8ourt did not sustain petitioner1s claim that respondent1s failure todeploy petitioner is an act designed to prevent the latter from attaining thestatus of a regular employee.

4or 7 years, Petitioner or$ed on &oard the same vessel o ned &y the sameprincipal and manned &y the same local agent.

The e%ecution of the ne contract for another term of ! months constitutesan e%tension. +o ever, even if petitioner as a&le to depart the port of 5anila, he still cannot &e considered a regular employee, regardless of hisprevious contracts of employment ith respondent.

In illares v. National Labor Relations Commission , the 8ourt ruled that'e! !"e"' !"e /% ' de"ed /% ("!/( !l e#$l%&ee' ! d /! %( e/% ' de"ed !' "eg l!" e#$l%&ee' de" ()e L! %" C%de .

Their e#$l%e ( ' g%+e" ed & ()e /% ("!/(' ()e& ' g e+e"& ( #e()e& !"e "e) "ed ! d ()e " e#$l%e ( ' (e"# !(ed *)e ()e/% ("!/( e?$ "e' . T)e e? ge / e' % ()e " *%"3 e/e'' (!(e' ()!( ()e&e e#$l%&ed % ! /% ("!/( !l !' '.

e(! Ele/(" / C%"$. +' NLRC 1 2 SCRA 9

FACTS:

The petitioner hired the private respondent as cler$ typist for one month,hich appointment as e%tended :ve times in :ve months (one monthcontract).

+er appointments ere covered &y corresponding ritten contracts. n June33, !" , her services ere terminated ithout notice or investigation.

Page 7 of 122


38/122

n the same day, she ent to the la&or ar&iter on a complaint for illegaldismissal. Eoth the la&or ar&iter and the respondent 6'R8 ruled for her.

Petitioner claims the private respondent1s appointment as temporary andhence she may &e terminated at ill.

ISSUE: ?hether or not the fact that private respondent1s employment has &een acontract-to-contract &asis alters the character of her employment as a regularemployee.

HEL : 6o.

The fact that her employment has &een a contract-to-contract &asis cannotalter the character of employment, &ecause contracts cannot override themandate of la .

+ence, &y operation of la , she has &ecome a regular employee. That she had &een hired merely on a Mtemporary &asisN Mfor purposes of

meeting the seasonal or pea$ demands of the &usiness,N and as such, herservices may la fully &e terminated Mafter the accomplishment of VherW tas$Nis untena&le.

The private respondent as to all intents and purposes, and at the very least,a pro&ationary employee, ho &ecame regular upon the e%piration of si%months.

Cnder 0rticle 3" of the 'a&or 8ode, a pro&ationary employee is Mconsidereda regular employeeN if he has &een Mallo ed to or$ after the pro&ationaryperiod.N

The private employee as employed from ;ecem&er 7, !"* until June 33,!" hen she as ordered laid-oD. +er tenure having e%ceeded si% months,she attained regular employment.

The petitioner cannot rightfully say that since the private respondent1semployment hinged from contract to contract, it as ergo, MtemporaryN,depending on the term of each agreement.

Cnder the 'a&or 8ode, an employment may only &e said to &e MtemporaryNM here it has &een :%ed for a speci:c underta$ing the completion of ortermination of hich has &een determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or here the or$ or services to &e performed is seasonal in

nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.N uite to the contrary, the private respondent1s or$, that of Mtypist-cler$N is

far from &eing Mspeci:cN or MseasonalN, &ut rather, one, according to the8ode, M here the employee has &een engaged to perform activities hich areusually necessary or desira&le in the usual &usiness.N

Page of 122


39/122

0nd under the 8ode, here one performs such activities, he is a regularemployee, MVtWhe provisions of ritten agreement to the contrarynot ithstanding.

U +e"'!l R% ! +. C!(!$! g

FACTS:

Respondents ere hired &y the petitioner company to or$ at its duc$ farm. The respondents ere hired under an employment contract hich provided

for a :ve-month period. 0fter the e%piration of the said employment contracts, the petitioner

company ould rene them and re-employ the respondents. This practice continued for more than / years until sometime in !!*, hen

the petitioners informed the respondents that they ere no longer rene ingtheir employment contracts.

Respondents :led complaints for illegal dismissal. The '0 rendered a decision declaring that complainants illegally dismissed

from their employment and in hich the 6'R8 and the 80 a>rmed. n appeal, petitioners su&mit that the respondents are not regular

employees.o That they ere free to terminate the services of the respondents at the

e%piration of their individual contracts.o That they merely implemented the terms of the contracts.

ISSUE: ? 6 the respondents are regular employees and their termination forcauses outside the 'a&or 8ode is patently illegal.

HEL : Ye'.

0n employee shall &e deemed to &e of regular status hen he has &eenperforming a =o& for at least year even if the performance is not continuousand merely intermittent.

In any case, e :nd that the 80, the 6'R8 and the 'a&or 0r&iter correctlycategori ed the respondents as regular employees of the petitioner company.

