1.

FUJI In determining whether an employment should be considered regular or non-regular, the applicable test is the reasonable connection
TELEVISION between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer. The standard, supplied
NETWORK, INC. by the law itself, is whether the work undertaken is necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, a fact that can be
V ESPIRITU assessed by looking into the nature of the services rendered and its relation to the general scheme under which the business or trade is
pursued in the usual course. It is distinguished from a specific undertaking that is divorced from the normal activities required in carrying on
the particular business or trade. However, there may be a situation where an employee’s work is necessary but is not always desirable in the
usual course of business of the employer. In this situation, there is no regular employment.

2. HACIENDA What determines whether employment is regular or casual is NOT the will and word of ER, much less procedure of hiring or manner of paying
LEDDY/RICARDO salary. It is the NATURE of the activities performed in relation to particular business or trades considering all circumstances, and in some
GAMBOA, JR., cases the length of time of its performance and continued existence.
Petitioner, vs.
PAQUITA
VILLEGAS

3. FVR Skills and ▪ The primary standard in deterring regular employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity
Services performed by the EE and the ER's business. This connection can be ascertained by considering the nature of the work
("Skillex") v. performed and its relation to the business.
Seva ▪ ForanEEtobevalidlycategorizedasaprojectEE,itisnecessarythatthespecificprojecthadbeenidentifiedandmadeknown
to the EE at the time of his engagement to ensure the EE is completely aware of his employment status.
▪ Under DO 18-02, contractual EEs are regular EEs of the contractor. The contractor has primary liability for the enforcement of
claims under the LC.

4. Manalo v TNS Once a project employee has been continuously, as opposed to intermittently, rehired by the same employer for the same tasks or nature of
Philippines Inc. tasks and these tasks are vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer, then the employee must be
deemed a regular employee.

5. Basan v. Coca- Under the above Brent doctrine, while it was not expressly mentioned in the Labor Code, this Court has recognized a fixed-term type of
Cola Bottlers employment embodied in a contract specifying that the services of the employee shall be engaged only for a definite period, the termination
of which occurs upon the expiration of said period irrespective of the existence of just cause and regardless of the activity the employee is
called upon to perform. Considering, however, the possibility of abuse by employers in the utilization of fixed-term employment contracts,
this Court, in Brent, laid down the following criteria to prevent the circumvention of the employee’s security of tenure:
1) 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
2) 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.

6. Hacienda Jurisprudence has identified the three types of employees mentioned in the provision of the Labor Code: (1) regular employees or those who
Cataywa vs. have been engaged to perform activities that are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer; (2) project
Lorenzo employees or those whose employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, the completion or termination of which has
 been determined at the time of their engagement, or those whose work or service is seasonal in nature and is performed for the duration of
the season; and (3) casual employees or those who are neither regular
nor project employees
Farm workers generally fall under the definition of seasonal employee. It was also consistently held that seasonal employees may be
considered as regular employees when they are called to work from time to time. They are in regular employment because of the nature of
the job, and not because of the length of time they have worked. However, seasonal workers who have worked for one season only may not
be considered regular employees.

7. Zenaida Paz vs NTRCI engaged the services of Paz as a seasonal sorter and had been regularly rehired from 1974, until she was informed in
Northern 2003 that she was being retired under company policy. The services Paz performed as a sorter were necessary and indispensable to NTRCI’s
Tobacco business of flue-curing and redrying tobacco leaves. She was also regularly rehired as a sorter during the tobacco seasons for 29 years since
Redrying Co. 1974. These considerations taken together allowed the conclusion that Paz was a regular seasonal employee, entitled to rights under Art. 279
of the Labor Code:
Art. 279. Security of Tenure. In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just
cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of
seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent
computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.
8. DELA CRUZ v. Seafarers are not covered by the term regular employment, as defined under Article 280 of the Labor Code— they are considered contractual
MAERSK employees whose rights and obligations are governed primarily by the POEA Standard Employment Contract, the Rules and Regulations
FILIPINAS Governing Overseas Employment, and, more importantly, by R.A. No. 8042. It is an accepted maritime industry practice that the employment of
CREWING, INC. seafarers is for a fixed period only.
and ELITE
SHIPPING A.S.
9. Gadia, et. al. For an employee to be considered project-based, the employer must show compliance with two (2) requisites, that: (a) the employee was
v. Sykes Asia, et. assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking; and (b) the duration and scope of which were specified at the time they were
al., January 28, engaged for such project.
2015
10. LYNVIL Any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular
FISHING employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such activity exists.
ENTERPRISES,
INC. and/or
ROSENDO S. DE
BORJA vs.
ANDRES G.
ARIOLA,
11. Innodata While this Court has recognized the validity of fixed-term employment contracts in a number of cases, it has consistently emphasized that
Philippines, Inc. when the circumstances of a case show that the periods were imposed to block the acquisition of security of tenure, they should be struck
v. Jocelyn down for being contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.
Quejada-Lopez
and Estella
Natividad

