Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Labor
Standards
_
SET 1
I.
CASE TITLE:
INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE VS NLRC, 179 SCRA 459
DATE OF PROMULGATION:
November 15, 1989
control or fix the methodology and bind or restrict the party hired to the use of
such means. The first, which aim only to promote the result, create no employeremployee relationship unlike the second, which address both the result and the
means used to achieve it.
The respondents limit themselves to pointing out that Basiao's contract
with the Company bound him to observe and conform to such rules and
regulations as the latter might from time to time prescribe. No showing has been
made that any such rules or regulations were in fact promulgated, much less that
any rules existed or were issued which effectively controlled or restricted his
choice of methods or the methods themselves of selling insurance. Absent
such showing, the Court will not speculate that any exceptions or qualifications
were imposed on the express provision of the contract leaving Basiao "... free to
exercise his own judgment as to the time, place and means of soliciting
insurance."
II.
CASE TITLE:
INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE VS NLRC, 287 SCRA 478
DATE OF PROMULGATION:
March 12, 1998
2.
Complainant was required to meet certain manpower and
production quotas.
3.
Respondent (herein petitioner) controlled the assignment and
removal of soliciting agents to and from complainants unit, thus: x x x 7..2.
Assignment of Agents: Agents recruited and trained by you shall be attached to
your unit unless for reasons of Company policy, no such assignment should be
made. The Company retains the exclusive right to assign new soliciting agents
appointed and assigned to the saId unit x x x x
It would not be amiss to state the respondents duty to collect the
companys premiums using company receipts under Sec. 7.4 of the management
contract is further evidence of petitioners control over respondent.
III.
CASE TITLE:
REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION vs ERLINDA
CASTANEDA, 507 SCRA 391
DATE OF PROMULGATION:
November 20, 2006
CASE TITLE:
COCA COLA BOTTLERS INC vs DR. DEAN CLIMACO, 514 SCRA 164
DATE OF PROMULGATION:
February 5, 2007
The NLRC affirmed the findings of the Labor Arbiter and stated that it is
precisely because the company lacks the power of control that the contract
provides that respondent shall be directly responsible to the employee concerned
and their dependents for any injury, harm or damage caused through
professional negligence, incompetence or other valid causes of action.
In addition, the Court finds that the schedule of work and the requirement
to be on call for emergency cases do not amount to such control, but are
necessary incidents to the Retainership Agreement. The Court agrees that there is
nothing wrong with the employment of respondent as a retained physician of
petitioner company and upholds the validity of the Retainership Agreement
which clearly stated that no employe-employee relationship existed between the
parties. Considering that there is no employer-employee relationship between the
parties, the termination of the Retainership Agreement , which is accordance
with the provisions of the Agreement, does not constitute illegal dismissal of
respondent.
V.
CASE TITLE:
ESCASINAS, et al. vs SHANGRILAS MACTAN ISLAND RESORT, 580
SCRA 604
DATE OF PROMULGATION:
March 4, 2009
VI.
CASE TITLE:
ANGEL JARDIN, DEMETRIO CALAGOS, URBANO MARCOS, ROSENDO
MARCOS, LUIS DE LOS ANGELES, JOEL ORDENIZA and AMADO CENTENO,
vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC) and GOODMAN
TAXI (PHILJAMA INTERNATIONAL, INC.), 326 SCRA 299
DATE OF PROMULGATION:
February 23, 2000
VII.
CASE TITLE:
MANILA GOLF and COUNTRY CLUB vs NLRC, 237 SCRA 299
DATE OF PROMULGATION:
September 27, 1994
Club has not the measure of control over the incidents of the caddies' work and
compensation that an employer would possess.
The Court agrees with petitioner that the group rotation system so-called,
is less a measure of employer control than an assurance that the work is fairly
distributed, a caddy who is absent when his turn number is called simply losing
his turn to serve and being assigned instead the last number for the day.
By and large, there appears nothing in the record to refute the petitioner's
claim that:
(Petitioner) has no means of compelling the presence of a caddy. A
caddy is not required to exercise his occupation in the premises of
petitioner. He may work with any other golf club or he may seek
employment a caddy or otherwise with any entity or individual without
restriction by petitioner. . . .
