III.

Employees Classification
Reference LC 293 (278), 295 (280) 296 (281); Omnibus Rules, Book IV, Rule 1, Secs. 1, 5, 6

There are five classification of employment: regular, project, seasonal, casual, and
fixed-term employment.
Employees performing activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the
employers usual business or trade can either be regular, project or seasonal
employees, while, as a general rule, those performing activities not usually necessary
or desirable in the employers usual business or trade are casual employees.
Project employees may or may not be usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer. Firstly, a project could refer to a particular job or
undertaking that is within the regular or usual business of the employer company,
but which is distinct and separate, and identifiable as such, from the other
undertakings of the company. Such job or undertaking begins and ends at determined
or determinable times. The term project could also refer to, secondly, a particular
job or undertaking that is not within the regular business of the corporation. Such a
job or undertaking must also be identifiably separate and distinct from the ordinary
or regular business operations of the employer. The job or undertaking also begins
and ends at determined or determinable times
Employers claiming that their workers are project employees should not only prove
that the duration and scope of the employment was specified at the time they were
engaged, but also that there was indeed a project.
In fixed term employment, there must be a determination of the completion or
termination of the project at the time the employee is engaged, or a clear agreement
thereto. The fixed period employment must be knowingly and voluntarily agreed
upon by the parties, without any force, duress or improper pressure being brought to
bear upon the employee and absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent, or
it must satisfactorily appear that the employer and employee dealt with each other
on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance being exerted on the employee
1. Coverage 293 (278). Coverage. The provisions of this Title shall apply to all establishments or

undertakings, whether for profit or not.
2. Employee Classification 295 (280) 296 (281).
ART. 295 (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 service 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.
ART. 296 (281). Probationary employment. Probationary employment shall not exceed six (6)
months from the date the employee started working, unless it is covered by an apprenticeship
agreement stipulating a longer period. The services of an employee who has been engaged on a
probationary basis may be terminated for a just cause or when he fails to qualify as a regular
 employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the employer to the
employee at the time of his engagement. An employee who is allowed to work after a
probationary period shall be considered a regular employee.
a. Employer Recognition
Artemio J. Romares v. NLRC & Pilmico Foods Corp., 294 SCRA 411 (December 11,
1998)
Facts: Artemio was a mason engaged by the private respondent Pilmico as a mason for
15 months in broken terms that is, hired and terminated three times. The LA found that
Artemio was illegally dismissed because as a regular employee by rendering service for
at least (1) year Pilmico did not observe the twin notice rule. NLRC, on the other hand,
found that neither was Artemio a regular employee nor illegally dismissed; it was held
that Art. 295 par. 1 applies to the employment contract as it was considered as with a
fixed or temporary period, thus termination was legal since it was due to the expiration
of the contract.
Issue: WON Artemio is a regular employee
Ruling: Yes. According to the Court, Art. 280 provides two kinds of regular employees
which 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. The facts show that Artemios work as
a mason was necessary and desirable to Pilmicos business. Pilmico cannot claim that
petitioners work as a mason was entirely foreign or irrelevant to its line of business in
the production of flour, yeast, feeds and other flour products. In each of Artemios
rehiring, he was assigned to the same department to do the same kind of maintenance
work. Such continuing need for his services is sufficient evidence of the necessity and
indispensability of his services to Pilmicos business.

b. Employer Determination/ Designation

Phil. Federation, etc. V. NLRC & Victoria April, 300 SCRA 72 (December 11,1998)
Facts: Victoria was employed by petitioner first as a junior auditor/field examiner and
after that, as an employee in different capacities from 1982 to 1988. After returning from
giving birth, Victoria came to know that another person was employed permanently on
her past position, hence she accepted a position which is covered by a contract which
stipulated that her employment shall be probationary for a period of six months. She was
terminated after serving her second employment contract for a period of one year after
her first employment contract has expired.
Issue: WON Abril is a regular employee
Ruling: Yes. According to the Court, the respondent has become a regular employee
entitled to security of tenure guaranteed under the Constitution and labor laws.
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.