T)e $" #!"& '(! d!"d, ()e"e %"e, % de(e"# g "eg l!" e#$l%e (' ()e "e!'% ! le /% e/( % e(*ee ()e $!"( / l!" !/( + (&$e" %"#ed & ()e e#$l%&ee "el!( % (% ()e ' !l ("!de %" ' e''% ()e e#$l%&e".

T)e (e'( ' *)e()e" ()e %"#e" ' ' !ll& e/e''!"& %" de' "! le ()e ' !l ' e'' %" ("!de % ()e e#$l%&e".

Page ; of 122


40/122

T)e /% e/( % /! e de(e"# ed & /% ' de" g ()e !( "e % *%"3 $e" %"#ed ! d (' "el!( % (% ()e '/)e#e % ()e $!"( / l!" ' e''%" ("!de (' e ( "e(&.

Al'%, ()e e#$l%&ee )!' ee $e" %"# g ()e % %" !( le!'( ! &e!",e+e ()e $e" %"#! /e ' %( /% ( % ' ! d #e"el& (e"# ((e (,()e l!* dee#' "e$e!(ed ! d /% ( g eed %" (' $e" %"#! /e !'' 5/ e ( e+ de /e % ()e e/e'' (& %( d '$e '! l (& % ()!(!/( + (& (% ()e ' e''.

He /e, ()e e#$l%e ( ' /% ' de"ed "eg l!", ( % l& * () "e'$e/((% ' /) !/( + (& ! d *) le ' /) !/( + (& e? '('.

Thus, e 9uote ith approval the follo ing e%cerpt from the decision of the80@

I( ' % + % ' ()!( ()e '! d +e-#% () /% ("!/( % e#$l%e ( *!' 'ed & $e( ( % e"' !' ! /% +e e (

' (e" ge (% $"e+e ( $" +!(e "e'$% de (' "%#e/%# g "eg l!" e#$l%&ee'. S /) /% ("!/( !l

!""! ge#e ( ')% ld e '(" /3 d%* %" d '"eg!"ded !'/% ("!"& (% $ l / $%l /& %" #%"!l'. T% $)%ld ()e '!#e*% ld, e e/(, $e"# ( $e( ( % e"' (% !+% d ) " g$e"#! e ( %" "eg l!" e#$l%&ee' & ' #$l& ) " g ()e#% ! (e#$%"!"& %" /!' !l !' ', ()e"e & + %l!( g ()ee#$l%&ee'4 'e/ " (& % (e "e ()e " % '.

Petitioners1 act of repeatedly and continuously hiring private respondents in a

span of /-7 years to do the same $ind of or$ negates their contention thatprivate respondents ere hired for a speci:c pro=ect or underta$ing only.

8ARAGUINOT V. NLRC 2 9 SCRA ; D1;;

FACTS:

Petitioner 0le=andro 5araguinot, Jr. maintains that he as employed &yprivate respondents as part of the :lming cre .

0&out 2 months later, he as designated 0sst.


41/122

Petitioners re9uested that private respondents ad=ust their salary inaccordance ith the minimum age la . Petitioners ere informed that 5r.ic del Rosario ould agree to increase their salary only if they signed a &lan$employment contract.

0s petitioners refused to sign, private respondents forced


42/122

In the instant case, the evidence on record sho s that petitioner


43/122


44/122

In the case at &ar, petitioners did not have that $ind of agreement, neitherdid they inform respondents of the nature of the latterFs or$ at the time of hiring.

+ence, %" ! l "e % $e( ( % e"' (% ' '(! ( !(e ()e " /l! # ()!("e'$% de (' *e"e $"% e/( e#$l%&ee', *e !"e /% '("! ed (% de/l!"e()e# !' "eg l!" e#$l%&ee'.

ISPOSITION: The petition is ;


45/122

representative, i.e.V,W the master of the vesselV,W to terminate thecontract &y giving fourteen ( 2) days of ritten notice.

n June 3 , !!!, petitioner as informed of his discharge through a notice.Petitioner as then made to disem&ar$ at the port of +ouston, Te%as and as

repatriated to 5anila on July , !!!. Petitioner thereafter :led a complaint for illegal dismissal ith claims for the

monetary e9uivalent of the une%pired portion of his contract, damages andattorneyFs fees in the 6'R8 on #eptem&er 3 , !!!.

'0 ruled that petitioner as dismissed ithout =ust cause and due process asthe log&oo$ entry ( hich respondents claimed to &e the :rst notice topetitioner) as vague.

o It failed to e%pound on or state the details of petitionerFs shortcomingsor infractions.

The 6'R8 upheld the '0Fs :nding of illegal dismissal. The 80 deemed the log&oo$ entries to &e su>cient compliance ith the :rst

notice re9uirement of the la . It as a ritten appraisal of petitionerFs poor =o& performance coupled ith a arning that should he fail to improve hisperformance, he ould &e signed oD in accordance ith the provisions of the8E0.

It reasoned that a pro&ationary employee may &e dismissed at anytimeduring the pro&ationary period for failure to live up to the e%pectations of theemployer.

