Exodus International Construction Corporation, et al. v. Guillermo Biscocho, et al.

Facts: Exodus International Construction Corporation (Exodus) is a duly licensed labor contractor for the painting of residential houses, condominium units and commercial buildings. Exodus obtained from Dutch Boy Philippines, Inc. (Dutch Boy) a contract for the painting of the Imperial Sky Garden located at Ongpin Street, Binondo, Manila. Dutch Boy awarded another contract to Exodus for the painting of Pacific Plaza Towers in Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City. Exodus hired Guillermo Biscocho, Fernando Pereda, Ferdinand Mariano and were assigned at the Imperial Sky Garden, Gregorio Bellita was assigned to work at the house of Mr. Teofilo Yap in Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa City, and Miguel Bobillo, who, together with the four, was assigned Pacific Plaza Towers. Later, the five filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay and night-shift differential pay. Exodus denied the allegations and contended that Gregorio absented himself from work and applied as a painter with SAEI-EEI which is the general building contractor of Pacific Plaza Towers. Since then, he never reported back to work; Guillermo absented himself from work without leave. When he reported for work the following day, he was reprimanded for being Absent Without Official Leave (AWOL) and thereafter was unheard of until the filing of the instant complaint; and Fernando, Ferdinand, and Miguel were caught eating during working hours for which they were reprimanded by their foreman. Since then they no longer reported for work. The Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision exonerating petitioners from the charge of illegal dismissal as respondents chose not to report for work but ordered the reinstatement of the latter. Upon appeal to the NLRC, the latter dismissed the appeal. A petition for certiorari was filed before the CA and the CA dismissed the petition and affirmed the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. Hence, this appeal. Issue: Whether or not the respondents are non-project employees. Ruling: There are two types of employees in the construction industry. The first is referred to as project employees or those employed in connection with a particular construction project or phase thereof and such employment is coterminous with each project or phase of the project to which they are assigned. The second is known as non-project employees or those employed without reference to any particular construction project or phase of a project. The second category is where respondents are classified. As such they are regular employees of petitioners. It is clear from the records of the case that when one project is completed, respondents were automatically transferred to the next project awarded to petitioners. There was no employment agreement given to respondents which clearly spelled out the duration of their employment, the specific work to be performed and that such is made clear to them at the time of hiring. It is now too late for petitioners to claim that respondents are project employees whose employment is coterminous with each project or phase of the project to which they are assigned. Lynvil Fishing Enterprises, Inc. v. Andres Ariola, et al. Facts: Lynvil Fishing Enterprises, Inc. (Lynvil) is a company engaged in deep-sea fishing, operating along the shores of Palawan and other outlying islands of the Philippines. Lynvil received a report from Romanito Clarido, one of its employees, that he witnessed that while on board the company vessel Analyn VIII, Lynvil employees, namely: Andres G. Ariola (Ariola), the captain; Jessie D. Alcovendas (Alcovendas), Chief Mate; Jimmy B. Calinao (Calinao), Chief Engineer; Ismael G. Nubla (Nubla),

cook; Elorde Baez (Baez), oiler; and Leopoldo D. Sebullen (Sebullen), bodegero, conspired with one another and stole eight (8) tubs of pampano and tangigue fish and delivered them to another vessel, to the prejudice of Lynvil. The said employees were engaged on a per trip basis or por viaje which terminates at the end of each trip. By reason of the report and after initial investigation, Lynvils General Manager terminated their employment. Aggrieved, the employees filed with the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission-National Capital Region a complaint for illegal dismissal with claims for backwages, salary differential reinstatement, service incentive leave, holiday pay and its premium and 13th month pay. Labor Arbiter Ramon Valentin C. Reyes found merit in complainants charge of illegal dismissal. On appeal, the NLRC reversed and set aside the Decision of the Labor Arbiter. The private respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of NLRC. The Court of Appeals found merit in the petition and reinstated the Decision of the Labor Arbiter. Hence, this appeal. Issue: When is a fixed-term contract considered proper. Ruling: Jurisprudence, laid two conditions for the validity of a fixed-contract agreement between the employer and employee: First, 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 Second, 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. Textually, the provision that: NA ako ay sumasang-ayon na maglingkod at gumawa ng mga gawain sang-ayon sa patakarang por viaje na magmumula sa pagalis sa Navotas papunta sa pangisdaan at pagbabalik sa pondohan ng lantsa sa Navotas, Metro Manila is for a fixed period of employment. Canadian Opportunities Unlimited, Inc. v. Bart Dalangin, Jr. Facts: Bart Q. Dalangin, Jr. filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, with prayer for reinstatement and backwages, as well as damages and attorneys fees, against Canadian Opportunities Unlimited, Inc. The company, based in Pasong Tamo, Makati City, provides assistance and related services to applicants for permanent residence in Canada. Dalangin was hired by the company only in the previous month as Immigration and Legal Manager. He was placed on probation for six months. His tasks involved principally the review of the clients applications for immigration to Canada to ensure that they are in accordance with Canadian and Philippine laws. The company terminated Dalangins employment, declaring him unfit and unqualified to continue as Immigration and Legal Manager, for the following reasons: Obstinacy and utter disregard of company policies; Declined to attend company sponsored activities, seminars intended to familiarize company employees with Management objectives and enhancement of company interest and objectives; lack of enthusiasm toward work; and lack of interest in fostering relationship with his co-employees. The NLRC upheld the dismissal as it was, it declared, in the exercise of the companys management prerogative. On the other hand, the CA found that the dismissal was not supported by substantial evidence and that the company did not allow Dalangin to prove that he had the qualifications to meet the companys standards for his regular

