MIGUEL RAMONKITO S. MENDOZA
ACODESIN, ALEXANDER
UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION and/or RANDY GREGORIO,Petitionersvs.
BENITO CATAPANG (and other workers), Respondents, October 14, 2005
Facts:
Petitioner Universal Robina Corp. is a corporation duly organized and
existing under the Philippine laws, while petitioner Gregorio is a manager
of the petitioner.The individual respondents were hired by the petitioner
company on various dates from 1991 to 1993. The respondents were hired
under an employment contract which provided for a five-month period.
After the expiration of the said employment contracts, the petitioner
company would renew them and re-employ the respondents. Later the
petitioners informed the respondents that they were no longer renewing
their employment contracts.In 1996, the respondents filed separate
complaints for illegal dismissal, reinstatement, backwages, damages and
attorneys fees against the petitioners.Petitioners filed an Appeal with the
NLRC on the ground that the Labor Arbiter erred in ruling that the
respondents are the petitioner companys regular employees.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondents are regular employees of the petitioner.
Ruling:
Yes. In any case, we find that the CA, the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter
correctly categorized the respondents as regular employees of the
petitioner company. In Abasolo v. National Labor Relations Commission, the
Court reiterated the test in determining whether one is a regular employee:
The primary standard, therefore, of determining regular employment is the
reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the
employee in relation to the usual trade or business of the employer. The
test is whether the former is usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer. The connection can be determined by
considering the nature of work performed and its relation to the scheme of
the particular business or trade in its entirety. Also, if the employee has
been performing the job for at least a year, even if the performance is not
continuous and merely intermittent, the law deems repeated and
continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity
if not indispensability of that activity to the business. Hence, the
employment is considered regular, but only with respect to such activity
and while such activity exists. Petitioners act of repeatedly and
continuously hiring private respondents in a span of 3 to 5 years to do the
same kind of work negates their contention that private respondents were
hired for a specific project or undertaking only.
ABESCO CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and MR.
OSCAR BANZON, General Manager, Petitioners, vs. ALBERTO RAMIREZ,
BERNARDO DIWA, MANUEL LOYOLA, REYNALDO P.
BAUTISTA, EDGAR TAJONERA and GARY DISON,* Respondents., April 10,
2006
Facts:
Petitioner company was engaged in a construction business where
respondents were hired on different dates from 1976 to 1992 either as
laborers, road roller operators, painters or drivers. In 1997, respondents
filed two separate complaints1 for illegal dismissal against the company
and its General Manager, Oscar Banzon, before the Labor Arbiter (LA).
Petitioners allegedly dismissed them without a valid reason and without
due process of law. Petitioners denied liability to respondents and
countered that respondents were "project employees" since their services
were necessary only when the company had projects to be completed.
After trial, the LA declared respondents as regular employees because they
belonged to a "work pool" from which the company drew workers for
assignment to different projects, at its discretion.Petitioners filed a petition
for review in the Court of Appeals (CA) arguing that they were not liable for
illegal dismissal since respondents' services were merely put on hold until
the resumption of their business operations. They also averred that they
had paid respondents their full wages and benefits as provided by law,
hence, the latter had no more right to further benefits.
Issue:
Whether respondents were project employees or regular employees.
Ruling:
The respondents are regular employees. 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. 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. In this case, petitioners did not have
that kind of agreement with respondents. Neither did they inform
respondents of the nature of the latters work at the time of hiring. Hence,
for failure of petitioners to substantiate their claim that respondents were
project employees, we are constrained to declare them as regular
employees. Petitioners' inconsistent and conflicting positions on their true
relation with respondents make it all the more evident that the latter were
indeed their regular employees.
PHIL. FEDERATION OF CREDIT COOPERATIVES, INC. (PECCI) and FR.
BENEDICTO JAYOMA, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION (First Division) and VICTORIA ABRIL, respondents, December
11, 1998
Facts:
Private respondent Victoria Abril was employed by petitioner Philippine
Federation of Credit Cooperatives, Inc. (PFCCI), a corporation engaged in
organizing services to credit and cooperative entities, as Junior
Auditor/Field Examiner and thereafter held positions in different capacities,
to wit: as office secretary in 1985 and as cashier-designate for four (4)
months ending in April 1988. Respondent, shortly after resuming her
position as office secretary, subsequently went on leave until she gave
birth to a baby girl. Upon her return sometime in November 1989,
however, she discovered that a certain Vangie Santos had been
permanently appointed to her former position. She, nevertheless, accepted
the position of Regional Field Officer as evidenced by a contract which
stipulated, among other things, that respondents employment status shall
be probationary for a period of six (6) months. Said period having elapsed,
respondent was allowed to work until PFCCI presented to her another
employment contract for a period of one year commencing on January 2,
1991 until December 31, 1991, after which period, her employment was
terminated.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent is a regular employee for working beyond
the 6 months probationary period.
Ruling:
Yes. It is an elementary rule in the law on labor relations that a
probationary employee who is engaged to work beyond the probationary
period of six months, as provided under Art. 281 of the Labor Code, as
amended, or for any length of time set forth by the employer, shall be
considered a regular employee. Regardless of the designation petitioner
may have conferred upon respondents employment status, it is, however,
uncontroverted that the latter, having completed the probationary period
and allowed to work thereafter, became a regular employee who may be
dismissed only for just or authorized causes under Articles 282, 283 and
284 of the Labor Code, as amended. Therefore, the dismissal, premised on
the alleged expiration of the contract, is illegal and entitles respondent to
the reliefs prayed for.
CALS POULTRY SUPPLY CORPORATION and DANILO YAP, petitioners, vs.