A. Regular employees 295, 1st par., 2nd par.; 296, last sentence; 75(d); Omnibus Rules, Book IV,
Rule 1, Secs. 5(a), (b) and 6
ART. 295 (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 service 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.
ART. 296 (281). Probationary employment. xxx An employee who is allowed to work after a
probationary period shall be considered a regular employee.
ART. 75 (d). Learnership agreement. Any employer desiring to employ learners shall enter into a
learnership agreement with them, which agreement shall include:
The names and addresses of the learners;
The duration of the learnership period, which shall not exceed three (3) months;
The wages or salary rates of the learners which shall begin at not less than seventy-five
percent (75%) of the applicable minimum wage; and
A commitment to employ the learners if they so desire, as regular employees upon
completion of the learnership. All learners who have been allowed or suffered to work
during the first two (2) months shall be deemed regular employees if training is
terminated by the employer before the end of the stipulated period through no fault of
the learners.
The learnership agreement shall be subject to inspection by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment or his duly authorized representative.
Book VI, Rule I, Sec. 5. Regular and casual employment. (a) The provisions of written
agreements to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreements of the parties,
an employment shall be considered to be regular employment for purposes of Book VI of the
Labor Code 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 service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the
season.
(b) Employment shall be deemed as casual in nature 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 not, 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.
Book VI, Rule I, Sec. 6. Probationary employment. (a) Where the work for which an employee
has been engaged is learnable or apprenticeable in accordance with the standards prescribed by
the Department of Labor, the probationary employment period of the employee shall be limited
to the authorized learnership or apprenticeship period, whichever is applicable.
(b) Where the work is neither learnable nor apprenticeable, the probationary employment period
shall not exceed six (6) months reckoned from the date the employee actually started working.
(c) The services of an employee who has been engaged on probationary basis may be terminated
only for a just cause or when authorized by existing laws, or when he fails to qualify as a regular
employee in accordance with reasonable standards prescribed by the employer.
(d) In all cases involving employees engaged on probationary basis, the employer shall make
known to the employee the standards under which he will qualify as a regular employee at the
time of his engagement.

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.
1. Nature of Work: Primary standard to determine regular employment
Romeo Basan, et. al (6 others) and NLRC v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phil., Inc., GR 174365-
66; February 4, 2015
Facts: Petitioners filed an illegal dismissal case against private respondent Coca-Cola after
it allegedly dismissed them without just cause and prior notice as required by law.
Respondent, on the other hand, maintained that the petitioners were engaged as
temporary route helpers whose employment were for a fixed period. The LA ruled in favor
of the petitioner finding that they were performing tasks which are necessary and
desirable to the usual business of Coca-Cola for more than the period of regularization
which was affirmed by the NLRC; the CA, on the other hand, reversed the previous rulings
after finding that petitioners were employees with a fixed period of employment.
Issue: WON petitioners are regular employees
Ruling: Yes. According to the Court, the nature of work of route helpers hired by Coca-
Cola, as fixed by jurisprudence, is necessary and desirable in its usual business or trade,
hence they are to be qualified as regular employees. As route helpers who are engaged
in the service of loading and unloading softdrink products of respondent company to its
various delivery points, which is necessary or desirable in its usual business or trade,
petitioners are considered as regular employees. That they merely rendered services for
periods of less than a year is of no moment since for as long as they were performing
activities necessary to the business of respondent, they are deemed as regular employees
under the Labor Code, irrespective of the length of their service.

