qLaborstandardsLaborStandardsLaborStan

dardsLaborstandardsLaborStandardsLabo
Labor Standards
rStandardsLaborstandardsLaborStandards
Employee Status
LaborStandardsLaborstandardsLaborStan
dardsLaborStandardsLaborstandardsLabo
rStandardsLaborStandardsLaborstandards
LaborStandardsLaborStandardsLaborstan
dardsLaborStandardsLaborStandardsLabo
rstandardsLaborStandardsLaborStandards
LaborstandardsLaborStandardsLaborStan
dardsLaborstandardsLaborStandardsLabo
rStandardsLaborstandardsLaborStandards
10/18/2014

Aimee Bernadette B. Quiones

Saturday 3-6PM
Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Name of the Parties

Case no.
Date

Petitioner:
KIMBERLY INDEPENDENT
LABOR UNION FOR
SOLIDARITY, ACTIVISM AND
NATIONALISM-ORGANIZED
LABOR ASSOCIATION IN
LINE INDUSTRIES AND
AGRICULTURE (KILUSANOLALIA), ROQUE JIMENEZ,
MARIO C. RONGALEROS
and OTHERS
Respondent:
HON. FRANKLIN M. DRILON,
KIMBERLY-CLARK
PHILIPPINES, INC.,
RODOLFO POLOTAN, doing
business under the firm
name "Rank Manpower
Co." and UNITED
KIMBERLY-CLARK
EMPLOYEES UNIONPHILLIPPINE TRANSPORT
AND GENERAL WORKERS
ORGANIZATION (UKCEUPTGWO)
Case No:
NS-5-164-86
Date:

What is the Business

of the Respondents
Company?

What is the nature of

work of the
workers/employee?

What type of
employee is the
petioner/respondent?
(Reason)
They are regular employees.

The CBA between

Kimberly-Clark
Philippines, Inc. and
United KimberlyClark Employees
Union-Philippine
Transport and
General Workers'
Organization
(UKCEU-PTGWO)
expired June 30,
1986.

Within the 60-day freedom

period prior to the
expiration of and during
the
negotiations for the
renewal of the
aforementioned CBA,
some members of the
bargaining unit formed
another union called
"Kimberly Independent
Labor Union for
Solidarity, Activism and
Nationalism- Organized
Labor Association in Line
Industries
and Agriculture (KILUSANOLALIA)

The law thus provides for

two. kinds of regular
employees, namely: (1)
those who are engaged to
perform activities which are
usually necessary or
desirable in the usual
business or trade of the
employer; and (2) those who
have rendered at least one
year of service, whether
continuous or broken, with
respect to the activity in
which they are employed.
The individual petitioners
herein who have been
adjudged to be regular
employees fall under the
second category. These are
the mechanics, electricians,
machinists machine shop
helpers, warehouse helpers,
painters, carpenters,
pipefitters and masons. It is
not disputed that these
workers have been in the
employ of KIMBERLY for
more than one year at the
time of the filing of the
Petition for certification
election by KILUSAN-OLALIA.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

To rule otherwise, and to instead make

their regularization dependent on the
happening of some contingency or the
fulfilment of certain requirements, is to
impose a burden on the employee which
is not sanctioned by law.
That the first stated position is the
situation contemplated and sanctioned by
law is further enhanced by the absence of
a statutory limitation before regular status
can be acquired by a casual employee. The
law is explicit. As long as the employee has
rendered at least one year of service, he
becomes a regular employee with respect
to the activity in which he is employed.
The law does not provide the qualification
that the employee must first be issued
a regular appointment or must first be
formally declared as such before he can
acquire a regular status. Obviously, where
the law does not distinguish, no distinction
should be drawn.
On the basis of the foregoing
circumstances, and as a consequence of
their status as regular employees, those
workers not perforce janitorial and yard
maintenance service were performance
entitled to the payment of salary
differential, cost of living allowance, 13th
month pay, and such other benefits
extended to regular employees under the
CBA, from the day immediately following
their first year of service in the company.

Name of the Parties

Case no.
Date

Petitioner:
POSEIDON FISHING/TERRY
DE JESUS
Respondent:
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION
and JIMMY S. ESTOQUIA
Case No:
CA-G.R. SP No. 81140
Date:
February 20, 2006

What is the Business

of the Respondents
Company?

