PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC., vs.
She then filed a case for illegal dismissal before the labor arbiter. On
ROSALINA C. ARCEO
DOCTRINE: A regular employee is one who is engaged to perform
activities that are necessary or desirable in the usual trade or
business of the employer or a casual employer who has rendered at
least 1 year of service, whether continuous or broken, with respect
to the activity in which he is employed.
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.
On 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.
On October 30, 1991 PLDT discharged ARCEO from employment.
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.
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.
LA 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.
NLRC affirmed the decision of the labor arbiter finding ARCEO
eligible to become a regular employee.
CA affirmed the decision of the NLRC.
ISSUE: WON ARCEO is eligible to become a regular employee of
PLDT
HELD: Yes
Reinstatement to an equivalent position of 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.

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.