. . . In the final analysis, petitioner has no was of compelling the
presence of the caddies as they are not required to render a definite
number of hours of work on a single day. Even the group rotation of
caddies is not absolute because a player is at liberty to choose a caddy of
his preference regardless of the caddy's order in the rotation.
It can happen that a caddy who has rendered services to a player on
one day may still find sufficient time to work elsewhere. Under such
circumstances, he may then leave the premises of petitioner and go to such
other place of work that he wishes. Or a caddy who is on call for a
particular day may deliberately absent him if he has more profitable
caddying, or another, engagement in some other place. These are things
beyond petitioner's control and for which it imposes no direct sanctions on
the caddies. . . .
DATE OF PROMULGATION:
January 28, 1997
Further, not every form of control that a party reserves to himself over the
conduct of the other party in relation to the services being rendered may be
accorded the effect of establishing an employer-employee relationship. The facts
of this case fall squarely with the case of Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. vs.
NLRC. In said case, we held that:
"Logically, the line should be drawn between rules that merely serve
as guidelines towards the achievement of the mutually desired result
without dictating the means or methods to be employed in attaining it, and
those that control or fix the methodology and bind or restrict the party
hired to the use of such means. The first, which aim only to promote the
result, create no employer-employee relationship unlike the second, which
address both the result and the means used to achieve it. The distinction
acquires particular relevance in the case of an enterprise affected with
public interest, as is the business of insurance, and is on that account
subject to regulation by the State with respect, not only to the relations
between insurer and insured but also to the internal affairs of the
insurance company. Rules and regulations governing the conduct of the
business are provided for in the Insurance Code and enforced by the
Insurance Commissioner. It is, therefore, usual and expected for an
insurance company to promulgate a set of rules to guide its commission
agents in selling its policies that they may not run afoul of the law and
what it requires or prohibits. xxxx None of these really invades the agent's
contractual prerogative to adopt his own selling methods or to sell
insurance at his own time and convenience, hence cannot justifiably be
said to establish an employer-employee relationship between him and the
company."
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
The "control" which the above factors indicate did not sum up to the power
to control private respondent's conduct in and mode of soliciting insurance. On
the contrary, they clearly indicate that the juridical element of control had been
absent in this situation. Thus, the Court is constrained to rule that no
employment relationship had ever existed between the parties.
IX.
CASE TITLE:
Republic of the Philippines, rep by SSC and SSS vs Asiapro Cooperative,
538 SCRA 659
DATE OF PROMULGATION:
November 23, 2007
separate and distinct from its owners-members. Consequently, an ownermember of a cooperative can be an employee of the latter and an employeremployee relationship can exist between them.
In the present case, it is not disputed that the respondent cooperative had
registered itself with the Cooperative Development Authority, as evidenced by its
Certificate of Registration No. 0-623-2460. In its by-laws, its Board of Directors
directs, controls, and supervises the business and manages the property of the
respondent cooperative. Clearly then, the management of the affairs of the
respondent cooperative is vested in its Board of Directors and not in its ownersmembers as a whole. Therefore, it is completely logical that the respondent
cooperative, as a juridical person represented by its Board of Directors, can enter
into an employment with its owners-members.
This Court is not unmindful of the pronouncement it made in Cooperative
Rural Bank of Davao City, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja wherein it held that:
A cooperative, therefore, is by its nature different from an ordinary
business concern, being run either by persons, partnerships, or
corporations. Its owners and/or members are the ones who run and
operate the business while the others are its employees x x x.
An employee therefore of such a cooperative who is a member and coowner thereof cannot invoke the right to collective bargaining for certainly an
owner cannot bargain with himself or his co-owners. In the opinion of August 14,
1981 of the Solicitor General he correctly opined that employees of cooperatives
who are themselves members of the cooperative have no right to form or join
labor organizations for purposes of collective bargaining for being themselves coowners of the cooperative.
However, in so far as it involves cooperatives with employees who are not
members or co-owners thereof, certainly such employees are entitled to exercise
the rights of all workers to organization, collective bargaining, negotiations and
others as are enshrined in the Constitution and existing laws of the country.
X.
CASE TITLE:
Purificacion Tabang vs NLRC, 266 SCRA 462
DATE OF PROMULGATION:
January 21, 1997
XI.