employment. Issue: Whether Dalangin, a probationary employee, was validly dismissed. Ruling: The trial period or the length of time the probationary employee remains on probation depends on the parties agreement, but it shall not exceed six (6) months under Article 281 of the Labor Code, unless it is covered by an apprenticeship agreement stipulating a longer period. Article 281 provides: 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. In separating Dalangin from the service before the situation got worse, we find the company not liable for illegal dismissal. Armando Ailing v. Jose Feliciano, Manuel San Mateo III, et al. Facts: Wide Wide World Express Corporation (WWWEC) offered to employ Armando Aliling (Aliling) as Account Executive. The offer came with a six (6)-month probation period condition with this express caveat: Performance during probationary period shall be made as basis for confirmation to Regular or Permanent Status. Training then started. WWWEC asked Aliling to handle Ground Express (GX), a new company product involving domestic cargo forwarding service for Luzon. Marketing this product and finding daily contracts for it formed the core of Alilings new assignment. Barely a month after, Manuel F. San Mateo III (San Mateo), WWWEC Sales and Marketing Director, emailed Aliling to express dissatisfaction with the latters performance. Lariosa wrote to advise Aliling of the termination of his services effective as of that date owing to his non-satisfactory performance during his probationary period. Ailing filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter, in turn, issued a Decision declaring Alilings termination as unjustified. Both parties appealed the above decision to the NLRC, which affirmed the Decision in toto. Aliling went on certiorari to the CA and affirmed the findings of NLRC and ruled that petitioner was a regular employee from the outset inasmuch as he was not informed of the standards by which his probationary employment. Issue: Whether Ailing was deemed a regular employee. Ruling: Section 6(d) of the Implementing Rules of Book VI, Rule VIII-A of the Labor Code: (d) In all cases of probationary employment, the employer shall make known to the employee the standards under which he will qualify as a regular employee at the time of his engagement. Where no standards are made known to the employee at that time, he shall be deemed a regular employee. The labor arbiter, NLRC and the CA are agreed, on the basis of documentary evidence adduced, that respondent WWWEC did not inform petitioner Aliling of the reasonable standards by which his probation would be measured against at the time of his engagement.

Philippine Industrial Security Agency Corporation v. Aguinaldo Facts: Philippine Industrial Security Agency Corporation (PISAC) hired Percival Aguinaldo, , as a security guard. He was assigned to secure the premises of Far East Bank & Trust Company (FEBTC) Branch in Santiago City. He was promoted as Branch Head Guard. Later, Ms. Remy Tumamao, petitioners roving personnel, caught respondent without headgear and smoking while on duty. Respondent explained his side in a Memorandum, thus: I was not able to use my perching cap at that time because my hair is still wet. I was in complete attire before the incident but when I received an emergency call from our armor crew who, on that time has a cash transfer to Central Bank Tuguegarao Cagayan, I was informed that our armor car had a mechanical trouble. So even if it was raining, I called our Mechanic immediately residing beside our branch. Petitioner security agency issued a memorandum to respondent directing him to report to the FEBTC main office in Malabon City for investigation. The following day, petitioner issued a Relief Order ordering him to report to its head office for further clarification of his status, thus: You are hereby relieved from your post at FEBTC Br., Santiago City Issue: Whether or not there is a proper exercise of management prerogatives. Ruling: By transferring respondent to the Malabon City FEBTC Branch, petitioner resorted to constructive dismissal. A transfer amounts to constructive dismissal when the transfer is unreasonable, unlikely, inconvenient, impossible, or prejudicial to the employee, as in this case. It is defined as an involuntary resignation resorted when a clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee. In constructive dismissal, the employer has the burden of proving that the transfer and demotion of an employee are for just and valid grounds, such as genuine business necessity. In the case at bar, petitioner failed to overcome this burden of proof. Mendoza v. Rural Bank of Lucban Facts: The Board of Directors of the Rural Bank of Lucban, Inc., issued Board Resolution Nos. 99-52 and 99-53, which read: "'RESOLVED AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED' that in line with the policy of the bank to familiarize bank employees with the various phases of bank operations and further strengthen the existing internal control system, all officers and employees are subject to reshuffle of assignments. Moreover, this resolution does not preclude the transfer of assignment of bank officers and employees from the branch office to the head office and vice-versa. The new assignments were to "be effective on May 1, 1999 without changes in salary, allowances, and other benefits received by the aforementioned employees. Elmer Mendoza, wrote a letter stating that the reshuffling of the undersigned from the present position as Appraiser to Clerk-Meralco Collection is deemed to be a demotion without any legal basis. Petitioner filed a Complaint before Arbitration Branch of the NLRC and the labor arbiter's Decision upheld petitioner's claims. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the labor arbiter. Petitioner brought before the CA a Petition for Certiorari. The CA ruled that no grave abuse of discretion could be attributed to the NLRC. Hence, this appeal. Issue: Whether or not there is a proper exercise of management prerogatives.

Ruling: Petitioner's transfer was made in pursuit of respondent's policy to "familiarize bank employees with the various phases of bank operations and further strengthen the existing internal control system" of all officers and employees. We have previously held that employees may be transferred -- based on their qualifications, aptitudes and competencies -- to positions in which they can function with maximum benefit to the company. There appears no justification for denying an employer the right to transfer employees to expand their competence and maximize their full potential for the advancement of the establishment. Petitioner was not singled out; other employees were also reassigned without their express consent. Neither was there any demotion in the rank of petitioner; or any diminution of his salary, privileges and other benefits.