see: Emmanuel D. Quintanar plus 29 others v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phil. Inc., GR 210575;
June 28, 2016
see: Forever Richsons Trading Corp. v. Elsie Molina, et. al., (4 others), GR 206061;
September 16, 2013
2. Art. 295 (280): When applicable, ER-EE relationship is not in dispute
AtoK Big Wedge Co., Inc. v. Jesus P. Gison, GR 169510; August 8, 2011
Facts: Private respondent Giron was engaged by petitioner on a retainer basis for a rate
of P3,000 per month; the agreement which evidences the matter was allegedly lost. After
serving eleven years, Giron wanted to receive SSS benefits which the petitioner refused
to give. This led to Giron filing a complaint for non-registration of employee to SSS, after
which petitioner terminated his services; Giron then filed an illegal dismissal case which
was dismissed by both the LA and NLRC, but was reversed by the CA after application of
Art. 280 that provided that Girons work for eleven years has already made him a regular
employee by operation of law.
Issue: WON an EE-ER relationship exists between petitioner and private respondent
 Ruling: No. According to the Court, by applying the four-fold test, an EE-ER relationship is
absent in the case at bar. Article 280 of the Labor Code, in which the lower court used
to buttress its findings that respondent became a regular employee of the petitioner, is
not applicable in the case at bar. Indeed, the Court has ruled that said provision is not
the yardstick for determining the existence of an employment relationship because it
merely distinguishes between two kinds of employees, i.e., regular employees and
casual employees, for purposes of determining the right of an employee to certain
benefits, to join or form a union, or to security of tenure; it does not apply where the
existence of an employment relationship is in dispute. It is, therefore, erroneous on the
part of the Court of Appeals to rely on Article 280 in determining whether an employer-
employee relationship exists between respondent and the petitioner

3. Extended Period
Tomas Lao Construction, LVM Const. Corp., Thomas & James Developers (Phil.) Inc. v.
NLRC Mario O. Labendia, Sr. plus 10 others, 278 SCRA 716 (98)
Facts: Respondents were engaged by petitioners as construction workers for various
projects being built for the government. Petitioners, in one memorandum, asked its
workers to sign an employment contract for audit purposes on threat of salary
withholding for non-compliance. Respondents, but one, did not sign the contract which
then led to their dismissal that was found to be illegal by the NLRC.
Issue: WON respondents are regular employees
Ruling: Yes. According to the Court, while it may be allowed that in the instant case the
workers were initially hired for specific projects or undertakings of the company and
hence can be classified as project employees, the repeated re-hiring and the continuing
need for their services over a long span of time (the shortest, at seven [7] years) have
undeniably made them regular employees. Thus, the Court held that 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
considered regular employees. While length of time may not be a controlling test for
project employment, it can be a strong factor in determining whether the employee was
hired for a specific undertaking or in fact tasked to perform functions which are vital,
necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer. In the case
at bar, private respondents had already gone through the status of project employees.
But their employments became non-coterminous with specific projects when they started
to be continuously re-hired due to the demands of petitioners business and were
reengaged for many more projects without interruption.

4. Repeated Renewal of Contract

Beta Electric Corp. v. NLRC & Luzviminda Petilla, 182, SCRA 384 (90)
Facts: Petilla was hired as clerk typist III by petitioner; such engagement was covered by
an employment contract which was renewed for five times totaling more or less 17
months of continuous service. After her termination, Petilla filed an illegal dismissal case
which was granted by both the LA and the NLRC.
Issue: WON Petilla was a regular employee
Ruling: Yes. According to the Court, Petilla was employed from December 15, 1986 until
June 22, 1987 when she was ordered laid-off. Her tenure having exceeded six months,
she attained regular employment. [C]learly, the contract-to-contract arrangement
 given to the private respondent was but an artifice to prevent her from acquiring security
of tenure and to frustrate constitutional decrees.

B. Project Employees 295, 1st par.; see also Policy Instructions No. 20 of 1977 and DO 19-93
ART. 295 (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 service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the
duration of the season.
A project employee is assigned to a project which begins and ends at determined or
determinable times. His employment may be lawfully terminated at the completion of
the project;
Principal Test: Whether or not the employees were assigned to carry out a specific
project or undertaking, the duration (and scope) of which were specified at the
time they were engaged for that project; repeated rehiring nor length of service not
controlling
Types of project
(1) A particular job or undertaking that is within the regular or usual business of the employer company,
but which is distinct and separate, and identifiable as such, from the other undertakings of the
company. Such job or undertaking begins and ends at determined or determinable times.
(2) A particular job or undertaking that is not within the regular business of the corporation. Such a job
or undertaking must also be identifiably separate and distinct from the ordinary or regular business
operations of the employer. The job or undertaking also begins and ends at determined or
determinable times