12. Lacuesta v. Completing the probation period does not automatically qualify her to become a permanent employee of the university. Petitioner could only
Ateneo de qualify to become a permanent employee upon fulfilling the reasonable standards for permanent employment as faculty member. Consistent
Manila with academic freedom and constitutional autonomy, an institution of higher learning has the prerogative to provide standards for its
teachers and determine whether these standards have been met.

13. MT. Carmel A calendar year consists of 12 months, while a school year consists only of 10 months. A school year begins in June of one calendar year and
College, Bishop ends in March of the succeeding calendar year.
Labayen and
Salud vs. NLRC
and Baez.
14. Begino v. If the employee has been performing the job for at least one year, even if the performance is not continuous or merely intermittent, the law
ABS-CBN deems the repeated or continuing performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity, if not indispensability of that activity in the business.
15. JOSE Y. SONZA is not an employee but an independent contractor. The control test is the most important test our courts apply in
SONZA vs. ABS- distinguishing an employee from an independent contractor. This test is based on the extent of control the hirer exercises over a worker. The
CBN greater the supervision and control the hirer exercises, the more likely the worker is deemed an employee. The converse holds true as well
BROADCASTING the less control the hirer exercises, the more likely the worker is considered an independent contractor.
CORPORATION
In a labor-only contract, there are three parties involved: (1) the labor-only contractor; (2) the employee who is ostensibly under the employ
of the labor-only contractor; and (3) the principal who is deemed the real employer. Under this scheme, the labor-only contractor is the agent
of the principal. The law makes the principal responsible to the employees of the labor-only contractor as if the principal itself directly hired
or employed the employees. These circumstances are not present in this case.
16. FONTERRA A person is considered engaged in legitimate job contracting or subcontracting if the following conditions concur:
BRANDS vs. a.) The contractor or subcontractor carries on a distinct and independent business and undertakes to perform the job, work or service on its
LARGADO own account and under its own responsibility according to its own manner and method, and free from the control and direction of the
principal in all matters connected with the performance of the work except as to the results thereof;
b.) The contractor or subcontractor has substantial capital or investment; and
c.) The agreement between the principal and contractor or subcontractor assures the contractual employees entitlement to all labor and
occupational safety and health standards, free exercise of the right to self-organization, security of tenure, and social and welfare benefits.

Contracting is prohibited when the contractor or subcontractor merely recruits, supplies or places workers to perform a job, work or
service for a principal and if any of the following elements are present, thus:
a.) The contractor or subcontractor does not have substantial capital or investment which relates to the job, work or service to be performed
and the employees recruited, supplied or placed by such contractor or subcontractor are performing activities which are directly related to
the main business of the principal; or
b.) The contractor does not exercise the right to control over the performance of the work of the contractual employee.
17. Jose Mel The applicable foreign case law declares that a referee is an independent contractor, whose special skills and independent judgment are
Bernarte v. required specifically for such position and cannot possibly be controlled by the hiring party.
Philippine
Basketball
Assoc. (PBA)
18. Adeline Alilin, • "Permissible job contracting or subcontracting refers to an arrangement whereby a principal agrees to farm out with a
et.al. V. Petron contractor or subcontractor the performance of a specific job, work, or service within a definite or predetermined period,
Corporation regardless of whether such job, work or, service is to be performed or completed within or outside the premises of the principal.

• Labor-only contracting, on the other hand, is a prohibited act, defined as "supplying workers to an employer who does not have substantial
capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment, machineries, work premises, among others, and the workers recruited and placed by
such person are performing activities which are directly related to the principal business of such employer."

