Universal Robina Corporation vs. Catapang 473 SCRA 189 October 14, 2005 Certiorari Callejo, Sr.

FACTS: Pet: Universal Robina Corporation- company Randy Gregorio manager of companys duck farm in Calauan, Laguna Resp: 30 people Respondents were hired by the company on various dates from 1991-1993 to work at its duck farm. Their contracts were only for a 5-month period, renewed every expiration/ in 1996, the company told the respondents that their contract wont be renewed anymore. Respondents filed complaints for illegal dismissal, reinstatement, backwages, damages and attorneys fees against petitioners. LA: illegal dismissal. Respondents must be reinstated to former positions without loss of seniority rights and must pay backwages Petitioners appealed to NLRC while respondents filed Writ of Execution with LA Petitioners told LA that they can only reinstate 17 of the 30 respondents (reason: phase out). For the 13, there are no other positions similar to their previous ones but 10 may be accommodated for a 3-day-per-week work Petitioners initially failed to comply with LAs order but the 17 were eventually reinstated. The duck farm was closed. The 13 respondents wanted garnishment to collect the wages awarded by the LA. Petitioners wanted to quash, saying that they cant accommodate the 13 anymore because of phase out and their previous positions were already filled up NLRC: affirm LA decision CA: respondents were regular employees. Their being hired for more than 1 year doing the same work made them regular and not just project employees. 5-month contracts are only a means to refuse them security of tenure. The 13 should have been paid even if they were not reinstated.

ISSUE and HELD: WON respondents are regular employees--- YES. RATIO: - [there was a discussion regarding procedure. Petitioners werent able to file MR within the reglementary period, saying that they did not receive the decision on time and they miscounted the period for filing.SC said NO, the petition is late, this should have been dismissed.] - Abasolo vs. NLRC: test in determining whether one is a regular employee: o Primary standard: reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual trade or business of the employer. o Is the activity usually necessary or desirable to employers trade or business? o Must consider the nature of work performed and its relation to the scheme of the particular business or trade in its entirety o If employee has been performing the work for at least a year, even if intermittently, this is sufficient to say that the work is necessary and indispensable to the business. Thus, he is regular with respect to that work and while it lasts. - Affirm CAs findings. The 5-month contract was only used to prevent respondents from being regulars. This is contrary to public policy or morals. 3-5 years of continuous hiring negates petitioners argument that they are only for a specific project - Factual findings of labor officials who have expertise are accorded not only respect but even finality and is binding on SC when supported by substantial evidence