ISSUE: ?hether or not petitioner as illegally dismissed &y respondents.

HEL : The petitioner as illegally dismissed &y respondents.

0n employer has the &urden of proving that an employeeFs dismissal as fora =ust cause. 4ailure to sho this necessarily means that the dismissal asun=usti:ed and therefore illegal.

4urthermore, not only must the dismissal &e for a cause provided &y la , itshould also comply ith the rudimentary re9uirements of due process, thatis, the opportunity to &e heard and to defend oneself.

These re9uirements are of e9ual application to cases of 4ilipino seamen

recruited to or$ on &oard foreign vessels. Procedural due process re9uires that a seaman must &e given a rittennotice of the charges against him and aDorded a formal investigation herehe can defend himself personally or through a representative &efore he can&e dismissed and disem&ar$ed from the vessel.

The employer is &ound to furnish him t o notices@ ( ) the ritten charge and(3) the ritten notice of dismissal (in case that is the penalty imposed).

Page 9 of 122


46/122

This is in accordance ith the P


47/122

Petitioner1s Geothermal Production 4ield in 6egros riental is divided into t ophases@ Palinpinon I (P0' I) and Palinpinon II (P0' II). To augment itsmanpo er re9uirement in the development of P0' II, petitioner hired therespondents.

The termination e%piration of their employment ere speci:ed in their initial

employment contracts, hich, ho ever, ere rene ed and e%tended on theirrespective e%piry dates.

In !!", petitioner su&mitted reports to the ; '< stating that si% of itsemployees ere &eing terminated.

Petitioner furnished the respondents notices of termination, stating that theyere &eing terminated due to the su&stantial completion of the civil or$sphase of P0' II.

Respondents, :led &efore 6'R8 a complaint for illegal dismissal againstpetitioner.

The 'a&or 0r&iter ruled that the employer-employee relationship &et een theparties as severed upon the e%piration of the respective contracts of respondents and the completion of the pro=ects concerned.

The 6'R8 reversed the decision of the 'a&or 0r&iter. The 6'R8 ratiocinatedthat respondents ere regular non-pro=ect employees.

The 80 044IR5


48/122

! d '/%$e % *) /) *e"e '$e/ ed !( ()e ( #e ()ee#$l%&ee' *e"e e g!ged %" ()!( $"% e/( .

A' de ed, $"% e/( e#$l%&ee' !"e ()%'e *%"3e"' ) "edD1 %" ! '$e/ / $"% e/( %" de"(!3 g, ! d D2 ()e

/%#$le( % %" (e"# !( % % ' /) $"% e/( %" de"(!3 g)!' ee de(e"# ed !( ()e ( #e % ()e e g!ge#e ( % ()e e#$l%&ee.

+o ever, petitioner failed to su&stantiate its claim that respondents erehired merely as pro=ect employees.

0 perusal of the records of the case reveals that the supposed speci:c pro=ector underta$ing of petitioner as not satisfactorily identi:ed in the contractsof respondents.

The alleged pro=ects stated in the employment contracts ere either too

vague or imprecise to &e considered as the Bspeci:c underta$ingBcontemplated &y la .

ALU-TUCP V. NLRC 2 9 SCRA 67 D1;;9

FACTS:

Petitioners claim that they have &een employed &y respondent 6ational #teel8orporation (6#8) in connection ith its 4ive Lear


49/122

private respondent1s main &usiness, steel-ma$ingNA and (ii) they haverendered service for si% (*) or more years to 6#8.

ISSUE: ? 6 petitioners are properly characteri ed as Mpro=ect employeesN rather

than Mregular employeesN of 6#8.SC4' NOTE:

The issue relates to an important conse9uence@ the services of pro=ectemployees are co-terminus ith the pro=ect and may &e terminated upon theend or completion of the pro=ect for hich they ere hired.

Regular employees, in contrast, are legally entitled to remain in the service of their employer until that service is terminated &y one or another of therecogni ed modes of termination of service under the 'a&or 8ode.

HEL : Les, petitioners are pro=ect employees.

0s evident in 0rt 3" 'a&or 8ode, the principal test for determining hetherparticular employees are properly characteri ed as Mpro=ect employeesN asdistinguished from Mregular employeesN is hether or not the Mpro=ectemployeesN ere assigned to carry out a Mspeci:c pro=ect or underta$ing, theduration (and scope) of hich ere speci:ed at the time the employees ereengaged for that pro=ect.

In &usiness and industry, Mpro=ectN could refer to one or the other of at leastt o distinguisha&le types of activities.

4irstly, a pro=ect could refer to a particular =o& or underta$ing that is ithinthe regular or usual &usiness of the employer company, &ut hich is distinctand separate, and identi:a&le as such, from the other underta$ings of thecompany.

#uch =o& or underta$ing &egins and ends at determined or determina&letimes.

#econdly, the term Mpro=ectN could also refer to a particular =o& orunderta$ing that is not ithin the regular &usiness of the corporation.

#uch =o& or underta$ing must also &e identi:a&ly separate and distinct fromthe ordinary or regular &usiness operations of the employer.

