DOUGLAS MILLARES and ROGELIO LAGDA, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, TRANSGLOBAL MARITIME AGENCY, INC.

and ESSO INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING CO., LTD., respondents. FACTS: Douglas Millares was employed by ESSO International Shipping Company through its local manning agency,Trans-Global Maritime Agency, as a machinist he was promoted as Chief Engineer which position Millares applied for a leave of absence for almost 1mon.the Trans-Global, approved the request for leave of absence. Millares wrote to the Operations Manager of Exxon International Co.informing him of his intention to avail of the optional retirement plan under the Consecutive Enlistment Incentive Plan (CEIP) considering that he had already rendered more than twenty (20) years of continuous service. Esso International, denied the request for optional retirement on the following grounds, to wit: (1) he was employed on a contractual basis; (2) his contract of enlistment (COE) did not provide for retirement before the age of sixty (60) years; and (3) he did not comply with the requirement for claiming benefits under the CEIP, i.e., to submit a written advice to the company of his intention to terminate his employment within thirty (30) days from his last disembarkation date Millares requested for an extension of his leave of absence for another 15 days. The Crewing Manager, Ship Group A, Trans-Global, wrote petitioner Millares advising him that respondent Esso International "has corrected the deficiency in its manpower requirements specifically in the Chief Engineer rank by promoting a First Assistant Engineer to this position as a result of (his) previous leave of absence which expired last August 8, 1989. The adjustment in said rank was required in order to meet manpower schedules as a result of (his) inability.Esso International advised Millares that his absence without leave, which is equivalent to abandonment of his position, On the other hand Lagda was employed by Esso International as wiper/oiler He was promoted as Chief Engineer in 1980, a position he continued to occupy until his last COE expired on April 10, 1989.Lagda applied for a leave of absence from June 19,1989 up to the whole month of August 1989. Then the Trans-Globals approved petitioner Lagdas leave of absence from June 22, 1989 to July 20, 1989[7] and advised him to report for re-assignment on July 21, 1989. Lagda wrote a letter to Operations Manager of Esso International, through Trans-Globals President informing him of his intention to avail of the optional early retirement plan in view of his twenty (20) years continuous service in the company Trans-Global denied petitioner Lagdas request for availment of the optional early retirement scheme on the same grounds upon which petitioner Millares request was denied.he requested for an extension of his leave of absence up to August 26, 1989 and the same was approved. However Esso International through Personnel Administrator, advised petitioner Lagda that in view of his "unavailability for contractual sea service," he had been dropped from the roster of crew members effective September 1, 1989. Millares and Lagda filed a complaint-affidavit, for illegal dismissal and non-payment of employee benefits against private respondents Esso International and Trans-Global, before the POEA. POEA: dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. NLRC dismissing petitioners appeal and denying their motion for new trial for lack of merit. ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE REGULAR EMPLOYEES. RULING: SC: Art. 280. Regular and casual employment. - The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement 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, except 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 or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season. An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph. Provided, That, any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, 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. The primary standard to determine a regular employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade 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 the 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 one year, even if the performance is not continuous or merely intermittent, the law deems the 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 also considered regular, but only with respect to such activity and while such activity exists.[ it is undisputed that petitioners were employees of private respondents until their services were terminated on September 1, 1989. They served in their capacity as Chief Engineers, performing activities which were necessary and desirable in the business of private respondents Esso International, a shipping company; and Trans-Global, its local manning agency which supplies the manpower and crew requirements of Esso Internationals vessels.It is, likewise, clear that petitioners had been in the employ of private respondents for 20 years. The records reveal that petitioners were repeatedly re-hired by private respondents even after the expiration of their respective eight-month contracts. Such repeated re-hiring which continued for 20 years, cannot but be appreciated as sufficient evidence of the necessity and indispensability of petitioners service to the private respondents business or trade. Verily, as petitioners are by express provision of Article 280 of the Labor Code, considered regular employees. there was no valid cause for the termination of petitioners. It will be recalled, that petitioner Millares was dismissed for allegedly having "abandoned" his post; and petitioner Lagda, for his alleged "unavailability for contractual sea service." However, that petitioners did not abandon their jobs such as to justify the unlawful termination of their employment is borne out by the records.To constitute abandonment, two elements must concur: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship.Furthermore, the absence of petitioners was justified by the fact that they secured the approval of respondents to take a leave of absence after the termination of their last contracts of enlistment. Clearly, petitioners termination is illegal.