Universal Robina Corporation (URC) vs. Catapang 1.

The respondents in the case at bar were first hired by URC in 1991 and 1993 to work at its duck farm. a. Their employment contract is only for a period of five months b. But after expiration of contract, URC would rehire them and renew their contract. Such practice continued until 1996. 2. When their contract was no longer renewed in 1996, respondents filed complaints for illegal dismissal, reinstatement, backwages, damages and attorneys fees against URC. 3. LA decision a. Respondents are regular employees and were illegally dismissed. LA ordered for their reinstatement. b. Several Writs of Execution were issued by the LA enforcing the immediate reinstatement of the illegally dismissed respondents. URC was not able to fully comply with the order because the section to which some of the respondents were assigned was abolished. 4. NLRC decision affirmed LA decision 5. CA decision a. Respondents are regular employees after rendering more than one year of continuous service. b. The 5-month contract is contrary to public policy for being used as a subterfuge to prevent the respondents from becoming regular employees c. URC should have included the respondents in their payroll even if reinstatement cannot be accommodated 6. URC filed a motion for reconsideration of the CA decision. CA denied the motion for being filed 2 days late. 7. URCs arguments a. Respondents are not regular employees i. More than 1 year of service is not a factor for regularity ii. They have voluntarily agreed upon the terms of the 5-month contract. There is no proof that URC exercised undue advantage over them b. URC cannot be compelled to reinstate some of the respondents because there are no longer any available positions in the company c. Motion for reconsideration should be granted in view of substantial justice 8. Respondents arguments a. Instant petition should be dismissed because CA decision is already final since Motion for reconsideration was filed beyond the reglementary period. b. They are regular employees after a year of rendering service to URC c. The 5-month contract is void since it was designed to preclude the acquisition of tenurial security Issue: WON respondents are regular employees Yes 1. Test in determining whether one is a regular employee

a. Activity performed by employee has reasonable connection, usually necessary or desirable in the usual business of trade of the employer b. Job performed for at least a year, continuous or intermittent 2. 5-months employment is void for being contrary to public morals or policy a. URCs repeated and continuous hiring negates their contention that respondents were hired for a specific project or undertaking only Issue: WON the instant petition should be dismissed for being filed beyond the reglementary period Yes 1. Rule 45 petition for review should be filed within 15 days from notice of judgment appealed from 2. If the motion for reconsideration is filed out of time and no appeal has been filed, the subject decision (CA decision) becomes final and executory. 3. URC filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration, but such is a prohibited pleading. Consequently, it did not suspend the running of the period for filing an appeal. a. Extension cannot also be granted due to URCs failure to provide exceptionally meritorious instances to warrant the relaxation of rules.