Petitioner Poseidon
Fishing is a fishing
company engaged in
the deep-sea fishing
industry. Its various
vessels catch fish in
the outlying islands
of the Philippines,
which are traded and
sold at the Navotas
Fish Port. One of its
boat
crew
was
private respondent
Jimmy S. Estoquia.
Petitioner Terry de
Jesus is the manager
of
petitioner
company.

What is the nature of

work of the
workers/employee?

Private respondent was

employed by Poseidon
Fishing in January 1988 as
Chief Mate. After five
years, he was promoted to
Boat Captain. In 1999,
petitioners, without
reason, demoted
respondent from Boat
Captain to Radio Operator
of petitioner Poseidon.

What type of
employee is the
petioner/respondent?
(Reason)

REGULAR
EMPLOYEE.
Asserting their right to
terminate the contract with
private respondent per the
"Kasunduan" with him,
petitioners pointed to the
provision thereof stating
that he was being employed
only on a por viaje basis
and that his employment
would be terminated at the
end of the trip for which he
was being hired.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

In the case under consideration, the

agreement has such an objective - to
frustrate the security of tenure of private
respondent- and fittingly, must be
nullified. In this case, petitioners intent to
evade the application of Article 280 of the
Labor Code is unmistakable. In a span of
12 years, private respondent worked for
petitioner company first as a Chief Mate,
then Boat Captain, and later as Radio
Operator. His job was directly related to
the deep-sea fishing business of petitioner
Poseidon. His work was, therefore,
necessary and important to the business
of his employer. Such being the scenario
involved, private respondent is considered
a regular employee of petitioner under
Article 280 of the Labor Code.
Furthermore, as petitioners themselves
admitted in their petition before this
Court, private respondent was repeatedly
hired as part of the boats crew and he
acted in various capacities onboard the
vessel.
In fine, inasmuch as private respondents
functions as described above are no doubt
"usually necessary or desirable in the
usual business or trade" of petitioner
fishing company and he was hired
continuously for 12 years for the same
nature of tasks, we are constrained to say
that he belongs to the ilk of regular
employee.

Name of the Parties

Case no.
Date

What is the Business

of the Petitioner/
Respondents
Company?

Petitioner:
HIGHWAY COPRA TRADERS
and/or GERSON DULANG
(owneroperator)/LUZVIMINDA
DULANG
Respondent:
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION Cagayan de Oro, and
DAVID EMPEYNADO
Case No:
G.R. No. 108889
Date:
July 30, 1998

Business of trading
copra and
charcoal.

What is the nature of

work of the
workers/employee?

David Empeynado was

employed as a general
utility man by petitioners
in their business of
trading copra and
charcoal with a daily
wage of P35.00. Private
respondents work
consisted of weighing
copra or charcoal,
bagging copra for
loading and ascertaining
the moisture content
thereof. He was likewise
a multi-purpose
handyman since he
worked as a driver of
petitioners trucks, a
mechanic and a
messenger to follow-up
petitioners contracts
with other companies, to
register their vehicles, to
pay their taxes, and to
collect and receive
payments in their behalf.

What type of
employee is the
petioner/respondent?
(Reason)

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The primary standard, therefore, of

determining a regular employment is the
reasonable connection between the
particular activity performed by the
employee in relation to the usual business
or trade of the employer, i.e. if the work is
usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer. The
connection can be determined by
considering the nature of the work
performed and its relation to the scheme
of the particular business or trade in its
entirety.
He is a regular employee
pursuant to the first
paragraph of Article 280 of
the Labor Code

The factual milieu of this case

undisputably shows that private
respondent was a regular employee of
petitioners copra business. Article 280 of
the Labor Code[5] describes a regular
employee as one who is either (1)
engaged to perform activities which are
necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer; and (2)
those casual employees who have
rendered at least one year of service,
whether continuous or broken, with
respect to the activity in which he is
employed.
Complainant David Empeynado a regular
employee and his termination from the
service held as illegal

Name of the Parties

Case no.
Date

Petitioner:
ALU-TUCP, Representing
Members: ALAN
BARINQUE, with 13 others,
namely: ENGR. ALAN G.
BARINQUE, ENGR. DARRELL
LEE ELTAGONDE, EDUARD
H. FOOKSON, JR., ROMEO
R. SARONA, RUSSELL
GACUS, JERRY BONTILAO,
EUSEBIO MARIN, JR.,
LEONIDO ECHAVEZ,
BONIFACIO MEJOS, EDGAR
S. BONTUYAN, JOSE G.
GARGUENA, JR., OSIAS B.
DANDASAN, and GERRY I.
FETALVER
Respondent:
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION
and NATIONAL STEEL
CORPORATION (NSC)
Case No:
G.R. No. 109902
Date:
August 2, 1994

What is the Business

of the Respondents
Company?