The =o& or underta$ing also &egins and ends at determined ordetermina&letimes. ?hichever type of pro=ect employment is found in a particular case, a

common &asic re9uisite is that the designation of named employees asMpro=ect employeesN and their assignment to a speci:c pro=ect, are eDectedand implemented in good faith, and not merely as a means of evadingother ise applica&le re9uirements of la&or la s.

Page 9; of 122


50/122

The particular component pro=ects em&raced in the 40L


51/122

+o ever, no investigation as ever conducted. Private respondentscontended that an investigation as not necessary since Ziamco had /e!'ed(% e ! e#$l%&ee ipso facto $% ()e e?$ "!( % % ) ' e#$l%e (/% ("!/( % 11 0 1;; .

?hen Ziamco reported &ac$ to or$ after &eing suspended, he asprevented &y security guards from entering the company premises.

#u&se9uently, private respondent P6 8-


52/122

In Violeta v. NLRC , the 8ourt ruled that the principal test for determininghether employees are Bpro=ect employees,B or Bregular employees,B ishether or not the $"% e/( e#$l%&ee' *e"e !'' g ed (% /!""& % ( !'$e/ / $"% e/( %" de"(!3 g, ()e d "!( % ! d '/%$e % *) /)*e"e '$e/ ed !( ()e ( #e ()e e#$l%&ee' *e"e e g!ged %" ()!(

$"% e/( . Pro=ect employees are those or$ers hired ( ) for a speci:c pro=ect or

underta$ing, and (3) the completion or termination of such pro=ect orunderta$ing has &een determined at the time of engagement of theemployee.

Cnder Policy Instruction 6o. 3 of the #ecretary of 'a&or, $"% e/(e#$l%&ee' are those employed in connection ith a particular pro=ect.

6on-pro=ect or regular employees are those employed /ithout re&erence toany particular pro=ect.

0ll the employment contracts of Ziamco '( $ l!(ed )e *!' e#$l%&ed

()e " Ge%()e"#!l Ag"%-I d '(" !l e#% '("!( % Pl! ( pursuant to thepro=ect of the company Mrelated to applied research and development,technical consultancy, training, information and planning services on energyand related technologies that include the implementation and completion of the Geothermal 0groindustrial ;emonstration Plant Pro=ect.N

Ziamco as assigned to a speci:c pro=ect and the duration and completion of such pro=ect had also &een determined at the time of his employment.Pursuant to his contract, he as hired as a Pro=ect


53/122

P) l ! -Al! ! d A# 'e#e ( C%"$. +' Cl!+e 126 SCRA 2;;

FACTS: Petitioner is a corporation operating a =ai-alai fronton for sport and

amusement. It has its o n maintenance group for the up$eep of itspremises.

4or the renovation of its main &uilding, hich or$ is not included inmaintenance, it hired private respondents, 8adatal, Jr., a plum&er, and;elgra, a mason, together ith / other or$ers on 4e&ruary 3, ! * for aperiod of one month, open to e%tension should the need for the arise in thecourse of the renovation.

Renovation as completed &y cto&er ! *. 5anagement then decided to construct an anne% to the &uilding and private

respondents or$ed on the :re escape. 6ovem&er 3 , ! * O 6otice of termination given to the respondents eDective

6ovem&er 3! &ut they still continued to or$ nonetheless. They or$ed until ;ecem&er and ere fully paid for the or$ they

rendered up to that date. ;ecem&er /, ! * - Petitioner :led ith the former ;epartment of 'a&or a

report of termination of the services of private respondents and / others,listing them as casual emergency or$ers.

Private or$ers alleged illegal termination. 0ssistant 5inister 'eogardo ordered the reinstatement of the or$ers ith full

&ac$ ages &efore petitioner could :le a reply to the letter-complaint of therespondents.

'eogardo said that the respondents ere already regular employeesaccording to 0rt. (no 0rt. 3" ) of the 'a&or 8ode and that terminationas un=ust.

0n appeal as :led hich 8lave, in his capacity as Presidential


54/122

It as made $no n, and so understood at the start of the hiring, that theirservices ould last until the completion of the renovation.

They rendered service from 4e&ruary 3 to ;ecem&er , ! *, almost months, &ut less than a year.

Petitioner gave the reason for termination as Bdue to termination of pro=ect. There could &e no other reason, ho ever, than that the termination of private

respondents as &ecause their services ere no longer needed and they hadnothing more to do since the pro=ect for hich they ere hired had &eencompleted.

The fact as not that private respondents ere hired as maintenancehelpers, &ecause petitioner corporation had a regular maintenance force.

Private respondents, as ell as the other / or$ers, ere needed asadditional hands for the other small =o&s after the renovation cannot &edeemed maintenance &ut more of casual or$.

The casual or limited character of private respondentsF employment,therefore, is evident.

They ere engaged for a speci:c pro=ect or underta$ing and fall ithin thee%ception provided for in 0rticle 3" of the 'a&or 8ode, supra .

