[G.R. No.

149985 May 5, 2006]

PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, vs.
ROSALINA C. ARCEO,*** Respondent.
FACTS:
May 1990 ARCEO applied for the position of telephone operator with PLDT. She,
however, failed the pre-employment qualifying examination. Having failed the test,
ARCEO requested PLDT to allow her to work at the latters office even without pay.
PLDT agreed and assigned her to its commercial section where she was made to
perform various tasks like photocopying documents, sorting out telephone bills and
notices of disconnection, and other minor assignments and activities. After two
weeks, PLDT decided to pay her the minimum wage.
February 15, 1991 PLDT saw no further need for ARCEO's services and decided to
fire her but, through the intervention of PLDTs commercial section supervisor, she
was recommended for an on-the-job training on minor traffic work. When she failed
to assimilate traffic procedures, the company transferred her to auxiliary services, a
minor facility.
Subsequently, ARCEO took the pre-qualifying exams for the position of telephone
operator two more times but again failed in both attempts.
October 30, 1991 PLDT discharged ARCEO from employment. She then filed a case
for illegal dismissal before the labor arbiter. On May 11, 1993, the arbiter ruled in
her favor. PLDT was ordered to reinstate ARCEO to her former position or to an
equivalent position.
June 9, 1993 ARCEO was reinstated as casual employee with a minimum wage of
P106 per day. She was assigned to photocopy documents and sort out telephone
bills.
CAUSE OF ACTION:
September 3, 1996 (more than three years after her reinstatement) ARCEO filed a
complaint for unfair labor practice, underpayment of salary, underpayment of
overtime pay, holiday pay, rest day pay and other monetary claims. She alleged in
her complaint that, since her reinstatement, she had yet to be regularized and had
yet to receive the benefits due to a regular employee.
DECISION of the labor arbiter, NLRC, CA:
August 18, 1997 The labor arbiter ruled that ARCEO was already qualified to
become a regular employee. He also found that PLDT denied her all the benefits and
privileges of a regular employee.
November 28, 1997 The NLRC affirmed the decision of the labor arbiter finding
ARCEO eligible to become a regular employee.
June 29, 2001 The CA affirmed the decision of the NLRC.
ISSUE:
Does the proviso in Art. 280 of the Labor Code which regularizes a casual
employee who has rendered at least one year of service subject to the condition
that the employment subsists or the position still exists?
HELD

Reinstatement to an equivalent position PLDTs argument that respondents

position has been abolished, if indeed true, does not preclude ARCEOs becoming a
regular employee. The order to reinstate her also included the alternative to
reinstate her to a position equivalent thereto. Thus, PLDT can still regularize her
in an equivalent position.
PLDT failed to show position no longer subsists Moreover, PLDTs argument does
not hold water in the absence of proof that the activity in which ARCEO was
engaged (like photocopying of documents and sorting of telephone bills) no longer
subsists. Under Art. 280, any employee who has rendered at least one year of
service shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which
he is employed and his employment shall continue while such activity exists. For
PLDTs failure to show that the activity undertaken by ARCEO has been
discontinued, we are constrained to confirm her regularization in that position.
Date of regularization (when entitled to benefits) Considering that she has already
worked in PLDT for more than one year at the time she was reinstated, she should
be entitled to all the benefits of a regular employee from June 9, 1993 the day of
her actual reinstatement.