Producer of billets,
the raw materials for
rebars and wire rods,
NSC was the
dominant flat-rolled
producer in the
Philippines and was
the countrys only
tinplate producer

What is the nature of

work of the
workers/employee?

National Steel Corporation

(NSC) employed
petitioners in connection
with its Five Year
Expansion Program. It
undertook this program
with the end in view of
expanding the volume and
increasing the kinds of
products that it may offer
for sale to the public.

What type of
employee is the
petioner/respondent?
(Reason)

Petitioners were properly

characterized as project
employees. A project
employee is assigned to
carry out a specific project
or undertaking wherein the
duration and scope of such
is determined at the time
the employee was engaged
for that project.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The case at bar falls on the second type of

project activity. The carrying out of the
Five Year Expansion Program constitutes a
distinct undertaking identifiable from the
ordinary business and activity of NSC. Each
component project, of course, begins and
ends at specified times which had already
been determined by the time petitioners
were engaged. During the time petitioners
rendered services to NSC, their work was
limited to one or another of the specific
component projects which made up the
Five Year Expansion Program. They were
not hired or assigned to any other
purpose.
The services of these project employees may be
lawfully terminated at the completion of the project. It
is dependent and coterminous with the completion
or termination of the specific undertaking or activity
for which the employee was hired which has been
pre-determined at the time of the engagement.
Furthermore, the length of service of a project
employee is not the controlling test of employment of
tenure. The simple fact that the employment of
petitioners as project employees had gone beyond
one year does not detract from or legally dissolve
their status as project employees. Whichever type of
project employment is found in a particular case, a
common basic requisite is that the designation of
named employees as "project employees" and their
assignment to a specific project, are effected and
implemented in good faith, and not merely as a
means of evading otherwise applicable requirements
of labor laws.

Name of the Parties

Case no.
Date

Petitioner:
TOMAS LAO
CONSTRUCTION, LVM
CONSTRUCTION
CORPORATION, THOMAS
and JAMES DEVELOPERS
(PHIL.), INC.
Respondent:
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION,
MARIO O. LABENDIA, SR.,
ROBERTO LABENDIA,
NARCISO ADAN,
FLORENCIO GOMEZ,
ERNESTO BAGATSOLON,
SALVADOR BABON,
PATERNO BISNAR,
CIPRIANO BERNALES,
ANGEL MABULAY, SR., LEO
SURIGAO, and ROQUE
MORILLO
Case No:
G.R. No. 116781
Date:
September 5, 1997

What is the Business

of the Respondents
Company?

What is the nature of work

of the workers/employee?

What type of
employee is the
petioner/respondent?
(Reason)

REGULAR EMPLOYEES.
Tomas Lao
Corporation (TLC),
Thomas and James
Developers (T&J)
and LVM
Construction
Corporation (LVM),
altogether informally
referred to as the
Lao Group of
Companies, the
three (3) entities
comprising a
business
conglomerate
exclusively
controlled and
managed by
members of the Lao
family.
TLC, T&J and LVM
are engaged in the
construction of
public roads and
bridges.

The principal test in

determining whether
They were hired for various
particular employees are
periods as construction
project employees
workers in different
distinguished from
capacities they described
regular employees is
their contractual terms as
whether the project
follows: (a) Roberto
employees are assigned
Labendia, general
to carry out specific
construction foreman,
project or undertaking,
Narciso Adan, tireman, (c)
the duration (and scope)
Florencio Gomez, welder,(d) of which are specified at
Ernesto Bagatsolon
the time the employees
leadman/checker,(e)
are engaged for the
Salvador Babon,
project. Project in the
clerk/timekeeper/paymaster, realm of business and
industry refers to a
(f) Paterno Bisnar, road
grader operator, (g) Cipriano particular job or
undertaking that is within
Bernales, instrument man,
(h) Angel Mabulay, Sr., dump the regular or usual
business of employer, but
truck driver (I) Leo Surigao,
payloader operator (J) Mario which is distinct and
separate and identifiable
Labendia, Sr.
as such from the
surveyor/foreman (k) Roque
undertakings of the
Morillo, company watchman, company. Such job or
undertaking begins and
ends at determined or
determinable times