6ot &eing regular employees, it cannot &e =usti:a&ly said that petitioner haddismissed them ithout =ust cause. They are not entitled to reinstatementith full &ac$ ages.

0rt. 3" . Regular and Casual 'mplo ment . The provisions of ritten agreementto the contrary not ithstanding and regardless of the oral agreements of theparties, an employment shall &e deemed to &e regular here the employee has

&een engaged to perform activities hich are usually necessary or desira&le in theusual &usiness or trade of the employer, e%cept here the employment has &een:%ed for a speci:c pro=ect or underta$ing, the completion or termination of hichhas &een determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or here theor$ or services to &e performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is forthe duration of the season.

SAN OVAL SHIPYAR S, INC., +. NLRC

FACTS:

#andoval #hipyards, Inc. has &een engaged in the &uilding and repair of vessels. It contends that each vessel is a separate pro=ect and that the employment of

the or$ers is terminated ith the completion of each pro=ect. The or$ers claim to &e regular or$ers and that the termination of one

pro=ect does not mean the end of their employment since they can &eassigned to un:nished pro=ects.

Page 9 of 122


55/122


56/122

I8 UI O V. NLRC 2; SCRA 7 D2000

FACTS:

Petitioner as employed as a data encoder &y private respondentInternational Information #ervices, Inc., a domestic corporation engaged inthe &usiness of data encoding and $eypunching, from 0ugust 3*, !"" untilcto&er ", !! hen her services ere terminated due to Blo volume of or$B.

Petitioner :led a complaint for illegal dismissal ith prayer for serviceincentive leave pay and /th month diDerential ith 6'R8 alleging that heremployment as terminated not due to the lo volume of or$ &ut &ecauseshe Bsigned a petition for certi:cation election among the ran$ and :leemployees of respondents,B thus charging private respondent ithcommitting unfair la&or practices.

Private respondent maintained that it had valid reasons to terminatepetitionerFs employment and disclaimed any $no ledge of the e%istence orformation of a union among its ran$-and-:le employees at the timepetitionerFs services ere terminated.

o Private respondent stressed that its &usiness B[relies heavily oncompanies availing of its services.

o Its retention &y client companies ith particular emphasis on dataencoding is on a pro=ect to pro=ect &asis,B usually lasting for a period of Bt o to :ve months.B

o Private respondent further argued that petitionerFs employment asfor a Bspeci:c pro=ect ith a speci:ed period of engagement.B

o 0ccording to private respondent, M[the certainty of the e%piration of complainantFs engagement has &een determined at the time of itsengagement (until 3 6ovem&er !! ) or hen the pro=ect is earliercompleted or hen the client ithdra s,B as provided in the contract.

o BThe happening of the second event Vcompletion of the pro=ectW hasmateriali ed, thus, her contract of employment is deemed terminated.

ISSUE: ? 6 petitioner is a Bpro=ect employeeB and not a Bregular employeeB hohas security of tenure.

HEL : 6'R8 is correct in holding that petitioner is a pro=ect employee.

The principal test for determining hether an employee is a pro=ect employeeor a regular employee is hether the pro=ect employee as assigned to carryout a speci:c pro=ect or underta$ing, the duration and scope of hich erespeci:ed at the time the employee as engaged for that pro=ect.

0 pro=ect employee is one hose employment has &een :%ed for a speci:cpro=ect or underta$ing, the completion or termination of hich has &eendetermined at the time of the engagement of the employee or here the

Page 6 of 122


57/122

or$ or service to &e performed is seasonal in nature and the employment isfor the duration of the season.

I ()e '(! ( /!'e, petitioner as engaged to perform activities hichere usually necessary or desira&le in the usual &usiness or trade of the

employer, as admittedly, petitioner or$ed as a data encoder for private

respondent, a corporation engaged in the &usiness of data encoding and$eypunching, and her employment as :%ed for a speci:c pro=ect orunderta$ing the completion or termination of hich had &een determined atthe time of her engagement, as may &e o&served from the series of employment contracts &et een petitioner and private respondent, all of hich contained a designation of the speci:c =o& contract and a speci:c

period of employment. +o ever, even as hen petitioner is a pro=ect employee, according to

=urisprudence BVaW pro=ect employee or a mem&er of a or$ pool may ac9uirethe status of a regular employee hen the follo ing concur@

1) There is a continuous rehiring of pro=ect employees even after the cessationof a pro=ectA and

2) The tas$s performed &y the alleged Bpro=ect employeeB are vital, necessaryand indispensa&le to the usual &usiness or trade of the employer.

The evidence on record reveals that petitioner as employed &y privaterespondent as a data encoder, performing activities hich are usuallynecessary or desira&le in the usual &usiness or trade of her employer,continuously for a period of more than three (/) years, from 0ugust 3*, !""to cto&er ", !! and contracted for a total of thirteen ( /) successive

pro=ects. It as previously ruled that BVhWo ever, the length of time during hich the

employee as continuously re-hired is not controlling, &ut merely serves as a&adge of regular employment.B

Eased on the foregoing, the petitioner has attained the status of a regularemployee of private respondent.