1. Principal Test of Project Employment

Omni Hauling Services, Inc. et. al. v. Bernardo Bon, et. al. (17 others), GR 199388,
September 3, 2014
Facts: Petitioners won a contract for garbage hauling services from the Quezon City
Government. As such, petitioners hired private respondents as garbage haulers and
collectors on a per-day basis. After the renewal of the contract between petitioner and
the QC Government, petitioner asked private respondents to sign an employment
contract which stated that they were only rehired for the duration of the contract to
which the private respondents refused which then led to a complaint for illegal dismissal
which was dismissed by both LA and NLRC, but was reversed by the CA after finding that
the private respondents were regular employees by operation of law for petitioners
failure to offer evidence to prove the project employment of the private respondents.
Issue: WON private respondents were project employees
Ruling: No. According to the Court, private respondents were regular employees.
According to jurisprudence, the principal test for determining whether particular
employees are properly characterized as project employees as distinguished from
regular employees, is whether or not the employees were assigned to carry out a
specific project or undertaking, the duration (and scope) of which were specified at
the time they were engaged for that project. The project could either be (1) a particular
job or undertaking that is within the regular or usual business of the employer company,
but which is distinct and separate, and identifiable as such, from the other undertakings
 of the company; or (2) a particular job or undertaking that is not within the regular
business of the corporation. In order to safeguard the rights of workers against the
arbitrary use of the word project to prevent employees from attaining a regular status,
employers claiming that their workers are project employees should not only prove that
the duration and scope of the employment was specified at the time they were engaged,
but also that there was indeed a project. In this case, records are bereft of any evidence
to show that respondents were made to sign employment contracts explicitly stating
that they were going to be hired as project employees, with the period of their
employment to be coterminus with the original period of Omnis service contract with
the Quezon City government. Neither is petitioners allegation that respondents were
duly apprised of the project-based nature of their employment supported by any other
evidentiary proof. Thus, the logical conclusion is that respondents were not clearly and
knowingly informed of their employment status as mere project employees, with the
duration and scope of the project specified at the time they were engaged.

see: Dionisio Dacles v. Millenium Erectors, GR 209822; July 8, 2015

see: Juvy C. Caasi v. Kanlungan Centre Foundation, Inc. Center for Migrant Workers,
GR 199769; September 11, 2013
see: Hanjin Heavy Industres & Const. Co. v. Felicitio Ibanez, et. al. (4 others) 55 SCRA
537 (2008)
see: DM Consunji Corp. v. Rogelio P. Bello, 702 SCRA 347 (July 29, 2013)
see: William Uy Construction Corp. v. Jorge Trinidad, GR No. 183250; March 10, 2010
see: Villa v. NLRC, 284 SCRA 105 (98)
2. Effect of Absence of Written Contract: Presumption of Regular Employment
Isidro Quebral plus 8 others v. Angbus Const., Inc., GR 192394; July 3, 2013
Facts: Petitioners were engaged by Angbus as workers performing tasks which are
necessary and desirable to the usual business of Angbus but were summarily dismissed
by private respondent without just cause and due process. Angbus, on the other hand,
claimed that petitioners were engaged only as project employees, that they were first
engaged by Angelde which was a distinct and separate entity, and that the employment
contract evidencing the project employee status of the petitioners were lost due to the
flooding of private respondents office; no table, no other evidence adducing the status
of employment of the petitioners were presented by Angbus. The LA dismissed the illegal
dismissal case which the NLRC reversed on the ground of Angbus failure to present the
employment contracts of the petitioners; CA reversed.
Issue: WON petitioners were project employees
Ruling: No. According to the Court, petitioners were regular employees. (1) Angbus failed
to discharge the burden of proving that the petitioners were employed as project
employee. By applying the principal test of project employment, petitioners failed to state
the specific project or undertaking assigned to petitioners; (2) Angbus also failed to
present the employment contract and other evidence to show that it informed petitioners
of the duration and scope of their work. The Court previously ruled that although the
absence of a written contract does not by itself grant regular status to the employees, it
is evidence that they were informed of the duration and scope of their work and their
status as project employees at the start of their engagement. When no other evidence is
offered, the absence of employment contracts raises a serious question of whether the
employees were sufficiently apprised at the start of their employment of their status as
 project employees. Absent such proof, it is presumed that they are regular employees,
thus, can only be dismissed for just or authorized causes upon compliance with
procedural due process