ALFREDO ROCO and CANDELARIA ROCO, respondents,July 30, 2002
Facts:
Petitioner CALS Poultry Supply Corporation is engaged in the business of
selling dressed chicken and other related products and managed by
Petitioner Danilo Yap. CALS hired Alfredo Roco as its driver. On the same
date, CALS hired Edna Roco, Alfredos sister, as a helper in the dressing
room of CALS. On May 16, 1995, it hired CandelariaRoco, another sister, as
helper, also at its chicken dressing plant on a probationary basis. Alfredo
Roco, Edna Roco and CandelariaRoco filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
against CALS and Danilo Yap. Ednas complaint was dismissed while
Alfredos complaint was also later dismissed.CandelariaRoco claimed that
she was a regular employee since she worked beyond the 6 months
probationary period and thus she is entitled to a regular employees
benefits.
Issue:
Whether or not CandelariaRocos termination was valid.
Ruling:
Yes. We agree with CALS contention as upheld by both the Labor Arbiter
and the NLRC that Candelarias services was terminated within and not
beyond the 6-month probationary period. In Cebu Royal v. Deputy Minister
of Labor, our computation of the 6-month probationary period is reckoned
from the date of appointment up to the same calendar date of the 6th
month following.
MITSUBISHI MOTORS PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. CHRYSLER
PHILIPPINES LABOR UNION and NELSON PARAS, Respondents., June 29,
2004
Facts:
Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Corporation (MMPC) is a domestic corporation
engaged in the assembly and distribution of Mitsubishi motor vehicles.
Chrysler Philippines Labor Union (CPLU) is a legitimate labor organization
and the duly certified bargaining agent of the hourly-paid regular rank and
file employees of MMPC. Paras was not considered for regularization. On
November 26, 1996, he received a Notice of Termination dated November
25, 1996, informing him that his services were terminated effective the
said date since he failed to meet the required company standards for
regularization. Utilizing the grievance machinery in the collective
bargaining agreement, the CPLU demanded the settlement of the dispute.
Issue:
Whether or not in computing the 6 month probationary period and
applying Article 13 of the New Civil Code, the respondent Paras is
considered as a regular employee.
Ruling:
Yes. Paras is a regular employee. Applying Article 13 of the Civil Code, the
probationary period of six (6) months consists of one hundred eighty (180)
days. [32] This is in conformity with paragraph one, Article 13 of the Civil
Code, which provides that the months which are not designated by their
names shall be understood as consisting of thirty (30) days each. The
number of months in the probationary period, six (6), should then be
multiplied by the number of days within a month, thirty (30); hence, the
period of one hundred eighty (180) days. As clearly provided for in the last
paragraph of Article 13, in computing a period, the first day shall be
excluded and the last day included. Thus, the one hundred eighty (180)
days commenced on May 27, 1996, and ended on November 23, 1996. The
termination letter dated November 25, 1996 was served on respondent
Paras only at 3:00 a.m. of November 26, 1996. He was, by then, already a
regular employee of the petitioner under Article 281 of the Labor Code.
MARIWASA MANUFACTURING, INC., and ANGEL T. DAZO, petitioners, vs.
HON. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR., in his capacity as Deputy Minister of
Ministry of Labor and Employment judgment, and JOAQUIN A. DEQUILA,
respondents., January 26, 1989
Facts:
Private respondent Joaquin A. Dequila (or Dequilla) was hired on probation
by petitioner Mariwasa Manufacturing, Inc. (hereafter, Mariwasa only) as a
general utility worker on January 10, 1979. Upon the expiration of the
probationary period of six months, Dequila was informed by his employer
that his work had proved unsatisfactory and had failed to meet the
required standards. To give him a chance to improve his performance and
qualify for regular employment, instead of dispensing with his service then
and there, with his written consent Mariwasa extended his probation period
for another three months from July 10 to October 9, 1979. His
performance, however, did not improve and on that account Mariwasa
terminated his employment at the end of the extended period. Dequila
thereupon filed with the Ministry of Labor against Mariwasa and its Vice-
President for Administration, Angel T. Dazo, a complaint for illegal dismissal
Issue:
Whether or not, Article 282 of the Labor Code notwithstanding,
probationary employment may validly be extended beyond the prescribed
six-month period by agreement of the employer and the employee.
Ruling:
Yes. Generally, the probationary period of employment is limited to six (6)
months. The exception to this general rule is when the parties to an
employment contract may agree otherwise, such as when the same is
established by company policy or when the same is required by the nature
of work to be performed by the employee. In the latter case, there is
recognition of the exercise of managerial prerogatives in requiring a longer
period of probationary employment.The extension of Dequila's probation
was ex gratia, an act of liberality on the part of his employer affording him
a second chance to make good after having initially failed to prove his
worth as an employee. Such an act cannot now unjustly be turned against
said employer's account to compel it to keep on its payroll one who could
not perform according to its work standards. The law, surely, was never
meant to produce such an inequitable result.
JUANITO VILLANUEVA, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, (Second Division), HON. COMMISSIONERS: ROGELIO AYALA,
RAUL T. AQUINO, INNODATA PHILS. INC. / INNODATA PROCESSING CORP.
and TODD SOLOMON, respondents., September 10, 1998
Facts:
Petitioner Juanito M. Villanueva started working with respondent Innodata
Philippines, Inc.,/Innodata Processing Corporation as an "abstractor.The
contract of employment provided for a period of effectivity of "one year
commencing on Feb. 21, 1994, until Aug. 21, 1995." It was also stipulated
that from 21 February 1994 to 21 August 1994, or for a period of six
months, petitioner's employment would be "contractual" and could be
terminated at whatever date within this period by mere service of notice to
that effect. However, should his employment be continued beyond 21
August 1994, he would become a regular employee upon demonstration of
sufficient skill to meet the standards set by the respondent company.