Ruling of the Supreme Court

While it may be allowed that in the

instant case the workers were initially
hired for specific projects or undertakings
of the company and hence can be
classified as project employees, the
repeated re-hiring and the continuing
need for their services over a long span
of time (the shortest, at seven [7] years)
have undeniably made them regular
employees. Thus, we held that where
the employment of project employees is
extended long after the supposed project
has been finished, the employees are
removed from the scope of project
employees and considered regular
employees.
While length of time may not be a
controlling test for project employment,
it can be a strong factor in determining
whether the employee was hired for a
specific undertaking or in fact tasked to
perform functions which are vital,
necessary and indispensable to the usual
business or trade of the employer. In the
case at bar, private respondents had
already gone through the status of
project employees. But their
employments became non-coterminous
with specific projects when they started
to be continuously re-hired due to the
demands of petitioners business and
were re-engaged for many more projects
without interruption.

Name of the Parties

Case no.
Date

What is the Business

of the Respondents
Company?

What is the nature of

work of the
workers/employee?

What type of
employee is the
petioner/respondent?
(Reason)

Petitioner:
ABESCO CONSTRUCTION
AND
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
and MR. OSCAR BANZON,
General Manager
Respondent:
ALBERTO RAMIREZ,
BERNARDO
DIWA, MANUEL LOYOLA,
REYNALDO P. ACODESIN,
ALEXANDER BAUTISTA,
EDGAR TAJONERA and
GARY DISON
Case No:
G.R. No. 141168
Date:
April 10, 2006

ABESCO
CONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION is a
company engaged in a
construction business

Respondents were hired

on different dates from
1976 to 1992 either as
laborers, road roller
operators, painters or
drivers

Respondents are regular

employees. Duration as well
as particular work/service to
be performed must be
defined in an Employment
Agreement and is made
clear to the employees at
the time of hiring.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The principal test for determining whether

employees are project employees or
regular employees is whether they are
assigned to carry out a specific project or
undertaking, the duration and scope of
which are specified at the time they are
engaged for that project.[10] Such
duration, as well as the particular
work/service to be performed, is defined
in an employment agreement and is made
clear to the employees at the time of
hiring.
Petitioners failed to comply with this
requirement. Petitioners inconsistent and
conflicting position on their true relation
with the respondents made it all the more
evident that the latter were indeed their
regular employees. Petitioner failed to
adhere the two-notice rule: (1) a notice
informing them of the particular acts for
which they are being dismissed and; (2) a
notice advising them of the decision to
terminate the employment. Respondents
were never given such notices. Petition is
denied.

Name of the Parties

Case no.
Date

What is the Business

of the Respondents
Company?

Petitioner:
BRENT SCHOOL, INC., and
REV. GABRIEL DIMACHE
Respondent:
RONALDO ZAMORA, the
Presidential Assistant for
Legal Affairs, Office of the
President, and DOROTEO
R. ALEGRE,
Case No:
G.R. No. L-48494
Date:
February 5, 1990

Brent
Schoolinternational
school.

What is the nature of

work of the
workers/employee?

Private respondent
Doroteo R. Alegre was
engaged as athletic
director by petitioner
Brent School, Inc. at a
yearly compensation of
P20,000.00. The contract
fixed a specific term for its
existence, five (5) years,
i.e., from July 18, 1971, the
date of execution of the
agreement, to July 17,
1976.

What type of
employee is the
petioner/respondent?
(Reason)

Probationary employmee
Probationary employment
shall not exceed six 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 in 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.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

the Supreme Court laid out that Article

280 of the Labor Code appears to prevent
circumvention of the employees right to
be secure in his tenure, the clause in said
article indiscriminately and completely
ruling out all written or oral agreements
conflicting with the concept of regular
employment as defined therein should be
construed to refer to the substantive evil
that the Code itself has singled out:
agreements entered into precisely to
circumvent security of tenure. It should
have no application to instances where a
fixed period of employment was agreed
upon knowingly and voluntarily by the
parties, without any force, duress or
improper pressure being brought to bear
upon the employee and absent any other
circumstances vitiating his consent, or
where it satisfactorily appears that the
employer and employee dealt with each
other on more or less equal terms with no
moral dominance whatever being
exercised by the former over the latter.
Alegre's employment was terminated
upon the expiration of his last contract
with Brent School on July 16, 1976 without
the necessity of any notice. In any case,
such clearance should properly have been
given, not denied.