CASE TITLE:
Jay Sonza vs ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, 431 SCRA 582
DATE OF PROMULGATION:
Jun 10, 2004
true as well the less control the hirer exercises, the more likely the worker is
considered an independent contractor.
First, SONZA contends that ABS-CBN exercised control over the means
and methods of his work.
SONZAs argument is misplaced. ABS-CBN engaged SONZAs services
specifically to SONZA. To perform his work, SONZA only needed his skills and
talent. How SONZA delivered his lines, appeared on television, and sounded on
radio were outside to co-host the Mel & Jay programs. ABS-CBN did not assign
any other work ABS-CBNs control. SONZA did not have to render eight hours of
work per day. The Agreement required SONZA to attend only rehearsals and
tapings of the shows, as well as pre- and post-production staff meetings. ABSCBN could not dictate the contents of SONZAs script. However, the Agreement
prohibited SONZA from criticizing in his shows ABS-CBN or its interests. The
clear implication is that SONZA had a free hand on what to say or discuss in his
shows provided he did not attack ABS-CBN or its interests.
We find that ABS-CBN was not involved in the actual performance that
produced the finished product of SONZAs work. ABS-CBN did not instruct
SONZA how to perform his job. ABS-CBN merely reserved the right to modify
the program format and airtime schedule for more effective programming.
ABS-CBNs sole concern was the quality of the shows and their standing in the
ratings. Clearly, ABS-CBN did not exercise control over the means and methods
of performance of SONZAs work.
DATE OF PROMULGATION:
July 30, 1990
SET 2
Case
Title
Artemio
Romares
v.
NLRC
294 SCRA
11
August 11,
1998
What is the
business of
the
respondent?
PILMICO
Romares was hired
FOODS
by respondent in
CORPORATIO its Maintenance/
N is a flour
Projects/
milling
Engineering
company.
Department.
What type of
employee was he?
Reason?
Romares was a
regular employee.
Complainant has
performed tasks and
functions which
were necessary and
desirable in the
operation of
respondents
business which
includes painting,
maintenance, repair
and other related
jobs.
Decision of S.C.
RULING: GRANTED
In determining the
status of petitioner as a
regular employee,
reference is made to
Article 280 of the Labor
Code, as amended. Thus,
the two kinds of regular
employees are (1) those
who are engaged to
perform activities which
are necessary or desirable
in the usual business or
trade of the employer;
and (2) those casual
employees who have
rendered at least one year
of service, whether
continuous or broken,
with respect to the
activity in which they are
employed.
Construing the aforesaid
provision, the phrase
usually necessary or
desirable in the usual
business or trade of the
employer should be
emphasized as the
criterion in the instant
case. Facts show that
petitioners work with
PILMICO as a mason was
definitely necessary and
desirable to its business.
PILMICO cannot claim
that petitioners work as
a mason was entirely
foreign or irrelevant to its
line of business in the
It is noteworthy that
during each rehiring, the
summation of which
exceeded one (1) year,
petitioner was assigned
to PILMICOs
Maintenance/Projects/E
ngineering Department
performing the same
kind of maintenance
work such as painting of
company buildings,
cleaning and operating
company equipment, and
assisting the other
regular employees in
their maintenance works.
Such a continuing need
for the services of
petitioner is sufficient
evidence of the necessity
and indispensability of
his services to PILMICOs
business or trade. To
expound further,
granting arguendo that
Business of
trading copra
and charcoal
Private respondent
David Empeynado
was employed as a
general utility man
by petitioners in
their business of
trading copra and
charcoal with a
daily wage of
P35.00. Private
respondents work
consisted of
weighing copra or
charcoal, bagging
copra for loading
and ascertaining
the moisture
content thereof.
He was likewise a
multi-purpose
handyman since he
worked as a driver
of petitioners
trucks, a mechanic
and a messenger to
follow-up
petitioners
contracts with
other companies,
to register their
vehicles, to pay
their taxes,
He is a regular
employee pursuant
to the first
paragraph of Article
280 of the Labor
Code. As a utility
man, his work was
definitely necessary
and desirable to
petitioners business
of trading copra and
charcoal.