Should he fail to demonstrate the ability to master his task during the first
six months, he could be placed on probation for another six months; after
which, he could be evaluated for promotion as a regular employee. On 21
February 1995, petitioner's services were terminated by reason of "end of
contract." Later, the petitioner was rehired by the respondent corporation,
this time, as a data encoder effective 13 March 1995 to 15 August 1995,
with a lesser pay
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner is a regular employee despite the repetitive
probationary period.
Ruling:
Yes. According to the employment contractif the petitioner was thus
allowed to remain in employment beyond 21 August 1994, it could be for
no other reason than that he demonstrated "sufficient skill in terms of his
ability to meet the standards set" by the respondent company. He,
therefore, became a regular employee by virtue of the third sentence of
the second paragraph of Section 2 of the contract. Besides, the Labor
Arbiter found that as an abstractor, the petitioner was engaged in
"processing, encoding of data, precoding, editing, proofreading and
scoring, all of which activities are deemed necessary and desirable in the
usual business of respondent company." The employment then was
"regular" under the first paragraph of Article 280 of the Labor Code. Any
ambiguity therein must be resolved against the respondent company, [13]
especially because under Article 1702 of the Civil Code, in case of doubt,
all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the laborer.
INNODATA PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs.JOCELYN L. QUEJADA-LOPEZ and
ESTELLA G. NATIVIDAD-PASCUAL, respondents., October 12, 2006
Facts:
Innodata Philippines, Inc., is engaged in the encoding/data conversion
business. It employs encoders, indexers, formatters, programmers,
quality/quantity staff, and others, to maintain its business and do the job
orders of its clients. Estrella G. Natividad and Jocelyn L. Quejada were
employed as formatters by Innodata Philippines, Inc. Respondents later
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.hand, [petitioner] contends that
[respondents] employment contracts expired, for [these were] only for a
fixed period of one (1) year.
Issue:
Whether the alleged fixed-term employment contracts entered into by
petitioner and respondents are valid.
Ruling:
No. While this Court has recognized the validity of fixed-term employment
contracts in a number of cases, it has consistently emphasized that when
the circumstances of a case show that the periods were imposed to block
the acquisition of security of tenure, they should be struck down for being
contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.In a
feeble attempt to conform to the earlier rulings of this Court in Villanueva
and Servidad, petitioner has reworded its present employment contracts. A
close scrutiny of the provisions, however, show that the double-bladed
scheme to block the acquisition of tenurial security still exists. Indeed, a
contract of employment is impressed with public interest. For this reason,
provisions of applicable statutes are deemed written into the contract.
Hence, the "parties are not at liberty to insulate themselves and their
relationships from the impact of labor laws and regulations by simply
contracting with each other." Moreover, in case of doubt, the terms of a
contract should be construed in favor of labor.
ILUMINADA VER BUISER, MA.CECILIA RILLOACUA and MA. MERCEDES P.
INTENGAN, petitioners, vs. HON. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR., in his capacity
as Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Labor & Employment, and GENERAL
TELEPHONE DIRECTORY, CO., respondents., July 31, 1984
Facts:
Petitioners were employed by the private respondent GENERAL TELEPHONE
DIRECTORY COMPANY as sales representatives and charged with the duty
of soliciting advertisements for inclusion in a telephone directory. The
company hereby employs the employee as telephone representative on a
probationary status for a period of eighteen (18) months, i.e. from May
1980 to October 1981, inclusive. It is understood that during the
probationary period of employment, the Employee may be terminated at
the pleasure of the company without the necessity of giving notice of
termination or the payment of termination pay.The private respondent
prescribed sales quotas have to be accomplished or met by the petitioners.
Failing to meet their respective sales quotas, the petitioners were
dismissed from the service by the private respondent. Petitioners filed with
the National Capital Region, Ministry of Labor and Employment, a
complaint for illegal dismissal with claims.
Issue:
Whether or not the probationary period can exceed the 6 months
mandated by law.
Ruling:
Yes. The exception to this general rule is When the parties to an
employment contract may agree otherwise, such as when the same is
established by company policy or when the same is required by the nature
of work to be performed by the employee. In the latter case, there is
recognition of the exercise of managerial prerogatives in requiring a longer
period of probationary employment, such as in the present case where the
probationary period was set for eighteen (18) months, i.e. from May, 1980
to October, 1981 inclusive, especially where the employee must learn a
particular kind of work such as selling, or when the job requires certain
qualifications, skills, experience or training. Moreover, an eighteen month
probationary period is recognized by the Labor Union in the private
respondent company, which is Article V of the Collective Bargaining
Agreement.
NITTO ENTERPRISES, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION and ROBERTO CAPILI, respondents., September 29, 1995
Facts:
Petitioner Nitto Enterprises, a company engaged in the sale of glass and
aluminum products, hired Roberto Capili sometime in May 1990 as an
apprentice machinist, molder and core maker as evidenced by an
apprenticeship agreement 2 for a period of six (6) months. Roberto Capili
who was handling a piece of glass which he was working on, accidentally
hit and injured the leg of an office secretary who was treated at a nearby
hospital. He also later injured himself. The following day, Roberto Capili
was asked to resign in a letter.Private respondent formally filed before the
NLRC Arbitration Branch, National Capital Region a complaint for illegal
dismissal.
Issue:
Whether or not private respondent Capili is under an apprentice agreement
for employment.