Name of the Parties

Case no.
Date

What is the Business

of the Respondents
Company?

Petitioner:
PURE FOODS
CORPORATION
Respondent:
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION,
RODOLFO CORDOVA,
VIOLETA CRUSIS, ET AL.
Case No:
RAB-11-08-50284-91
Date:
December 12, 1997

Company dealing
with the exportation
and selling of tuna
fish, meats etc.

What is the nature of

work of the
workers/employee?

The private respondents

(numbering 906) were
hired by petitioner Pure
Foods Corporation to work
for a fixed period of five
months at its tuna cannery
plant in Tambler, General
Santos City.
the private respondents'
activities consisted in the
receiving, skinning, loining,
packing, and casing-up of
tuna fish which were then
exported by the petitioner

What type of
employee is the
petitioner/respondent?
(Reason)

Ruling of the Supreme Court

ART. 280. Regular and Casual Employment.-The provisions of written agreement to the
contrary notwithstanding and regardless of
the oral argument of the parties, an
employment shall be deemed to be regular
REGULAR EMPLOYEE
where the employee has been engaged to
Contrary to petitioner's
perform activities which are usually
submission, the private
necessary or desirable in the usual business
respondents could not be
or trade of the employer, except where the
regarded as having been
employment has been fixed for a specific
hired for a specific project or project or undertaking the completion or
undertaking. The term
termination of which has been determined
specific project or
at the time of the engagement of the
undertaking under Article
employee or where the work or services to
280 of the Labor Code
be performed is seasonal in nature and the
contemplates an activity
employment is for the duration of the
which is not commonly or
season.
habitually performed or such An employment shall be deemed to be
type of work which is not
casual if it is not covered by the preceding
done on a daily basis but
paragraph; Provided, That, any employee
only for a specific duration
who has rendered at least one year of
of time or until completion;
service, whether such service is continuous
the services employed are
or broken, shall be considered a regular
then necessary and desirable employee with respect to the activity in
in the employers usual
which he is employed and his employment
business only for the period shall continue while such activity exists.
of time it takes to complete
In the instant case, the private respondents
the project.
activities consisted in the receiving, skinning,
loining, packing, and casing-up of tuna fish
which were then exported by the petitioner.
Indisputably, they were performing activities
which were necessary and desirable in
petitioners business or trade.

Name of the Parties

Case no.
Date

Petitioner:
PHILEX MINING
CORPORATION
Respondent:
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION,
ROSELLA AUSTRIA, LINA
TAMONDONG, CORNELIO
BORJA, JR. and GERALD
DELA CRUZ
Case No:
G.R. No. 125132
Date:
August 10, 1999

What is the Business

of the Respondents
Company?

What is the nature of

work of the
workers/employee?

Philex Mining
Corporation and its
subsidiaries are
organized into two
main business
groupings: the
metals business
under Philex Mining
and the energy and
hydrocarbon
business under
Philex Petroleum
Corporation

Private respondents
Rosella Austria and Lina
Tamondong, both licensed
chemical engineers,
alleged that they
undertook training at the
Assay/Metallurgical
Department of Philex
Mining Corporation from
October 1987 to March
1988. After completing
their training, both Austria
and Tamondong were
supposedly hired by
petitioner in June 1988 as
Geochemical Aides,
performing the regular
duties of the Atomic
Absorption Spectometer
(AAS) technicians. Private
respondents Cornelio
Borja, an Electrical
Technician graduate, and
Gerald dela Cruz, a
licensed Mechanical
Engineer, on the other
hand, claimed that they
were hired by petitioner
on January 24 and 25,
1989, respectively. Borja
and dela Cruz were
assigned to work in
petitioners Metallurgical
Department.

What type of
employee is the
petioner/respondent?
(Reason)

Regular Employees.
Private respondents
functions as described above
are no doubt usually
necessary or desirable in the
usual business or trade of
petitioner-mining company.
Consequently, the NLRC
should not have denied
private respondents claim
to rights and benefits
attached to such status
pursuant to petitioners
collective bargaining
agreement.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

Project employees are those workers

hired (1) for a specific project or
undertaking, and (2) the completion or
termination of such project has been
determined at the time of the
engagement of the employee.The
principal test for determining whether
particular employees as project
employees as distinguished from regular
employees, is whether or not the
project employees were assigned to
carry out a specific project or
undertaking, the duration and scope of
which were specified at the time the
employees were engaged for that
project.In this case, petitioner has not
shown that private respondents were
informed that they were to be assigned to
a specific project or undertaking.
Neither has it been established that they
were informed of the duration and scope
of such project or undertaking at the time
of their engagement, that is, on June 1988
on the part of Austria and Tamondong,
and on January 1989 in the case of Borja
and de la Cruz. Private respondents were
informed thereof only much later on April
1989.