RULING: DISMISSED
In this case, the nature of
private respondents
work as a general utility
man was definitely
necessary and desirable
to petitioners business of
trading copra and
charcoal regardless of the
length of time he worked
therein. As such, he is a
regular employee
pursuant to the first
paragraph of Article 280
of the Labor Code.
Petitioners further argue
that private respondent
was only engaged for a
specific task, the
completion of which
resulted in the cessation
of his employment. This
is not correct. By "specific
project or undertaking,"
Article 280 of the Labor
Code contemplates an
activity which is not
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 completion
in which case,
in their behalf.
the services of an
employee are necessary
and desirable in the
employers usual
business only for the
period of time it takes to
complete the project.
Such circumstance does
not obtain in this case.
We now turn to the issue
of backwages.
In determining the
proper amount of
backwages, the material
date to consider is March
21, 1989 which is when
Republic Act No. 6715
took effect. This law
amended, among others,
Article 279 (related to
backwages) of the Labor
Code. Said amendatory
law, however, does not
cover illegal dismissals
effected prior to March
21, 1989, hence, we apply
the "Mercury Drug Rule"
as enunciated in the
landmark case of
Mercury Drug Co., Inc.,
et. al. vs. CIR, et. al. In
this case, the Court fixed
the amount of backwages
to be awarded to an
illegally dismissed
employee to three (3)
years without further
qualifications or
deductions, for reasons of
expediency in the
execution of the decision.
Any award in excess of
the three years is null and
void as to the excess.
Of note also is the "Ferrer
Doctrine" laid down in
Poseidon
Fishing is a
fishing
company
engaged in the
deep-sea
fishing
industry. Its
various vessels
catch fish in
the outlying
islands of the
Philippines,
which are
traded and
sold at the
Navotas Fish
Port.
He is a regular
employee.
The test to
determine whether
one is a project
employee is W/N
the said employee
was assigned to
carry out a specific
project or
undertaking, the
duration and scope
of which were
specified at the time
the employee was
engaged for that
project. Petitioners
have not shown that
RULING: DENIED
It is undisputed that
petitioners were illegally
dismissed from
employment. Article 280
of the Labor Code, states:
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
Poseidon.4 As a
Radio Operator,
he monitored the
daily activities in
their office and
recorded in the
duty logbook the
names of the
callers and time of
their calls.
Estoquia was
informed that he will
be assigned to a
specific project or
undertaking.
Maraguinot Jr. v.
National Labor
Relations
Commission
established that
once a project or
work pool employee
has been
(1) continuously (vs.
intermittently) rehired by the same
employer for the
same tasks or nature
of tasks; and (2)
these tasks are vital,
necessary and
indispensable to the
usual business or
trade of the
employer, the
employee must be
deemed a regular
employee.
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. This
provision draws a line
between regular and
casual employment, a
distinction however often
abused by employers.
The provision
enumerates two (2) kinds
D.M.
CONSUNJI,
INC. is known
as one of the.
leading
construction
companies in
the
Philippines.
Private
respondents were
hired by petitioner
as project
employees to work
on its Cebu Super
Block Project in
Cebu City.
Private respondents
are project
employees.
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
RULING: GRANTED
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 services to be
performed is seasonal in
nature and the
employment is for the
duration of the season.
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.
Examining the standard
contracts signed by the
private respondents,
there are three ways by
which their employment
may be terminated: one,
the expiration of the one
month period, which was
the estimated period for
the completion of the
project; two, the
completion of the project
Tomas
Lao Cons.
v.
NLRC
278 SCRA
716
Septembe
r 5, 1997
(a) Roberto
Regular employees.
Labendia, general
construction
While it may be
foreman, from
allowed that in the
1971 to 17 October
instant case the
1990 at
workers were
P3,700/month; (b)
initially hired for
Narciso Adan,
specific projects or
tireman, from
undertakings of the
October 1981 to
company and hence
November 1990 at
can be classified as
P75.00/day; (c)
project employees,
Florencio Gomez,
the repeated rewelder, from July
hiring and the
1983 to July 1990
continuing need for
at P60.00/day; (d) their services over a
Ernesto
long span of time
Bagatsolon
(the shortest, at
leadman/checker, seven [7] years) have
from June 1982 to
undeniably made
October 1990 at
them regular
P2,800/month; (e)
employees.