Ruling:
No. Capili was deemed to be a regular employee.Since the apprenticeship
agreement between petitioner and private respondent has no force and
effect in the absence of a valid apprenticeship program duly approved by
the DOLE, private respondent's assertion that he was hired not as an
apprentice but as a delivery boy ("kargador" or "pahinante") deserves
credence. He should rightly be considered as a regular employee of
petitioner as defined by Article 280 of the Labor Code.With regards the
apprentice employment the law is clear on this matter. Article 61 of the
Labor Code provides:
Contents of apprenticeship agreement. Apprenticeship agreements,
including the main rates of apprentices, shall conform to the rules issued
by the Minister of Labor and Employment. The period of apprenticeship
shall not exceed six months. Apprenticeship agreements providing for
wage rates below the legal minimum wage, which in no case shall start
below 75% per cent of the applicable minimum wage, may be entered into
only in accordance with apprenticeship program duly approved by the
Minister of Labor and Employment. The Ministry shall develop standard
model programs of apprenticeship.
CHIANG KAI SHEK SCHOOL, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and
FAUSTINA FRANCO OH, respondents. April 18, 1989
Facts:
An unpleasant surprise awaited Fausta F. Oh when she reported for work at
the Chiang Kai Shek School in Sorsogon on the first week of July, 1968. She
was told she had no assignment for the next semester. Oh was shocked.
She had been teaching in the school since 1932 for a continuous period of
almost 33 years. And now, out of the blue, and for no apparent or given
reason, this abrupt dismissal. Oh sued.
Issue:
Whether or not Oh became a regular employee.
Ruling:
Yes, Oh became a regular employee. The Court holds, after considering the
particular circumstance of Oh'semployment, that she had become a
permanent employee of the school and entitled to security of tenure at the
time of her dismissal. Since no cause was shown and established at an
appropriate hearing, and the notice then required by law had not been
given, such dismissal was invalid.R.A. No. 4670, otherwise known as the
Magna Carta for Public School Teachers, confers security of tenure on the
teacher upon appointment as long as he possesses the required
qualification. And under the present policy of the Department of
Education, Culture and Sports, a teacher becomes permanent and
automatically acquires security of tenure upon completion of three years in
the service.
ESPIRITU SANTO PAROCHIAL SCHOOL, SISTER MARY MARTINEZ, and SISTER
MA. ENCARNACION DE LOS SANTOS, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION, ESPIRITU SANTO PAROCHIAL SCHOOL FACULTY
ASSOCIATION, EVANGELINE LOPEZ, CONSTANCIA TEMPONGKO MARISSA,
MARTIN BRAVO, EDITHA ESPIRITU, VIVIAN CAPATI and CORAZON HADAP
respondents., September 26, 1989
Facts:
The said seven individual private respondents were hired by the petitioner-
school on a probationary basis on June 1, 1984, 1 whereupon, sometime
between April 1 and 15, 1985 2 their services were terminated. On May 8,
1985, 2 they charged the petitioner-school with unfair labor practice and
illegal dismissal.private respondents-teachers contend as follows:
1. Under the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, teachers undergo a
probationary period of three years, during which, they may be dismissed
only for a just cause.
2. Since the said seven teachers were laid off after less than one year of
probationary service, the lay-off was illegal.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondents were validly dismissed being probationary
employees.
Ruling:
No. The respondents were not validly dismissed since there was no valid or
authorized ground for their removal. We see no clear evidence that the
individual complainants were terminated either for a just cause or that
they have failed to qualify as regular employees in accordance with the
standards set by respondent school made known to the former at the time
of hiring. In fact, it is shown that the individual complainants were issued
individual certifications of employment and whose performance ratings
ranged from 85% to 90%.The school manual of the petitioner school, which
provides: PROBATIONARY:
Teachers who have not served the school for three consecutive years are
classified as non-permanent. They are under probation. Their contract with
the school automatically terminates effectively (at the) end of every school
year unless the teacher concerned is dismissed for cause or has resigned
from the service before the end of the school year. Probation is a test of
moral and professional fitness of a teacher.

Tucor Industries Inc. vs NLRC
GR no. 96608-09 May 20, 1991
Facts: Petitioner is a corporation principally engaged in the moving and
storage of various goods owned by military personnel residing within the
United States military facilities in the Philippines. On various dates, private
respondents were hired as packers, drivers and utilitymen/carpenters. They
signed uniform company-prepared master employment contracts, the
terms and conditions of which are as follows: a.You agree to be employed
on "As Needed" basis and to the principle of "no work, no pay." This is so
because of the very nature of the business of Tucor Moving and Storage
wherein the volume of work handled by the Company varies from day to
day and from project to project; b. Other than salaries actually earned, you
as a daily-hired worker, shall not be entitled to any of the benefits enjoyed
by the permanent employees of the Company xxx. In a memorandum-
letter dated July 17, 1989, the Chief of Traffic Management of Clark Air
Base reminded all agents, including petitioner of the base policy that
"Employees who already have passes in their possession and who fail the
polygraph . . ." administered by an acknowledged security company will be
required to return their passes. On the same day petitioner terminated the
employment of private respondents by sending them separate identical
notices of termination.
Petitioners contend that private respondents cannot be considered as its
regular employees inasmuch as the employment of the latter was
contractual in nature; that they were deemed hired for a specific or a fixed
undertaking on an "as needed basis," the efficacy of said contract being
coterminous with or dependent upon the company and its clients.
Issue: whether private respondents are regular or casual employees.
Held:
An examination of the contract of employment does not show that
private respondents were hired for a "specific project or undertaking" nor
was the completion or termination of the alleged project for which private
respondents were hired determined at the start of the employment.
The term "specific project or undertaking" under Article 280 of the
Labor Code contemplates an activity which was commonly or habitually
performed or such type of work which is not done on a daily basis but only
for a specific duration of time or until the completion of the project. The
services employed are thus necessary or desirable in the employer's usual
business only for the period of time it takes to complete the project.
Without the performance of such services on a regular basis, the
employer's main business is not expected to grind to a halt.
In the case at bar, private respondents were assigned to do
carpentry work, packing and driving, activities which are usually necessary
and desirable in petitioners' usual business and which thus had to be done
on a regular basis.