Name of the Parties

Case no.
Date

What is the Business

of the Respondents
Company?

What is the nature of

work of the
workers/employee?

Petitioner:
PHILIPPINE FRUIT &
VEGETABLE INDUSTRIES,
INC. and its President and
General Manager, MR.
PEDRO CASTILLO
Respondent:
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION,
and Philippine Fruit and
Vegetable Workers UnionTupas Local Chapter
Case No:
G.R. No. 122122
Date:
July 20, 1999

The respondent
company which is
engaged in the
manufacture and
processing of fruit
and vegetable
purees for export.

Complainants as seeders,
operators, sorters, slicers,
janitors, drivers, truck
helpers, mechanics and
office personnel

What type of
employee is the
petioner/respondent?
(Reason)

The SC held that private

respondents are regular
employees because they
have been engaged to
perform activities which
are usually necessary or
desirable in the usual
business or trade of the
employer, under the 1st
par of Article 280.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

In the case at bar, the work of

complainants as seeders, operators,
sorters, slicers, janitors, drivers, truck
helpers, mechanics and office personnel is
without doubt necessary in the usual
business of a food processing company
like petitioner PFVII.
It should be noted that complainants'
employment has not been fixed for a
specific project or undertaking the
completion or termination of which has
been determined at the time of their
appointment or hiring. Neither is their
employment seasonal in nature. While it
may be true that some phases of
petitioner company's processing
operations is dependent on the supply of
fruits for a particular season, the other
equally important aspects of its business,
such as manufacturing and marketing are
not seasonal. The fact is that large-scale
food processing companies such as
petitioner company continue to operate
and do business throughout the year even
if the availability of fruits and vegetables is
seasonal.
Having determined that private
respondents are regular employees under
the first paragraph, we need not dwell on
the question of whether or not they had
rendered one year of service.

Name of the Parties

Case no.
Date

Petitioner:
Edwin Abasolo
Respondent:
NLRC
Case No:
G.R. No. 118475.
Date:
November 29, 2000

What is the Business

of the Respondents
Company?

What is the nature of

work of the
workers/employee?

Private respondent
La Union Tobacco
Redrying
Corporation
(LUTORCO), which
is owned by private
respondent See Lin
Chan, is engaged
in the business of
buying, selling,
redrying and
processing of
tobacco leaves and
its by-products.

Petitioners have been

under the employ of
LUTORCO for several years
until their employment
with LUTORCO was
abruptly interrupted
sometime in March 1993
when Compania General
de Tabaccos de Filipinas
(also known as
TABACALERA) took over
LUTORCOs tobacco
operations. New
signboards were posted
indicating a change of
ownership and petitioners
were then asked by
LUTORCO to file their
respective applications for
employment with
TABACALERA. Petitioners
were caught unaware of
the sudden change of
ownership and its effect on
the status of their
employment, though it
was alleged that
TABACALERA would
assume and respect the
seniority rights of the
petitioners.

What type of
employee is the
petioner/respondent?
(Reason)

REGULAR EMPLOYEE
he nature of ones
employment does not
depend solely on the will or
word of the employer. Nor
on the procedure for hiring
and the manner of
designating the employee,
but on the nature of the
activities to be performed by
the employee, considering
the employers nature of
business and the duration
and scope of work to be
done

Ruling of the Supreme Court

In the case at bar, while it may appear that

the work of petitioners is seasonal,
inasmuch as petitioners have served the
company for many years, some for over 20
years, performing services necessary and
indispensable to LUTORCOs business,
serve as badges of regular
employment.[27] Moreover, the fact that
petitioners do not work continuously for
one whole year but only for the duration
of the tobacco season does not detract
from considering them in regular
employment since in a litany of cases[28]
this Court has already settled that
seasonal workers who are called to work
from time to time and are temporarily laid
off during off-season are not separated
from service in said period, but are merely
considered on leave until re-employed.
Private respondent La Union Tobacco
Redrying Corporation is ORDERED:
(a) to pay petitioners separation pay
equivalent to one (1) month, or onehalf (1/2) month pay for each year that
they rendered service, whichever is
higher, provided that they rendered
service for at least six (6) months in a
given year, and; (b) to pay ten percent
(10%) of the total amount due to
petitioners, as and for attorneys fees.

