The Peninsula Manila v.

Alipio
G.R. No. 167310 | June 17, 2008| J. Quisumbing
Doctrine: An employment is deemed regular when the activities performed by the employee are usually necessary or
desirable in the usual business of the employer. However, any employee who has rendered at least 1 year of service, even
though intermittent, is deemed regular with respect to the activity performed and while such activity actually exists.
Petitioners: The Peninsula Manila, Rolf Pfisterer (General Manager) & Benilda Quevedo-Santos (HR Manager)
Respondent: Elaine Alipio
FACTS:

The Peninsula Manila (Manila Pen) operates a clinic 24 hours a day and employs 3 regular nurses who work 8 hours each
day on 3 separate shifts. It also engages the services of reliever nurses who substitute for the regular nurses who are
either off-duty or absent.

Alipio was hired as a reliever nurse. However, she had been performing the usual tasks and functions of a regular nurse
since the start of her employment on Dec. 11, 1993. Hence, after about 4 years, she inquired why she was not receiving
her 13th month pay.

Manila Pen then required her to submit a summary of her tour of duty for 1997. After submitting, she was paid her 13th
month pay for 1997. Alipio also requested for the payment of her 13th month pay for 1993 to 1996, but her request was
denied.

In 1998, Alipio was informed by a fellow nurse that she can only report for work after meeting up with the HR Manager
Quevedo- Santos. When asked regarding her payslip vouchers, she told her that she made copies of them because
Manila Pen does not give her copies. This response peeved Santos for she was allegedly not entitled to get copies of her
payslip vouchers. Santos thereafter directed Alipio not to report for work anymore, as a consequence of which the latter
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

Labor Arbiter: Dismissed the complaint for lack of merit but directed Manila Pen to pay separation pay for having served
as a reliever nurse for a long time.

NLRC: Affirmed with the modification of deleting the award of separation pay.

CA: Reversed. Ordered to:

o reinstate Alipio as regular staff nurse without loss of seniority rights;
o pay her full backwages and all the benefits under the Labor Code from December 12, 1994 up to the time of her
actual reinstatement
o moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award
ISSUE: WON Alipio was illegally dismissed. (my own words) YES.
RATIO:

The conclusions reached by the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter, that Alipio was not a regular employee of the hotel and that
she was validly dismissed, are not supported by law and evidence on record.

Under Art. 280 of LC, an employment is deemed regular when the activities performed by the employee are usually
necessary or desirable in the usual business of the employer. However, any employee who has rendered at least 1 year of
service, even though intermittent, is deemed regular with respect to the activity performed and while such activity actually
exists.
o In the case at bar, Alipio's services were engaged by the hotel intermittently from 1993 up to 1998. Her services as a
reliever nurse were undoubtedly necessary and desirable in the hotel's business of providing comfortable
accommodation to its guests. In any case, since she had rendered more than 1 year of intermittent service, she had
become a regular employee as early as December 12, 1994. Lastly, per the hotel's own Certification dated April 22,
1997, she was already a "regular staff nurse" until her dismissal.

Being a regular employee, Alipio enjoys security of tenure. Her services may be terminated only upon compliance with the
substantive and procedural requisites for a valid dismissal: (1) the dismissal must be for any of the causes provided in Art.
282 of LC, and (2) the employee must be given an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.
o In the case at bar, Alipio was illegally dismissed because Manila Pen failed to comply with the twin requisites for a
valid termination.
1) The dismissal was not based on a just cause - Misconduct is any forbidden act or dereliction of duty. Alipio's act
of obtaining copies of her payslips cannot be characterized as misconduct, much less a grave misconduct. On
the contrary, it is absurd that she had to resort to her own resourcefulness to get hold of these documents since it
was incumbent upon Manila Pen, as her employer, to give her copies of her payslips.
2) She was deprived of procedural due process - When Santos had a meeting with Alipio, she was not informed
that the hotel was contemplating her dismissal. Neither was she informed of the ground for which her dismissal
was sought. She was simply told right there and then that she was already dismissed, thereby affording no
opportunity for her to be heard and defend herself.