The fact that private respondents had rendered more than one
year of service at the time of their dismissal overturns the petitioner's
allegation that private respondents were hired for a specific or a fixed
undertaking for a limited period of time. The company-prepared master
employment contracts placed the private respondents at the mercy of
those who crafted the said contract. The work of the private respondents is
hardly "specific" or "seasonal." Such is one instance under the Code
"where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are
usually necessary or desirable in the usual business."
Private respondents are therefore regular employees of petitioner the
provisions of their contract of employment notwithstanding. They are
entitled to security of tenure.
Their dismissal without just cause in this case and without
appropriate investigation is certainly illegal.
PNOC- Energy Devt. Corp. vs NLRC
 GR no. 169353 April 13, 2007
FACTS:
Petitioner PNOC-Energy Development Corporation is a government-
owned and controlled corporation engaged in the exploration,
development, and utilization of energy. It undertakes several projects in
areas where geothermal energy has been discovered.
Petitioners Southern Negros Geothermal Production Field in Negros
Oriental is divided into two phases: Palinpinon I (PAL I) and Palinpinon II
(PAL II). To augment its manpower requirement occasioned by the
increased activities in the development of PAL II, petitioner hired 6
employees in the Administration and Maintenance Section.
The termination/expiration of their respective employment were
specified in their initial employment contracts, which, however, were
renewed and extended on their respective expiry dates..
On October 29, 1998, the six employees, herein respondents, filed
before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a complaint for
illegal dismissal against petitioner. Aside from reinstatement, respondents
sought the payment of backwages, salary differential, collective bargaining
agreement benefits, damages and attorneys fees. Respondents averred
that they had rendered continuous and satisfactory services from the dates
of their respective employment until illegally dismissed on June 30, 1998.
Respondents further contended that their dismissal from employment was
a clear case of union busting for they had previously sought union
membership and actually filed a notice of strike.
For its part, petitioner asseverated that respondents were
contractual employees; as such, they cannot claim to have been illegally
dismissed because upon the expiration of the term of the contract or the
completion of the project, their employer-employee relationship also
ended.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondents are project or regular employees.
HELD:
Respondents posit that they were undeniably performing activities
which are necessary or desirable in the usual trade or business of
petitioner. They aver that the completion of their individual employment
was not determined at the time of their engagement due to the fact that
their contracts were renewed and extended over and over again. They
claim that had the periods of their employment been determined, then
their work with petitioner would not have lasted beyond the three-month
period provided in their respective initial employment contracts. They
likewise theorized that the contracts they signed were short-term contracts
covering a long period of the same activity, not for a specific project or
undertaking.
As defined, project employees are those workers hired (1) for
a specific project or undertaking, and (2) the completion or termination of
such project or undertaking has been determined at the time of the
engagement of the employee. However, petitioner failed to substantiate its
claim that respondents were hired merely as project employees.
Petitioners act of repeatedly and continuously hiring respondents
to do the same kind of work belies its contention that respondents were
hired for a specific project or undertaking. The absence of a definite
duration for the project/s has led the Court to conclude that respondents
are, in fact, regular employees.
Respondents had been project employees several times over. Their
employment ceased to be coterminous with specific projects when they
were repeatedly re-hired by petitioner. 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 are
considered regular employees.
Olongapo Maintenance Services Inc. vs Chantengco
GR No. 156146 June 21, 2007
Facts: OMSI is a corporation engaged in the business of providing janitorial
and maintenance services to various clients, including GOCCs. On various
dates beginning 1986, OMSI hired the respondents as janitors, grass
cutters, and degreasers, and assigned them at the NAIA. In 1999, OMSI
terminated their employment. Claiming termination without just cause and
non-payment of labor standard benefits, respondents filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, and non-payment of holiday and
service incentive leave pays, with prayer for payment of separation pay,
against OMSI.
For its part, OMSI denied the allegations in the complaint. It averred that
when Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) awarded to OMSI the
service contracts for the airport, OMSI hired respondents as janitors,
cleaners, and degreasers to do the services under the contracts. OMSI
informed the respondents that they were hired for the MIAA project and
their employments were coterminous with the contracts. As project
employees, they were not dismissed from work but their employments
ceased when the MIAA contracts were not renewed upon their expiration.
The termination of respondents employment cannot, thus, be considered
illegal.
Issue: Are they regular employees?
Held:
Yes. Without question, respondents, as janitors, grass cutters, and
degreasers, performed work necessary or desirable in the janitorial and
maintenance service business of OMSI. The principal test in determining
whether an employee is a project employee is whether he/she is assigned
to carry out a specific project or undertaking, the duration and scope of
which are specified at the time the employee is engaged in the project, or
where the work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the
employment is for the duration of the season. A true project employee
should be assigned to a project which begins and ends at determined or
determinable times, and be informed thereof at the time of hiring. In
the instant case, the record is bereft of proof that the respondents
engagement as project employees has been predetermined, as required by
law. OMSI did not provide convincing evidence that respondents were
informed that they were to be assigned to a specific project or
undertaking when OMSI hired them. Notably, the employment contracts
for the specific project signed by the respondents were never presented.
All that OMSI submitted in the proceedings a quo are the service contracts
between OMSI and the MIAA.
Saberola vs. Suarez
Gr no. 151227 July 14, 2008
FACTS: Case is for illegal dismissal with money claims filed by respondents
against petitioner. Latter is the owner and manager of G.S. Saberola
Electrical Services, a firm engaged in the construction business specializing
in installing electrical devices in subdivision homes and in commercial and
non-commercial buildings. Respondents were employed by petitioner as
electricians. They worked from Monday to Saturday and, occasionally, on
Sundays, with a daily wage of P110.00.