Eeing a regular employee, petitioner is entitled to security of tenure andcould only &e dismissed for a =ust or authori ed cause, as provided in 0rt 3 !'a&or 8ode.

The alleged causes of petitionerFs dismissal (lo volume of or$ and

&elatedly, completion of pro=ect) are not valid causes for dismissal under0rticles 3"3 and 3"/ 'a&or 8ode.

Thus, petitioner is entitled to reinstatement ithout loss of seniority rightsand other privileges, and to her full &ac$ ages, inclusive of allo ances, andto her other &ene:ts or their monetary e9uivalent computed from the timeher compensation as ithheld from her up to the time of her actualreinstatement.

Page 7 of 122


58/122

+o ever, complying ith the principles of Bsuspension of or$B and Bno or$,no payB &et een the end of one pro=ect and the start of a ne one, incomputing petitionerFs &ac$ ages, the amounts corresponding to hat couldhave &een earned during the periods from the date petitioner as dismisseduntil her reinstatement hen private respondent as not underta$ing any

pro=ect, should &e deducted. +aving already or$ed for more than three (/) years at the time of her

un arranted dismissal, petitioner is undou&tedly entitled to service incentiveleave &ene:ts, computed from !"! until the date of her actualreinstatement.

CHUA d&a PRI8E 8OVER CONSTRUCTION EV4T vs COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS:

n " 3 !"7, private respondents 0ndres Paguio, Pa&lo 8anale, Ruel Pangan,0urelio Paguio, Rolando Trinidad, Romeo Tapang and 8arlos 5ali at :led aPetition ith the ##8 for ### coverage and contri&utions against petitionerReynaldo 8hua, o ner of Prime 5over 8onstruction ;evelopment, claimingthat they ere all regular employees of the petitioner in his construction&usiness.

n the other hand, the petitioner claimed that private respondents erepro=ect employees, assigned &y petitioner in his various construction pro=ectscontinuously, hose or$ had &een :%ed for a speci:c pro=ect or underta$ingthe completion of hich as determined at the time of their engagement.

This &eing the case, he concluded that said employees ere not entitled tocoverage under the #ocial #ecurity 0ct.

Thus, he claimed, no employer-employee relation e%isted &et een theparties. There &eing no employer-employee relationship, private respondentsare not entitled to coverage under the #ocial #ecurity 0ct.

5oreover, petitioner invo$es the defense of good faith, or his honest &elief that pro=ect employees are not regular employees under 0rticle 3" of the'a&or 8ode.

The ##8 and 80 ruled in favor of the respondents, declaring them all to &eregular employees of the petitioner.

ISSUE: ?hether or not private respondents ere regular employees of thepetitioner.

Held: YES.

Page of 122


59/122

Private respondents ere regular employees and that 80 did not err in their:nding.

;espite the insistence of petitioner that they ere pro=ect employees, factssho that as masons, carpenters and :ne graders in petitioner1s variousconstruction pro=ects, they performed or$ hich as usually necessary anddesira&le to petitioner1s &usiness hich involves construction of roads and&ridges.

In Violeta v. NLRC , this 8ourt ruled ()!( (% e e?e#$(ed "%# ()e$"e' #$( % % "eg l!" (& % e#$l%e ( , the agreement &et een apro=ect employee and his employer must strictly conform to the re9uirementsand conditions under 0rticle 3" of the 'a&or 8ode.

I( ' %( e % g) ()!( ! e#$l%&ee ' ) "ed %" ! '$e/ / $"% e/( %"$)!'e % *%"3. T)e"e # '( !l'% e ! de(e"# !( % % , %" ! /le!"!g"ee#e ( % , ()e /%#$le( % %" (e"# !( % % ()e $"% e/( !( ()e( #e ()e e#$l%&ee *!' e g!ged. This second re9uirement as not met in

this case. 5oreover, hile it may &e true that private respondents ere initially hired

for speci:c pro=ects or underta$ings, the repeated re-hiring and continuingneed for their services over a long span of time the shortest &eing t o yearsand the longest &eing eight have undenia&ly made them regular employees.

This 8ourt has held that ! e#$l%e ( /e!'e' (% e /%-(e"# ' * ()'$e/ / $"% e/(' *)e ()e e#$l%&ee ' /% ( % 'l& "e) "ed d e (%()e de#! d' % ()e e#$l%&e"4' ' e'' ! d "e-e g!ged %" #! %"e $"% e/(' * ()% ( (e"" $( % .

The 8ourt li$e ise ta$es note of the fact that, as cited &y the ##8, even the

6'R8 in a la&or case involving the same parties, found that privaterespondents ere regular employees of the petitioner.