• Generally, the contractor is presumed to be a labor-only contractor, unless such contractor overcomes the burden of proving
that it has the substantial capital, investment, tools and the like. However, where the principal is the one claiming that the contractor is a
legitimate contractor, as in the present case, said principal has the burden of proving that supposed status.
19. ALFARO V. Petitioner filed a case of illegal dismissal and payment of separation pay against his employer for allegedly forcing him to resign from his post
CA, NLRC AND by transferring him to another and more difficult job after he went back to work upon treatment of his sickness. He posited that he was
STAR PAPER forced to sign a supposed resignation letter. LA, NLRC and CA ruled that the petitioner has voluntarily resigned from his position. The
CORPORATION Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the lower tribunals. Generally, an employee who voluntarily resigns from employment is not entitled
to separation pay. In the present case, however, upon the request of petitioner, private respondent agreed to a scheme whereby the former
would receive separation pay despite having resigned voluntarily. Thus, the terms and conditions they both agreed upon constituted a
contract freely entered into, which should be performed in good faith, as it constituted the law between the parties.
20. INTERTROD Once an employee resigns and his resignation is accepted, he no longer has any right to the job. If the employee later changes his mind, he
MARITIME, INC. must ask for approval of the withdrawal of his resignation from his employer, as if he were re- applying for the job.
and TROODOS
SHIPPING CO.,
petitioners, vs.
NLRC
21. Blue Angel Resignation is inconsistent with the filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal. To constitute resignation, the resignation must be unconditional
Manpower & with the intent to operate as such. There must be clear intention to relinquish the position.
Security Svcs. v.
CA
22. Northwest Verbal argument is not *serious* misconduct.
Airlines Inc. v.
Del Rosario
23. Colegio de Misconduct as defined is an improper or wrongful conduct. It is the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden
San Juan de act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment. Under Article 282 of the Labor
Letran-Calamba Code, the misconduct, to be a just cause for termination, must be serious. This implies that it must be of such grave and aggravated character
v. Villas and not merely trivial or unimportant.
24. Leus v. St.
Scholastica’s
College

.In this case, the 1992 MRPS. As stated above, when the law refers to morality, it necessarily pertains to public and secular morality and not
religious morality. Thus, the proscription against "disgraceful or immoral conduct" under Section 94(e) of the 1992 MRPS, which is made as a
cause for dismissal, must necessarily refer to public and secular morality. Accordingly, in order for a conduct to be considered as disgraceful or
immoral, it must be "‘detrimental (or dangerous) to those conditions upon which depend the existence and progress of human society’ and not
because the conduct is proscribed by the beliefs of one religion or the other." Pre-marital sexual relations between two consenting adults who
have no impediment to marry each other, and, consequently, conceiving a child out of wedlock, gauged from a purely public and secular view of
morality, does not amount to a disgraceful or immoral conduct
25. ST. LUKE’S Labor Code provides that an employer may terminate an employment for serious misconduct or willful
MEDICAL disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or his representative in connection with his work. Note that for an
CENTER vs employee to be validly dismissed on this ground, the employer’s orders, regulations, or instructions must be: (1) reasonable and lawful, (2)
MARIA sufficiently known to the employee, and (3) in connection with the duties which the employee has been engaged to
THERESA V.
SANCHEZ
26. UNIVERSAL Misconduct is defined as an improper or wrong conduct. It is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act,
CANNING INC., v a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment. To constitute a valid cause for the
COURT OF dismissal, the employee's misconduct must be serious, i.e., of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant.
APPEALS, Additionally, the misconduct must be related to the performance of the employee's duties showing him to be unfit to continue working for
the employer. Further, the act or conduct must have been performed with wrongful intent.

27. Holcim Phils. Infractions committed by an EE should merit only the corresponding penalty demanded by the circumstance. The penalty must be
v. Obra commensurate with the act, conduct, or omission imputed to the EE.

28. CEBU case law characterizes misconduct as a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty,
PEOPLE'S willful in character and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment. For misconduct to be considered as a just cause for termination,
MULTIPURPOSE the following requisites must concur: (a) the misconduct must be serious; (b) it must relate to the performance of the employee's duties
COOPERATIVE showing that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the
AND employer; and (c) it must have been performed with wrongful intent.
MACARIO G.
QUEVEDO
v.NICERATO E.
CARBONILLA,
JR.
29.