Petitioner averred that respondents were part-time project
employees and were employed only when there were electrical jobs to be
done in a particular housing unit contracted by petitioner. He maintained
that the services of respondents as project employees were coterminous
with each project. As project employees, the time of rendition of their
services was not fixed. Thus, there was no practical way of determining the
appropriate compensation of the value of respondents accomplishment, as
their work assignment varied depending on the needs of a specific project.
ISSUE: What is their status? And were they illegally dismissed?
HELD: Project employees (BUT were illegally dismissed)
Petitioner, as an electrical contractor, depends for his business on the
contracts that he is able to obtain from real estate developers and builders
of buildings. Thus, the work provided by petitioner depends on the
availability of such contracts or projects. The duration of the employment
of his work force is not permanent but coterminous with the projects to
which the workers are assigned. Viewed in this context, the respondents
are considered as project employees of petitioner.
A project employee is 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. However, respondents,
even if working as project employees, enjoy security of tenure.
Nonetheless, when a project employee is dismissed, such dismissal must
still comply with the substantive and procedural requirements of due
process. Termination of his employment must be for a lawful cause and
must be done in a manner which affords him the proper notice and
hearing.
Petitioner failed to present any evidence to disprove the claim of illegal
dismissal. No evidence was presented by petitioner to show the
termination of the project which would justify the cessation of the work of
respondents. Neither was there proof that petitioner complied with the
substantive and procedural requirements of due process.
Sandoval Shipyard Inc. vs. NLRC
GR no. L-65689 and 66119 May 31, 1985
FACTS:
Sandoval Shipyards, Inc. has been engaged in the building and
repair of vessels. It contends that each vessel is a separate project and
that the employment of the workers is terminated with the completion of
each project. The workers contend otherwise. They claim to be regular
workers and that the termination of one project does not mean the end of
their employment since they can be assigned to unfinished projects.
 In G.R. No. 65689, Rogelio Diamante, Manuel Pacres, Macario
Saputalo, Rolando Cervales and Dionisio Cervales were assigned to the
construction of the LCT Catarman, Project No. 7511. After three months of
work, the project was completed on July 26, 1979. The five workers were
served a termination notice. The termination was reported to the Ministry
of Labor on August 3, 1979. They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
In G.R. No. 66119, respondents Danilo de la Cruz, et al., 17 in all,
were assigned to work in Project No. 7901 for the construction of a tanker
ordered by Mobil Oil Philippines, Inc. There were 55 workers in that project.
The tanker was launched on January 31, 1980. Upon the yard manager's
recommendation, the personnel manager of Sandoval Shipyards
terminated the services of the welders, helpers and construction workers
effective February 4, 1980. The termination was duly reported to the
Ministry of Labor and Employment.
ISSUE: Whether or not the private respondents were project employees.
HELD:
Yes. The Court held that private respondents were project
employees whose work was coterminous with the project for which they
were hired. Project employees, as distinguished from regular or non-project
employees, are mentioned in section 281 of the Labor Code as those
"where the 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."
Policy Instructions No. 20 of the Secretary of Labor, which was
issued to stabilize employer-employee relations in the construction
industry,
Respondent Deputy Minister Leogardo, Jr. ruled that the
complainants "are project workers whose employments are coterminous
with the completion of the project, regardless of the number of projects in
which they have worked, as provided under Policy Instructions No. 20 of
the Ministry of Labor and Employment" and "as their employment is one
for a definite period, they are not entitled to separation pay." The public
respondents in the instant two cases acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction in disregarding these precedents.
Cartagenas vs. Romago Electric Inc. Co.
Gr no. 82973 Sept. 15, 1989
FACTS:
Respondent Romago is a general contractor engaged in contracting
and sub-contracting of specific building construction projects or
undertaking such as electrical, mechanical and civil engineering aspects in
the repair of buildings and from other kindred services. Individual
complainants are employed by the respondent in connection with
particular construction projects
Effective July 12,1986, individual complainants and Lawrence
Deguit were temporarily laid-off by virtue of a memorandum issued by the
respondent. In said memorandum they were also informed that a meeting
regarding the resumption of operation will be held on July 16, 1986 and
that they will be notified as to when they will resume work.
On July 28, 1986, complainants filed the instant case for illegal
dismissal but before the respondent could receive a copy of the complaint
and the notification and summons issued by the NLRC National Capital
Region (actually received only on August 22, 1986, page 4, records)
individual complainants re-applied with the respondent and were assigned
to work with its project at Robinson-EDSA
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners are project employees or regular
employees
HELD:
The petitioners are project employees. As an electrical contractor,
the private respondent depends for its business on the contracts it is able
to obtain from real estate developers and builders of buildings. Since its
work depends on the availability of such contracts or "projects,"
necessarily the duration of the employment of its work force is not
permanent but co-terminus with the projects to which they are assigned
and from whose payrolls they are paid. It would be extremely burdensome
for their employer who, like them, depends on the availability of projects, if
it would have to carry them as permanent employees and pay them wages
even if there are no projects for them to work on. The Court held,
therefore, that the NLRC did not abuse its discretion in finding, based on
substantial evidence in the records, that the petitioners are only project
workers of the private respondent.
 This case is similar to Sandoval Shipyards, Inc. vs. NLRC where the
Court held that To our mind, the employment of the employees concerned
were fixed for a specific project or undertaking. For the nature of the
business the corporation is engaged into is one which will not allow it to
employ workers for an indefinite period.
Samson vs NLRC
Gr no. 113166 Feb. 1, 1996
Facts:
Petitioner had been working for respondent Atlantic Gulf and Pacific
Co. Manila for approximately 28 years and his project-to-project
employment was renewed several times. His successive contracts of
employment required him to perform virtually the same kind of work
throughout his period of employment. Petitioner would be re-hired
immediately, some for a gap of one day to one week from the last project
to the succeeding one.