In the proceedings &efore the ##8 and the 80, petitioner failed to prove thatprivate respondents ere pro=ect employees &ecause it as as una&le tosho @

o that private respondents ere appraised of ()e $"% e/( !( "e % ()e " e#$l%e (

o the '$e/ / $"% e/(' %" ! & $)!'e de"(!3e & $e( ( % e" ! d%" *) /) $" +!(e "e'$% de (' *e"e ) "ed

o any d%/ #e ( (i.e. employment contracts \ employment records)

d /!( g ()e d!(e' % ) " g ! d (e"# !( % "el!( % (%()e $!"( / l!" /% '(" /( % $"% e/( or phases in hich they ereemployedA

o any proof that he su&mitted reports of termination after the completionof his construction pro=ects, considering that he alleges that privaterespondents ere hired and rehired for various pro=ects or phases of or$ therein.

Page ; of 122


60/122


61/122

FThe rationale of this rule is that if a pro=ect has already &een completed, itould &e un=ust to re9uire the employer to maintain them in the payrollhile they are doing a&solutely nothing e%cept aiting until another

pro=ect is &egun, if at all.

In eDect, these stand-&y or$ers ould &e en=oying the status of privileged retainers, collecting payment for or$ not done, to &e dis&ursed&y the employer from pro:ts not earned. This is not fair &y any standardand can only lead to a coddling of la&or at the e%pense of management.

3. Les. ?e hold that the pro=ect or$ers in the case at &ar, ho ere separatedeven &efore the completion of the pro=ect at the 6e 0la&ang illage and notreally for the reason that their contracts had e%pired, are entitled to separationpay.

The record sho s that although the contracts of the pro=ect or$ers hadindeed e%pired, the pro=ect itself as still on-going and so continued tore9uire the or$ersF services for its completion.

It is o&vious that the real reason for the termination of their services-hich, to repeat, ere still needed- as the complaint the pro=ect or$ershad :led and their participation in the stri$e against the privaterespondent.

These ere the acts that rendered them persona non grata to themanagement. Their services ere discontinued &y the 5;8 not &ecauseof the e%piration of their contracts, hich had not prevented theirretention or rehiring &efore as long as the pro=ect they ere or$ing onhad not yet &een completed.

The real purpose of the 5;8 as to retaliate against the or$ers, topunish them for their de:ance &y replacing them ith more tracta&leemployees.

Policy Instruction 6o. 3 of the ;epartment of 'a&or, providing thatBpro=ect employees are not entitled to separation pay if they areterminated as a result of the completion of the pro=ect or any phasethereof in hich they are employed, regardless of the pro=ects in hichthey had &een employed &y a particular construction company.B

The rule ould then entitle pro=ect employees to separation pay if thepro=ects they are or$ing on have not yet &een completed hen theirservices are terminated.

Page 61 of 122


62/122

It is the policy of the 8onstitution to aDord protection to la&or inrecognition of its role in the improvement of our elfare and thestrengthening of our democracy.

0n e%ploited or$ing class is a discontented or$ing class. It is a treadmill

to progress and a threat to freedom.

Zno ing this, e must e%ert all eDort to dignify the lot of the employee,elevating him to the same plane as his employer, that they may &etteror$ together as e9ual partners in the 9uest for a &etter life.

HAN IN e(/. +'. I ANE

FACTS:

Respondents and four other co- or$ers :led a complaint &efore the 6'R8 forillegal dismissal &y +an=in. Respondents alleged that +06JI6 hired them forvarious positions on diDerent dates.

Respondents stated that their tas$s ere usual and necessary or desira&le inthe usual &usiness or trade of +06JI6.

Respondents additionally averred that they ere dispatched to its variousconstruction pro=ects.

Petitioners maintained that respondents ere hired as pro=ect employees forthe construction of the 'RT 5RT Pro=ect.

+06JI6 and respondents purportedly e%ecuted contracts of employment, inhich it as clearly stipulated that the respondents ere to &e hired as

pro=ect employees for a period of only three months, &ut that the contractsmay &e rene ed.

Page 62 of 122


63/122

+o ever, petitioners failed to furnish the 'a&or 0r&iter a copy of saidcontracts of employment.

Petitioners further emphasi ed that respondents ere among the pro=ectemployees ho ere laid oD, as sho n in the


64/122

$"e'/" ed %"# % e#$l%&ee'(e"# !( % ' d '# ''!l' ' '$e ' % '.

D A de"(!3 g ()e e#$l%e ( /% ("!/( & ()ee#$l%&e" (% $!& /%#$le( % % ' (% ()e $"% e/(

e#$l%&ee !' $"!/( /ed & #%'( /% '(" /( % /%#$! e'.

T)e ! l "e % ! e#$l%&e" (% le ! Te"# !( % Re$%"( * () ()e OLEe+e"& ( #e ! $"% e/( ' /%#$le(ed d /!(e' ()!( "e'$% de (' *e"e%( $"% e/( e#$l%&ee' . In this case, only the last and :nal termination of petitioners as reported to the ; '


65/122

FACTS:

Private respondent Grulla as engaged &y


66/122


67/122

GLORY PHILIPPINES, INC. vs VERGARA

FACTS:

Petitioner Glory Philippines, Inc. manufactures money-counting machines. In June !!", it created a Parts Inspection #ection (PI#) tas$ed to inspect the

machine parts for e%portation to its e%clusive &uyer, Glory 'imited Japan(Glory Japan).