Salvador Babon,
clerk/timekeeper/
Thus, we held that
paymaster, from
where the
June 1982 to
employment of
October 1990 at
project employees is
P3,200/month; (f) extended long after
Paterno Bisnar,
the supposed project
road grader
has been finished,
operator, from
the employees are
January 1979 to
removed from the
October 1990 at
scope of project
P105/day;
employees and
(g) Cipriano
considered regular
Bernales,
employees.
instrument man,
from February
1980 to
November 1990 at
P3,200/month;
While length of time
may not be a
controlling test for
(h) Angel Mabulay, project employment,
Sr., dump truck
it can be a strong
driver, from
factor in
August 1974 to
determining
October 1990 at
whether the
RULING: DENIED
The principal test in
determining whether
particular employees are
project employees
distinguished from
regular employees is
whether the project
employees are assigned
to carry out specific
project or undertaking,
the duration (and scope)
of which are specified at
the time the employees
are engaged for the
project. Project in the
realm of business and
industry refers to a
particular job or
undertaking that is
within the regular or
usual business of
employer, but which is
distinct and separate and
identifiable as such from
the undertakings of the
company. Such job or
undertaking begins and
ends at determined or
determinable times.
The allegation of
petitioners that private
respondents are guilty of
abandonment of duty is
without merit.
The elements of
abandonment are:
(a) failure to report for
work or absence without
valid or justifiable
reason, and,
(b) a clear intention to
sever the employeremployee relationship,
with the second element
as the more
determinative factor
manifested by some overt
acts.
In this case, private
respondents Roberto
Labendia and Mario
Labendia were forced to
leave their respective
duties because their
salaries were withheld.
They could not simply sit
idly and allow their
families to starve. They
had to seek employment
elsewhere, albeit
temporarily, in order to
survive.
On the other hand, it
would be the height of
injustice to validate
abandonment in this
particular case as a
ground for dismissal of
respondents thereby
making petitioners
benefit from a gross and
unjust situation which
they themselves created.
Private respondents did
not intend to sever ties
with petitioner and
permanently abandon
their jobs; otherwise,
they would not have filed
this complaint for illegal
dismissal.
The burden of proving
that an employee has
been lawfully dismissed
Petitioner
company was
engaged in a
construction
business
Respondents were
Respondents were
RULING: DENIED
hired on different
regular employees.
dates from 1976 to
Employees (like
1992 either as
The principal test for respondents) who work
laborers, road
determining
under different project
roller operators,
whether employees employment contracts for
painters or drivers.
are project
several years do not
employees or
automatically become
regular employees
regular employees; they
is whether they are
can remain as project
assigned to carry out employees regardless of
a specific project or the number of years they
undertaking, the
work.
duration and scope
of which are
Length of service is not a
specified at the time
controlling factor in
they are engaged for determining the nature of
that project. Such
ones employment.
duration, as well as
Moreover, employees
the particular
who are members of a
work/service to be
work pool from which a
performed, is
company (like petitioner
defined in an
corporation) draws
employment
workers for deployment
agreement
to its different projects do
and is made clear to
not become regular
the employees at the
employees by reason of
time of hiring.
that fact alone. The Court
has enunciated in some
cases that members of a
work pool can either be
project employees or
regular employees.
On the issue of illegal
dismissal, we hold that
petitioners failed to
adhere to the two-notice
rule which requires that
workers to be
dismissed must be
furnished with:
(1) a notice informing
them of the particular
acts for which they are
being dismissed and (2) a
notice advising them of
the decision to terminate
the employment.
Respondents were never
given such notices.
Purefoods
Corp.
v.
NLRC
283 SCRA
133
December
12, 1997
Purefoods
Corp. is
enganged in a
business of
food products.
The private
respondents
activities consisted
in the receiving,
skinning, loining,
packing, and
casing-up of tuna
fish which were
then exported by
the petitioner
Regular employees.
RULING: DISMISSED
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
activities consisted
business or trade of the
in the
employer, except where
receiving, skinning, the employment has been
loining,
fixed for a
packing, and casingspecific project or
up of tuna fish which
undertaking the
were then exported
completion or
by the petitioner.
termination of which has
Indisputably, they
been determined at the
were performing
time of the engagement
activities which were
of the employee or
necessary and
where the work or
desirable in
services to be performed
petitioners business is seasonal in nature and
or trade.