Name of the Parties

Case no.
Date
Petitioner:
FORTUNATO MERCADO,
SR., ROSA MERCADO,
FORTUNATO MERCADO,
JR., ANTONIO MERCADO,
JOSE CABRAL, LUCIA
MERCADO, ASUNCION
GUEVARA, ANITA
MERCADO, MARINA
MERCADO, JULIANA
CABRAL, GUADALUPE
PAGUIO, BRIGIDA
ALCANTARA, EMERLITA
MERCADO, ROMEO
GUEVARA, ROMEO
MERCADO and LEON
SANTILLAN
Respondent:
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION
(NLRC), THIRD DIVISION;
LABOR ARBITER LUCIANO
AQUINO, RAB-III; AURORA
L. CRUZ; SPOUSES
FRANCISCO DE BORJA and
LETICIA DE BORJA; and STO.
NIO REALTY,
INCORPORATED
Case No:
G.R. No. 79869
Date:
September 5, 1991

What is the Business

of the Respondents
Company?

What is the nature of

work of the
workers/employee?

What type of
employee is the
petioner/respondent?
(Reason)

SEASONAL EMPLOYEE

The nature of the terms

and conditions of their
hiring reveal that they
were required to perform
phases of agricultural work
for a definite period of
time after which their
services would be available
to any other farm owner.

The first paragraph answers

the question of who are
employees. It states that,
regardless of any written or
oral agreement to the
contrary, an employee is
deemed regular where he is
engaged in necessary or
desirable activities in the
usual business or trade of
the employer, except for
project employees.
A project employee has
been defined to be one
whose employment has
been fixed for a specific
project or undertaking, the
completion or termination
of which has been
determined at the time of
the engagement of the
employee, or where the
work or service to be
performed is seasonal in
nature and the employment
is for the duration of the
season as in the present
case.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The general rule is that the office of a

proviso is to qualify or modify only the
phrase immediately preceding it or
restrain or limit the generality of the
clause that it immediately follows. Thus, it
has been held that a proviso is to be
construed with reference to the
immediately preceding part of the
provision to which it is attached, and not
to the statute itself or to other sections
thereof. The only exception to this rule is
where the clear legislative intent is to
restrain or qualify not only the phrase
immediately preceding it (the proviso) but
also earlier provisions of the statute or
even the statute itself as a whole.
The second paragraph of Art. 280
demarcates as "casual" employees, all
other employees who do not fan under
the definition of the preceding paragraph.
The proviso, in said second paragraph,
deems as regular employees those
"casual" employees who have rendered at
least one year of service regardless of the
fact that such service may be continuous
or broken.
Petitioners, in effect, contend that the
proviso in the second paragraph of Art.
280 is applicable to their case and that the
Labor Arbiter should have considered
them regular by virtue of said proviso. The
contention is without merit.

Name of the Parties

Case no.
Date

What is the Business

of the Respondents
Company?

What is the nature of

work of the
workers/employee?

What type of
employee is the
petioner/respondent? (Reason)
PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE
There is no dispute that private
respondent was terminated
during her probationary
period of employment for failure
to qualify as a regular member of
petitioner's teaching staff in
accordance
with its reasonable standards

Petitioner:
INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC
MIGRATION COMMISSION,
Respondent:
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION
and BERNADETTE GALANG
Case No:
NLRC NCR-8-3786-83
Date:
January 30, 1989

Petitioner
International
Catholic Migration
Commission (ICMC),
a non-profit
organization
dedicated to
refugee service at
the Philippine
Refugee Processing
Center in Morong,
Bataan

Probationary cultural
orientation teacher
with a
monthly salary of
P2,000.00

A probationary employee, as
understood under Article 282
(now Article 281) of the Labor
Code, is one
who is on trial by an employer
during which the employer
determines whether or not he is
qualified for permanent
employment. A probationary
appointment is made to afford
the employer an opportunity to
observe the fitness of a
probationer while at work, and to
ascertain whether he will
become a proper and efficient
employee. The word
"probationary", as used to
describe the period of
employment, implies the purpose
of the term or period, but not its
length.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