3. Application of Rule in Non-Construction Industries

Principal test of project employment does not apply
In Maraguinot, Jr. v. NLRC, it was ruled that a project or work pool employee,
who has been: (1) continuously, as opposed to intermittently, rehired by the
same employer for the same tasks or nature of tasks; and 2) those tasks are vital,
necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer, must
be deemed a regular employee. Not all project or work pool employees are
regular, only when the two factors concur can they be considered as such.

MacArthur Malicdem & Herenigildo Flores v. Marulas Industrial Corp., GR 204406;

February 26, 2014
Facts: Malicdem and Flores as extruder operators were made to sign a contract of
employment every after its expiration and signing of a quitclaim waiver in favor of private
respondent Marulas. The LA, NLRC, and CA all concurred that petitioners were project
employees.
Issue: WON petitioners were project employees.
Ruling: No. According to the Court, the petitioners were regular employees. (1) There was
no actual project; the only stipulations in the contracts were the dates of their effectivity,
the duties and responsibilities of the petitioners as extruder operations, the rights and
obligations of the parties, and the petitioners compensation and allowances. (2) Granting
that petitioners were project employees, they are regular employees as the two factors
enumerated in Maraguinot, Jr. are present in this case. They were performing tasks which
were vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer.
In D.M. Consunji, Inc. v. Estelito Jamin and Liganza v. RBL Shipyard Corporation, the Court
reiterated the ruling that an employment ceases to be coterminous with specific projects
when the employee is continuously rehired due to the demands of the employers
business and reengaged for many more projects without interruption. The respondents
invocation of William Uy Construction Corp. v. Trinidad is misplaced because it is
applicable only in cases involving the tenure of project employees in the construction
industry. It is widely known that in the construction industry, a project employees work
depends on the availability of projects, necessarily the duration of his employment. It
is not permanent but coterminous with the work to which he is assigned. It would be
extremely burdensome for the employer, who depends on the availability of projects,
to carry him as a permanent employee and pay him wages even if there are no projects
for him to work on. The rationale behind this is that once the project is completed it
would be unjust to require the employer to maintain these employees in their payroll.
To do so would make the employee a privileged retainer who collects payment from his
employer for work not done. This is extremely unfair to the employers and amounts to
labor coddling at the expense of management.

see: Alejandro Maraguinot v. NLRC & Vic del Rosario & Viva Films, 284 SCRA 539 (98)
C. Casual Employees 295 2nd par.; Omnibus Rules, Book VI, Rule 1, Sec. 5(b)
ART. 295 (280). Regular and casual employment. xxx
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.
Omnibus Rules, Book VI, Rule 1, Sec. 5(b). Casual Employment. There is casual employment
where an employee is engaged to perform a job, work or service which is merely incidental to the
business of the employer, and such job, work or service is for a definite period made known to the
employee at the time of engagement. Provided, That any employee who has rendered at least
one year of service, whether such service is continuous or not, 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.
1. Nature of Work
Hacienda Leddy/ Ricardo Gamboa, Kr. V. Paquito Villegas, GR 179654; September 22,
2014
Facts: Paquito Villegas has been working as a sugar cane farmer for the petitioners father
since 1969, working 8 hours a day, 6 days a week for 302 days a year and with a daily rate
of P45; and for petitioners coco lumber business for 8 hours a day for P34.00. Petitioner
claims that respondent was only working casually and doing odd jobs for the hacienda,
which he later retracted claiming that according to records, Villlegas only started working
for them starting 1993 and that he was using the illegal dismissal case as leverage against
eviction from the land. The LA decided that there was illegal dismissal which the NLRC
reversed, but was later on set aside by the CA.
Issue: WON respondent was a casual employee
Ruling: No. According to the Court, Villegas was a regular employee because of his
length 20 years of his employment. Even assuming that he was doing odd jobs
around the farm, such long period of doing said odd jobs is indicative that the same was
either necessary or desirable to petitioners trade or business. Owing to the length of
service alone, he became a regular employee, by operation of law, one year after he
was employed. Article 280 of the Labor Code, describes a regular employee as one who
is either (1) 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 he is employed. Notwithstanding any agreements to the contrary, what determines
whether a certain employment is regular or casual is not the will and word of the
employer, to which the desperate worker often accedes, much less the procedure of
hiring the employee or the manner of paying his salary. It is the nature of the activities
performed in relation to the particular business or trades considering all circumstances,
and in some cases the length of time of its performance and its continued existence.