Petitioner filed a complaint for the conversion of his employment
status from project employee to regular employee, which complaint was
later amended to include claims for underpayment, non-payment of
premium pay for holiday and rest day, refund of reserve fund, and 10%
thereof as attorneys fees. Petitioner alleged therein that on the basis of his
considerable and continuous length of service with AG & P. he should
already be considered a regular employee and, therefore, entitled to the
benefits and privileges appurtenant thereto.
The labor arbiter, in a decision dated June 30, 1993,[2] declared
that petitioner should be considered a regular employee on the ground
that it has not been shown that AG & P had made the corresponding report
to the nearest Public Employment Office every time a project wherein
petitioner was assigned had been completed and his employment contract
terminated, as required under DOLE Policy Instruction No. 20. Furthermore,
pursuant to the same policy instruction, the labor arbiter found that since
petitioner was not free to leave anytime and to offer his services to other
employers, he should be considered an employee for an indefinite period
because he is a member of a work pool from which AG & P draws its
project employees and is considered an employee thereof during his
membership therein, hence the completion of the project does not mean
termination of the employer-employee relationship.
Issue: WON petitioner is a regular employee
Held:
Yes. Article 281 of the Labor Code pertinently prescribes that the
provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and
regardless of the oral agreements of the parties, an employment shall be
deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform
activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or
trade of the employer. Where from the circumstances it appeared that
periods have been imposed to preclude the acquisition of tenurial security
by the employee, they should be struck down as contrary to public policy,
morals, good customs, or public order. There can be no escape from the
conclusion that the employee is a regular employee of the respondent.
It is not disputed that petitioner had been working for private
respondent for approximately twenty-eight (28) years as of the
adjudication of his plaint by respondent NLRC, and that his project-to-
project employment was renewed several times. With the successive
contracts of employment wherein petitioner continued to perform virtually
the same kind of work, i.e., as rigger, throughout his period of
employment, it is manifest that petitioners.
Where from the circumstances it is apparent that periods have
been imposed to preclude the acquisition of tenurial security by the
employee, they should be struck down as contrary to public policy, morals,
good customs or public order. As observed by the Solicitor General, the
record of this case discloses, as part of petitioners position paper, a
certification duly issued by private respondent clearly showing that the
formers services were engaged by private respondent on a continuing
basis since 1965. The certification indubitably indicates that after a
particular project has been accomplished, petitioner would be re-hired
immediately the following day save for a gap of one (1) day to one (1)
week from the last project to the succeeding one. There can, therefore, be
no escape from the conclusion that petitioner is a regular employee of
private respondent.
D.M. Consunji Inc. vs NLRC
Gr No. 116572 Dec. 18, 2000
FACTS:
Private respondents were hired by petitioner as project employees
to work on its Cebu Super Block Project in Cebu City. On March 2, 1993,
private respondents services were terminated allegedly without regard to
the date of termination as specified in their contracts of
employment. Petitioner reported the termination of their services to the
nearest Regional Office of the Department of Labor alleging that the term
of the contracts of employment had expired. The private respondents then
filed their respective complaints for illegal dismissal.
Labor Arbiter explained that while the private respondents
voluntarily signed the employment contract which fixed the term of their
 employment, their dismissal was not actually based on the expiration of
the term of their employment because some of them were dismissed
before the end of the contract and there were those dismissed even long
after its expiration.
ISSUES: a. Whether or not the private respondents were project
employees
b. Whether or not the termination of their employment was
illegal.
HELD:
a. Yes. Their contracts of employment readily show that the private
respondents were employed with respect to a specific project. The private
respondents in this case were workers in a construction project of the
petitioner. While employed with respect to a specific project, the contracts
of employment between the private respondents and the petitioner provide
that the former were employed for a term of one (1) month which was the
estimated period for the project to be finished. The private respondents do
not even claim to be regular employees but merely that, as employees at
the Cebu Super Block, they were terminated before the completion of the
project without just cause and due process. As project employees, there is
no showing that they were part of the work pool of the petitioner
construction company. Hence, in their memorandum, private respondents
admit that they are not unaware that as project employees their
employment can be terminated upon the completion of the project. This
Court has held that the length of service of a project employee is not the
controlling test of employment tenure but whether or not the 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.
b. Yes. The inescapable conclusion is that Agraviador and Mendrez were
terminated prior to the expiration of the period of their employment
without just cause, hence, their termination was illegal. However, private
respondents cannot be reinstated since the project they were assigned to
was already completely finished. What they are entitled to is the payment
of their salaries corresponding to the unexpired portions of their
employment. Specifically, private respondents Agraviador and Mendrez are
entitled to the payment of their salaries equivalent to their salary from the
time of termination until the expiration of their employment period of one
(1) month, the estimated period the project was to be completed.
Cioco vs. CE Const. Corp
GR NO. 156748 Sept. 8, 2004
FACTS:
Isaac Cioco, Jr., Rebie A. Mercado, Benito V. Galvadores, Cecilio
Solver, Carmelo Juanzo, Benjamin Baysa, and Rodrigo Napoles (WORKERS)
were hired by C.E. Construction Corporation (COMPANY), a domestic
corporation engaged in the construction business and managed by its
owner-president, Mr. Johnny Tan. They were hired as carpenters and
laborers in various construction projects from 1990 to 1999, the latest of
which was the GTI Tower in Makati. Prior to the start of every project, the
WORKERS signed individual employment contracts
Sometime in May and June 1999, the WORKERS, along with sixty-
six (66) others, were terminated by the COMPANY on the ground of
completion of the phases of the GTI Tower project for which they had been
hired. Alleging that they were regular employees, the WORKERS filed
complaints for illegal dismissal with the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC.