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.
In the instant case, the
private respondents
activities consisted in
the receiving, skinning,
loining, packing, and
casing-up of tuna fish
which were then exported
by the petitioner.
Indisputably, they were
performing activities
which were necessary
and desirable in
petitioners business or
trade.
Philex
Mining
Corp
v.
NLRC
312 SCRA
119
August 10,
1999
Philex Mining
Corp is a
primarily
engaged in
large-scale
exploration,
development,
and utilization
of mineral
resources.
Austria and
Tamondong were
designated
Geochemical
Aides tasked to
assist the
Geochemist in the
analyses of soil
samples by micropippeting,
extractions with
MIBK, preparation
of solutions, etc.
for presentation to
AAS
measurement and
to prepare reports
of analyses. Borja
and
dela Cruz
designation was
that of utility
men whose
functions were "to
assist the
Geochemist in the
analyses of
samples
particularly on
weighing, acid
digestion &
filtration of
samples, and in
washing & drying
of Lab glasswares.
Regular employees.
RULING: DISMISSED
In this case,
petitioner has
private respondent is
significant in the light of
the collective bargaining
agreement (CBA)
between petitioner and
its other employees. It is
not disputed that said
CBA fixes the
probationary period of
Geochemical Aides at six
(6) months,
Petitioner E.
Ganzon, Inc.,
is engaged in
the
construction
business. It
manufactures
its own
building
materials,
e.g., slab
runners,
acropos, jack
bases, window
grills, pulleys,
sliding doors
and all kinds
of aluminum
products,
hollow blocks
and all kinds
In this kind of
integrated
business
respondents were
hired, some as
early as 1987, as
Machinist,
MachinistOperator,
Electrical
Engineer,
Aluminum
Installer/Fabricato
r,
Aluminum
Installer/Helper,
Welder,
Warehouseman,
Marble Setter,
Fabricator/Welder
or Laborer/Helper
Regular employees.
Petitioner is
engaged, as
heretofore
mentioned, in the
construction
business and
manufactures its
own building
materials.
It has its own
machine shop and
construction
equipment. In this
kind of integrated
business
respondents were
hired, some as early
as 1987, as
Machinist,
RULING: PARTIALLY
GRANTED
There is no question that
a stipulation on an
employment contract
providing for a fixed
period
of employment such as
project-to-project
contract is valid provided
the period was agreed
upon
knowingly and
voluntarily by the parties,
without any force, duress
or improper pressure
being brought to bear
upon the employee and
of concrete
products. It
has its own
machine shop,
five (5) mixer
trucks, tower
cranes,
alimak,
elevator shaft,
and others.
Machinist-Operator,
Electrical Engineer,
Aluminum
Installer/Fabricator,
Aluminum
Installer/Helper,
Welder,
Warehouseman,
Marble Setter,
Fabricator/Welder
or Laborer/Helper
until their dismissal
on 25 January 1991.
Private respondents
were made to sign
employment
contracts
purportedly as
project employees
but which were
renewed every three
(3) months.
As in Caramol,
sufficiently established in
the present case are
circumstances showing
that the alleged fixed
periods of employment
by way of project-toproject contracts were
imposed to preclude
acquisition of tenurial
security by private
respondents. We
reiterate that private
respondents performed
activities necessary or
desirable in the usual
business or trade of
petitioner and that they
rendered services for
more than a year.
Accordingly, the
arrangement on fixed
Phil. Fruit
&
Vegetable
v.
NLRC
310 SCRA
673
July 20,
1999
Petitioner
Philippine
Fruit and
Vegetable
Industries,
Inc. (PFVII,
for brevity) is
a governmentowned and
controlled
corporation
engaged in the
manufacture
and processing
of fruit and
vegetable
purees for
export.
The work of
complainants as
seeders, operators,
sorters, slicers,
janitors, drivers,
truck helpers,
mechanics and
office personnel is
without doubt
necessary in the
usual business of a
food processing
company like
petitioner PFVII.
trade of the
respondent
company. There can
be no escape from
the conclusion that
the complainants
were regular
employees of the
respondent as
provided by Article
280 of the Labor
Code x x x x
periods of employment
must be struck down as
contrary to public policy.
Regular employees.