see: Maranaw Hotels & Resort Corp. v. CA & Sheryl Oabel & Manila Res. Dev. Co., GR
149660; January 20, 2009
2. One Year Service
Fortunato Mercado, et. al. (15 others) v. NLRC & Aurora Cruz, et. al., 201 SCRA 332
(91)
Facts: Petitioners were dismissed after being in service with the private respondents after
many years. Petitioners contend that they should be classified as regular employees in
accordance to law, while the respondents argued that petitioners were only engaged in
an on-and-off basis. Both the LA and the NLRC held that petitioners were not regular
 workers since the terms and conditions of their employment were only for specific phases
of agricultural work, after which they were free to engage other employers.
Issue: WON petitioners are regular employees
Ruling: No. According to the Court, the petitioners were seasonal employees. The general
rule is that the office of a proviso is to qualify or modify only the phrase immediately
preceding it or restrain or limit the generality of the clause that it immediately follows.
Thus, it has been held that a proviso is to be construed with reference to the immediately
preceding part of the provision to which it is attached, and not to the statute itself or to
other sections thereof. The only exception to this rule is where the clear legislative intent
is to restrain or qualify not only the phrase immediately preceding it (the proviso) but also
earlier provisions of the statute or even the statute itself as a whole. Policy Instruction
No. 12 of the Department of Labor and Employment discloses that the concept of regular
and casual employees was designed to put an end to casual employment in regular jobs,
which has been abused by many employers to prevent so-called casuals from enjoying
the benefits of regular employees or to prevent casuals from joining unions. The same
instructions show that the proviso in the second paragraph of Art. 280 was not designed
to stifle small-scale businesses nor to oppress agricultural land owners to further the
interests of laborers, whether agricultural or industrial. What it seeks to eliminate are
abuses of employers against their employees and not, as petitioners would have us
believe, to prevent small-scale businesses from engaging in legitimate methods to realize
profit. Hence, the proviso is applicable only to the employees who are deemed
casuals' but not to the project employees nor the regular employees treated in
paragraph one of Art. 280. 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

D. Fixed-Term Employees

The test to determine whether or not the employee is assigned to carry out a specific project or
undertaking, is whether or not the duration or scope of which was specified at the time of his
engagement. There must be a determination of the completion or termination of the project at
the time the employee is engaged, or a clear agreement thereto. The fixed period employment
must be knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties, without any force, duress or
improper pressure being brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other
circumstances vitiating his consent, or it must satisfactorily appear that the employer and
employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance being
exerted on the employee

Alumanay O. Jamias (plus 2 Jennfers) v. NLRC & Innodata Phil. Inc., Innodata
Processing Corp., GR 159350; March 9, 2016
Facts: Petitioners after serving their contracts for one-year engagement filed a complaint
for illegal dismissal against private respondents. They claim that they were regular
employees performing work that is necessary and desirable to the main business of
private respondents and that the employment contracts were made to evade the security
of tenure provided in Art. 280. The LA, NLRC, and the CA all concurred in dismissing the
complaint for illegal dismissal after finding that petitioners entered knowingly and
 willingly to the agreement and that Art. 280 did not prohibit contracts with fixed period
of employment.
Issue: WON petitioners were regular employees.
Ruling: No. According to the Court, Art. 280 did not preclude an agreement providing for
a fixed term of employment knowingly and voluntarily executed by the parties. A fixed-
term agreement must conform to the requirements set by Art. 280. The fixed-term
agreement between petitioners and private respondent (1) provided a determination of
the completion or termination of the project at the time of the employees engagement;
and (2) was shown to be entered into knowingly and voluntarily. Lastly, the necessity and
desirability of the work performed by the employees are not the determinants in term
employment, but rather the day certain voluntarily agreed upon by the parties.