Claims for underpaid wages and unpaid overtime pay, premium for holiday
and rest days, service incentive leave pay, night shift differential, and
13th month pay were likewise demanded
ISSUE: Whether or not the workers are considered regular employees.
HELD:
No. The Court held that the fact that the WORKERS have been
employed with the COMPANY for several years on various projects, the
longest being nine (9) years, did not automatically make them regular
employees considering that the definition of regular employment in Article
280 of the Labor Code, makes specific exception with respect to project
employment. The re-hiring of petitioners on a project-to-project basis did
not confer upon them regular employment status. The practice was
dictated by the practical consideration that experienced construction
workers are more preferred. It did not change their status as project
employees
Caseres vs. Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corp.
GR No. 159343 Sept. 28, 2007
FACTS: Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation (respondent) is a
corporation engaged in the cane sugar milling business. Petitioners were
employees.

At the start of their respective employments, they were made to sign a
Contract of Employment for Specific Project or Undertaking. Petitioners
contracts were renewed from time to time, until May 1999 when they were
informed that their contracts will not be renewed anymore.
Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, regularization, incentive
leave pay, 13th month pay, damages and attorneys fees.
ISSUE: WON they are regular employees
HELD: They are NOT regular employees
The principal test for determining whether an employee is a project
employee or a regular employee is whether the 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.
It must be noted that there were intervals in petitioners respective
employment contracts, and that their work depended on the availability of
such contracts or projects. Consequently, the employment of URSUMCOs
work force was not permanent but co-terminous with the projects to which
the employees were assigned and from whose payrolls they were paid
The fact that petitioners were constantly re-hired does not ipso facto
establish that they became regular employees. Their respective contracts
with respondent show that there were intervals in their employment. In
petitioner Caseress case, while his employment lasted from August 1989
to May 1999, the duration of his employment ranged from one day to
several months at a time, and such successive employments were not
continuous. With regard to petitioner Pael, his employment never lasted for
more than a month at a time. These support the conclusion that they were
indeed project employees, and since their work depended on the
availability of such contracts or projects, necessarily the employment of
respondents work force was not permanent but co-terminous with the
projects to which they were assigned and from whose payrolls they were
paid.
Mercado vs. NLRC
GR No. 79869 Sept. 5, 1991
Facts:
Petitioners alleged in their complaint that they were agricultural
workers utilized by private respondents in all the agricultural phases of
work on the 7 1/2 hectares of ace land and 10 hectares of sugar land
owned by the latter; that Fortunato Mercado, Sr. and Leon Santillan worked
in the farm of private respondents since 1949, Fortunato Mercado, Jr. and
Antonio Mercado since 1972 and the rest of the petitioners since 1960 up
to April 1979, when they were all allegedly dismissed from their
employment; and that, during the period of their employment, petitioners
received daily wages. The other private respondents denied having any
relationship whatsoever with the petitioners and state that they were
merely registered owners of the land in question included as
correspondents in this case.
As a result, the petitioners filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal. The Labor Arbiter held that the petitioners were not regular
employees and the NLRC affirmed this ruling.
Issue: W/N the petitioners are regular and permanent farm workers
HELD: No, the petitioners are project/seasonal employees. Clearly,
therefore, petitioners being project employees, or, to use the correct term,
seasonal employees, their employment legally ends upon completion of
the project or the season. The termination of their employment cannot and
should not constitute an illegal dismissal.
As such, the termination of employment cannot be considered as illegal
dismissal. The petitioners are free to contract their services to work for
other farm owners.
Tacloban Sagkahan Rice and Corn Mills Co. vs NLRC
Gr No. 73806 Mar. 21, 1990
FACTS:
Private respondents, before their termination on July 25, 1983,
were all regular employees of petitioners. Carlito Codilan and Maximo
Docena started working in 1958; Eugenio Go in 1961; Teofilo Trangria in
1968; and Reynaldo Tulin in 1977. On July 25, 1983, petitioner Tan Cheng
Pian alias "Piana" told private respondents "to look for another job" without
giving any reason.
Private respondents thus filed their complaint for illegal dismissal
with the Regional Office, NLRC at Tacloban City on August 23, 1983. At the
hearing of September 28, 1983, private respondents, who had been
employed elsewhere, demanded payment of separation pay instead of
seeking reinstatement.
After submission of private respondents' joint affidavit and petitioners'
position paper, Executive Labor Arbiter' Armando Polintan rendered the
Decision of April 11, 1984 ordering petitioners to pay private respondents
their separation pay as specifically indicated in the said decision.
ISSUE: Whether or not the private respondents are regular employees.
HELD:
Yes. The evidence on record has established that private
respondents Carlito Codilan and Maximo Docena had been working for
petitioners for 25 years, respondent Eugenio Go for 22 years, respondent
Teofilo Trangria for 15 years and respondent Reynaldo Tulin for 6 years.
Aside from their lengthy service, it should be noted that private
respondents' employment was not fixed for a specific project or
undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined
at the time of their appointment or hiring. Likewise, it must be borne in
mind that petitioners never rebutted private respondents' claim that they
performed activities usually necessary or desirable in the usual business of
the former.
Furthermore, the services performed or to be performed by private
respondents are not seasonal in nature. While it may be true that the
harvest of palay is seasonal, the milling operations which is the main
business of petitioners are not seasonal. The fact is that big rice mills such
as the one owned by petitioners continue to operate and do business
throughout the year even if there are only two or three harvest seasons
within the year. It is a common practice among farmers and rice dealers to
store their palay and to have the same milled as the need arises. Thus, the
milling operations have no let-up. And finally, considering the number of
years that they have worked for petitioners (the lowest is 6 years), private
respondents have long attained the status of regular employees as defined
under Art. 280 of the Labor Code.