RULING: AFFIRMED
As correctly noted
by the Office of the
Solicitor General,
private respondents
in this case are
deemed regular
employees by virtue
of the fact that they
performed functions
which are necessary
and desirable in the
usual business of
PFVII as provided
under the first
paragraph of Art.
280 of the Labor
Code.
shall be considered a
regular employee with
respect to the activity in
which he is employed and
his employment shall
continue while such
actually exists.
Under the above
provision, an
employment shall be
deemed regular where
the employee: a) has
been engaged to perform
activities which are
usually necessary or
desirable in the usual
business or trade of the
employer; or b) has
rendered at least one year
of service, whether such
service is continuous or
broken, with respect to
the activity in which he is
employed.
In the case at bar, the
work of complainants as
seeders, operators,
sorters, slicers, janitors,
drivers, truck helpers,
mechanics and office
personnel is without
doubt necessary in the
usual business of a food
processing company like
petitioner PFVII.
It should be noted that
complainants'
employment has not been
fixed for a specific project
or undertaking the
completion or
termination of which has
been determined at the
time of their
appointment or hiring.
Neither is their
employment seasonal in
nature. While it may be
true that some phases of
petitioner company's
processing operations is
dependent on the supply
of fruits for a particular
season, the other equally
important aspects of its
business, such as
manufacturing and
marketing are not
seasonal.
The fact is that largescale food processing
companies such as
petitioner company
continue to operate and
do business throughout
the year even if the
availability of fruits and
vegetables is seasonal.
Private
respondent La
Union
Tobacco
Redrying
Corporation
(LUTORCO),
which is
owned by
private
respondent
See Lin Chan,
is engaged in
the business of
buying,
selling,
redrying and
processing of
tobacco leaves
and its byproducts.
Petitioners are
farmers of La
Union Tobacco
Redrying
Corporation.
Regular employees.
RULING: GRANTED
respondents LUTORCO
and See Lin Chan
considering that
petitioners are regular
seasonal employees
entitled to the benefits of
Article 283 of the Labor
Code which applies to
closures or cessation of
an establishment or
undertaking, whether it
be a complete or partial
cessation or closure of
business operation.
Mercado
v.
NLRC
201 SCRA
332
Septembe
r 5, 1991
Private
respondents
were engaged
in agricultural
business.
Petitioners were
farmers of the
private
respondents.
Project employees or
seasonal employees.
RULING: DISMISSED
Article 280 of the Labor
Code reads in full:
A project employee
has been defined to
be one whose
Article 280. Regular and
employment has
Casual Employment.
been fixed for a
The provisions of written
specific project or
agreement to the
undertaking, the
contrary notwithstanding
completion or
and regardless of the oral
termination of which agreement of the parties,
has been
an employment shall be
determined at the
deemed to be regular
time of the
where the employee has
engagement of the
been engaged to perform
employee, or where
activities which are
the work or service
usually necessary or
to be performed is
desirable in the usual
seasonal in nature
business or trade of the
and the employment employer, except where
is for the duration of the employment has been
the season as in the fixed for a specific project
present case.
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
Petitioners are
the Manila
Hotel
Corporation
(hereinafter
referred to as
MHC) and
the Manila
Hotel
International
Company,
Limited
Private respondent
Marcelo Santos
(hereinafter
referred to as
Santos) was an
overseas worker
employed as a
printer at the
Mazoon Printing
Press, Sultanate of
Oman.
Subsequently, in
Private respondent
is not an employee
of the petitioners.
Respondent Santos
was hired directly by
the Palace Hotel, a
foreign employer,
through
correspondence sent
to the Sultanate of
Oman, where
RULING: ANNULS
the orders and
resolutions of the
National Labor
Relations
Commission.
The employment
contract.-- Respondent
Santos was hired directly
by the Palace Hotel, a
foreign employer,
(hereinafter
referred to as
MHICL).
respondent Santos
was then employed.
He was hired
without the
intervention of the
POEA or any
authorized
recruitment agency
of the government.
through correspondence
sent to the Sultanate of
Oman, where respondent
Santos was then
employed. He was hired
without the intervention
of the POEA or any
authorized recruitment
agency of the
government.