Being in the nature of a "trial period" the

essence of a probationary period of
employment fundamentally lies in the
purpose or objective sought to be attained
by both the employer and the employee
during said period. The length of time is
immaterial in determining the correlative
rights of both in dealing with each other
during said period. While the employer, as
stated earlier, observes the fitness,
propriety and efficiency of a probationer
to ascertain whether he is qualified for
permanent employment, the probationer,
on the other, seeks to prove to the
employer, that he has the qualifications to
meet the reasonable standards for
permanent employment.
It is well settled that the employer has the
right or is at liberty to choose who will be
hired and who will be denied
employment. In that sense, it is within the
exercise of the right to select his
employees that theemployer may set or
fix a probationary period within which the
latter may test and observe the conduct of
the former before hiring him permanently.
Probationary employment shall not
exceed six months from
the date the employee started working,
unless it is covered by an apprenticeship
agreement
stipulating a longer period.

Name of the Parties

Case no.
Date

What is the Business

of the Respondents
Company?

What is the nature of

work of the
workers/employee?

Petitioner:
ESPERANZA C. ESCORPIZO,
and UNIVERSITY OF
BAGUIO FACULTY
EDUCATION WORKERS
UNION
Respondent:
UNIVERSITY OF BAGUIO
and VIRGILIO C. BAUTISTA
and NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION
Case No:
RAB - CAR - 07-0217-92
Date:
April 30, 1999

University of Baguio
is a non-profit
educational
institution

Petitioner Esperanza
Escorpizo was initially
hired by respondent
university on June 13, 1989
as a high school classroom
teacher.

What type of
employee is the
petioner/respondent?
(Reason)

Probationary Employee
A probationary employee is
one who, for a given period
of time, is being observed
and evaluated to determine
whether or not he is
qualified for permanent
employment. A probationary
appointment affords the
employer an opportunity to
observe the skill,
competence and attitude of
a probationer.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

the rules of the university clearly states

that the first two years at the University is
probationary in nature and the following
conditions must concur in order that a
probationary teacher may be extended a
regular appointment; (1) the faculty
member must satisfactorily complete the
probationary period of four semesters or
two years, within which his performance
shall be observed and evaluated for the
purpose of determining his competency
and fitness to be extended permanent
status; and (2) the faculty member must
pass the PBET or an equivalent civil service
examination. Escorpizo failed to meet the
2nd requirement to be a regular employee
which is to pass the PBET.
- Though the CBA does not mention that
passing the PBET is a prerequisite for
attaining permanent status as a teacher.
Nevertheless, the aforecited CBA provision
must be read in conjunction with statutory
and administrative regulations governing
faculty qualifications.It is settled that an
existing law enters into and forms part of
a valid contract without the need for the
parties expressly making reference to it.
Further, while contracting parties may
establish such stipulations, clauses, terms
and conditions as they may see fit, such
right to contract is subject to limitation
that the agreement must not be contrary
to law or public policy.

Name of the Parties

Case no.
Date

What is the Business

of the Respondents
Company?

What is the nature of

work of the
workers/employee?

Petitioner:
RADIN C. ALCIRA
Respondent:
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION,
MIDDLEBY PHILIPPINES
CORPORATION/FRANK
THOMAS, XAVIER G. PEA
and TRIFONA F.
MAMARADLO
Case No:
G.R. No. 149859
Date:
June 9, 2004

Family of food
service and food
preparation
equipment brands

Respondent Middleby
Philippines Corporation
hired petitioner as
engineering support
services supervisor on a
probationary basis for six
months.

What type of
employee is the
petioner/respondent?
(Reason)

Probationary Employee
Section 6 (d) of Rule 1 of the
Implementing Rules of Book
VI of the Labor Code
(Department Order No. 10,
Series of 1997) provides
that: 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.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

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. We hold that
respondent Middle by substantially
notified petitioner of the standards to
qualify as a regular employee when it
apprised him, at the start of his
employment, that it would evaluate his
supervisory skills after five months.
Conversely, an employer is deemed to
substantially comply with the rule on
notification of standards if he apprises the
employee that he will be subjected to a
performance evaluation on a particular
date after his hiring.
In the instant case, petitioner cannot
successfully say that he was never
informed by private respondent of the
standards that he must satisfy in order to
be converted into regular status. It is only
but natural that the evaluation should be
made vis--vis the performance standards
for the job.