Petitioner hired respondents on * !!", as mem&ers of the PI#. +o ever,the employment contracts hich they signed only on " " !!", indicatedthem as Production perators in the Production #ection ith a daily age of

Php "". . The contracts covered the period from July / to 0ugust / , !!". Thereafter,

respondents1 employment contracts ere e%tended on a monthly &asis.

n 2 3 !!!, ho ever, they ere each made to sign employment contractscovering the period from 4e&ruary 3" to 0pril / , !!!. n 2 3* !!!, 5r.

Ta$eo shima (President) informed the 0ssistant 5anager that thecontractual employees in the PI# ould no longer &e needed &y the companyas Glory Japan had cancelled its orders.

6evertheless, petitioner e%tended respondents1 employment due to theirinsistent pleas and for the period from 5ay to 5ay 7, !!!, respondentssigned employment contracts ith a higher age of Php3 . a day.

Respondents claimed that they continued to or$ until 7 37 !!! hen, atthe close of or$ing hours, petitioner1s security guard advised them that theiremployment had &een terminated and that they ould no longer &e allo edto enter the premises.

8onse9uently, on 5ay 3 , !!!, they :led separate complaints for illegaldismissal ith the ; '


68/122

+o ever, upon motion for reconsideration, the 6'R8 reversed and set asideits earlier decision and dismissed the complaint for lac$ of merit.

The 6'R8 ruled that respondents ere pro=ect employees and that theiremployment as terminated upon e%piration of their employment contracts.

Respondents1 motion for reconsideration as denied hence, they :led apetition for certiorari &efore the 80.

n ! " 3 *, the appellate court granted the petition. Petitioner1s motionfor reconsideration as denied hence, this petition.

ISSUE: ?hether the respondents ere regular employees or pro=ect employees.

HEL : Respondents are regular employees of the company .

The 8ourt notes that there are three $inds of employees as provided under0rticle 3" of the 'a&or 8ode, thus@

( ) Regular employees or those ho have &een engaged toperform activities hich are usually necessary or desira&le inthe usual &usiness or trade of the employerA

(3) P"% e/( e#$l%&ee' %" ()%'e *)%'e e#$l%e ( )!'ee ?ed %" ! '$e/ / $"% e/( %" de"(!3 g, ()e/%#$le( % %" (e"# !( % % *) /) )!' eede(e"# ed !( ()e ( #e % ()e e g!ge#e ( % ()ee#$l%&ee %" *)e"e ()e *%"3 %" 'e"+ /e (% e$e" %"#ed ' 'e!'% !l !( "e ! d ()e e#$l%e (' %" ()e d "!( % % ()e 'e!'% ! d

(/) 8asual employees or those ho are neither regular norpro=ect employees.

In 7randspan :evelopment Corporation v. #ernardo , the 8ourt held thatthe principal test for determining hether employees are $"% e/(e#$l%&ee' or "eg l!" e#$l%&ee' is *)e()e" %" %( ()e Q$"% e/(e#$l%&ee'4 *e"e !'' g ed (% /!""& % ( ! Q'$e/ / $"% e/( %"de"(!3 g,4 ()e d "!( % ! d '/%$e % *) /) *e"e '$e/ ed !(

()e ( #e ()e e#$l%&ee' *e"e e g!ged %" ()!( $"% e/( . 0s de:ned, pro=ect employees are those or$ers hired ( ) for a speci:c

pro=ect or underta$ing, and (3) the completion or termination of suchpro=ect or underta$ing has &een determined at the time of engagement of the employee.

Page 6 of 122


69/122

There is no merit in petitioner1s claim that respondents ere pro=ectemployees hose employment as coterminous ith the transaction ithGlory Japan.

Respondents1 e#$l%e ( /% ("!/(' ! led (% '(!(e ()e '$e/ /$"% e/( %" de"(!3 g %" *) /) ()e& *e"e !llegedl& e g!ged .

?hile petitioner claims that respondents ere hired for the transactionith Glory Japan, the same as not indicated in the contracts.

0s o&served &y the 80, nothing therein suggested that their employmentas dependent on the continuous patronage of Glory Japan.

4urther, the employment contracts did not indicate the d "!( % ! d'/%$e of the pro=ect or underta$ing as re9uired &y la .

It is not enough that an employee is hired for a speci:c pro=ect or phase of or$ to 9ualify as a pro=ect employee.

T)e"e # '( !l'% e ! de(e"# !( % % , %" ! /le!" !g"ee#e ( % ,()e /%#$le( % %" (e"# !( % % ()e $"% e/( !( ()e ( #e ()ee#$l%&ee *!' e g!ged , hich is a&sent in this case.

The factual circumstances negate petitioner1s claim that respondents erepro=ect employees.


70/122

perform activities hich are usually necessary or desira&le in the usual&usiness or trade of petitioner.

ISPOSITION: The petition

labor standards case digests compiled - 7.01-7.06

Documents