Under the rule of forum
non conveniens, a
Philippine court or
agency may assume
jurisdiction over the case
if it chooses to do so
provided:
(1) that the Philippine
court is one to which the
parties may conveniently
resort to;
(2) that the Philippine
court is in a position to
make an intelligent
decision as to the law and
the facts; and (3) that the
Philippine court has or is
likely to have power to
enforce its decision. The
conditions are unavailing
in the case at bar.
The employment contract
was not perfected in the
Philippines. Respondent
Santos signified his
acceptance by writing a
letter while he was in the
Republic of Oman. This
letter was sent to the
Palace Hotel in the
Peoples Republic of
China.
This is not to say that
Philippine courts and
employer-employee
relationship, the
following elements are
considered:
(1) the selection and
engagement of the
employee;
(2) the payment of
wages;
(3) the power to dismiss;
and
(4) the power to control
employees conduct.
MHICL did not have and
did not exercise any of
the aforementioned
powers. It did not select
respondent Santos as an
employee for the Palace
Hotel. He was referred to
the Palace Hotel by his
friend, Nestor Buenio.
MHICL did not engage
respondent Santos to
work.
The terms of employment
were negotiated and
finalized through
correspondence between
respondent Santos, Mr.
Schmidt and Mr. Henk,
who were officers and
representatives of the
Palace Hotel and not
MHICL. Neither did
respondent Santos
adduce any proof that
MHICL had the power to
control his conduct.
Finally, it was the Palace
Hotel, through Mr.
Schmidt and not MHICL
that terminated
respondent Santos
Respondent is
a private
university
located in
Baguio City.
Petitioner
Esperanza
Escorpizo was
initially hired by
respondent
university on June
13, 1989 as a high
school classroom
teacher.
Probationary
employee.
RULING: DISMISSED
There is no dispute that
Escorpizo was a
probationary employee
from the time she was
employed on June 13,
1989 and until the end of
the school semester in
March 1991 or for two
academic years.
Thereafter, on her plea,
she was again allowed to
teach for school year
1991-1992. She knew
that her status then was
not that of a regular
employee. For, she was
also aware that her
attainment of a regular
employment is
conditioned upon
compliance with the
requisites attached to her
position, pursuant to the
rules
prescribed by respondent
university, to wit:
A probationary
employee is one
who, for a given
period of time, is
being observed and
evaluated to
determine whether
or not he is qualified
for permanent
employment. A
probationary
appointment affords
the employer an
opportunity to
observe the skill,
competence and
attitude of a
probationer. The
word
probationary, as
used to describe the
period of
employment,
implies the purpose
of the term or
period. While the
employer observes
PROBATIONARY
the fitness, propriety
STATUS
and efficiency of a
probationer to
An appointment to teach
ascertain whether he during the first two years
is qualified for
at the University is
permanent
employment,
the probationer at
the same time, seeks
to prove to the
employer that he has
the qualifications to
meet the
reasonable
standards for
permanent
employment.
probationary in nature.
xxx.
During the period of
probation (four
semesters,
excluding summer
terms), the teacher is
observed and evaluated
formally by a committee
composed of:
(1) the most
ranking/senior member
of the faculty in his
discipline/field of
specialization, (2) his
department head or
college dean, (3) the
Personnel Director and
(4) the Vice President for
Academic Affairs,
including his students to
determine his
competency and fitness
to be elevated to
permanent status.
xxx
xxx
xxx
Permanent status is
granted to the faculty
member of the high
school or elementary
school who has
satisfactorily complied
with the requirements of
the probationary period,
has at least a bachelors
degree in education, and
has passed the
Professional Teacher
Board Examination or an
equivalent Civil Service
Examination.
Under the aforecited rule,
Being a prerequisite
imposed by law, such
requirement could not
have been waived by
respondent university, as
herein insisted by
petitioners.
In the same vein,
petitioners proposition
that upon completion of
two-year probationary
period with a very
satisfactory performance,
Escorpizo automatically
becomes permanent is
Radin
Alcira
v.
NLRC
G.R. No.
149859
June 9,
2004
Respondent
Middleby
Philippines
Corporation
(Middleby) is
engaged in a
business of
manufacturing
equipments.
Petitioner was
hired by the
respondent as
engineering
support services
supervisor on a
probationary basis
for six months.
Probationary
employee.
RULING: DENIED