see: Brent School v. Hon. Ronaldo Zamora, 181 SCRA 702 (90)
see: Lynvil Fishing Enterprises, Inc. v. Andres G. Ariola, et. al., GR 181974; February 1,
2012
see: Arlene T. Samonte, Vladimir P. Samonte, Ma. Aurea S. Elepano v. La Salle
Greenhills, Inc., Bro Bernard S. Oca, GR 199683; February 10, 2016
1. Fixed-term Employees v. Independent Contractors v. Regular Employees
see again: Fuji Television Network, Inc. v. Arlene S. Espiritu, GR 204944-45; December
3, 2014
Facts: Private respondent was hired by petitioner as a news correspondent/producer for
its Manila field office for initially a term of one year, but was successively renewed on a
yearly basis with salary adjustments upon every renewal. However after respondent
contracted lung cancer, petitioner caused respondent to sign, under protest, a
nonrenewal contract which provided the payment of benefits due the respondent and a
provision that releases each other from liabilities and responsibilities. Respondent filed a
case for illegal dismissal to which both the NLRC and CA found that she was, indeed,
illegally dismissed.
Issue: WON respondent was illegally dismissed
Ruling: Yes. According to the Court, Fujis argument that Arlene was an independent
contractor under a fixed-term contract is contradictory. Employees under fixed-term
contracts cannot be independent contractors because in fixed-term contracts, an
employer-employee relationship exists, while in the former there is none. Arlene was
an employee of Fuji since by application of the four-fold test and the ruling in Dumpit-
Murillo, Fuji was indeed the employer of Arlene. However, Arlene was a regular employee
with a fixed-term contract. An employee can be a regular employee with a fixed-term
contract. The law does not preclude the possibility that a regular employee may opt to
have a fixed-term contract for valid reasons. This was recognized in Brent: For as long as
it was the employee who requested, or bargained, that the contract have a definite date
of termination, or that the fixed-term contract be freely entered into by the employer
and the employee, then the validity of the fixed-term contract will be upheld

2. Project employment and Fixed-term employment, distinguished

 The decisive determinant in fixed-term employment is not the activity that the
employee is called upon to perform but the day certain agreed upon by the
parties for the commencement and termination of the employment. The
decisive determinant in project employment is the activity that the employee is
called upon to perform and not the day certain agreed upon by the parties for
the commencement and termination of the employment relationship.
In Filsystems, Inc. v. Puente, the Court ruled that employment contract that does
not mention particular dates that establish the specific duration of the project
does not preclude one's classification as a project employee.
E. Ganzon, Inc. v. Fortunato Ando, Jr., GR 214183; February 20, 2017
Facts: Ando was a finishing carpenter employed by the petitioner EGI on three occasions;
Ando filed a complaint for illegal dismissal when allegedly petitioner terminated his
employment without just cause and notice. Petitioner countered by saying that Ando was
a project worker employed in three project contracts. The LA and NLRC dismissed the
illegal dismissal case, however the CA reversed.
Issue: WON Ando was a regular employee
Ruling: No. According to the Court, Ando was a project employee. Notwithstanding the
extension and shortening of the length of Andos employment contracts, he is still
considered as a project, not regular, employee of EGI. Here, Ando was adequately notified
of his employment status at the time his services were engaged by EGI for the Bahay
Pamulinawen and the West Insula Projects. The contracts he signed consistently
stipulated that his services as a project worker were being sought. There was an informed
consent to be engaged as such. His consent was not vitiated. As a matter of fact, Ando did
not even allege that force, duress or improper pressure were used against him in order
to agree. His being a carpenter does not suffice. The decisive determinant in project
employment is the activity that the employee is called upon to perform and not the day
certain agreed upon by the parties for the commencement and termination of the
employment relationship. Indeed, in Filsystems, Inc. v. Puente, the [Court] ruled that
an employment contract that does not mention particular dates that establish the
specific duration of the project does not preclude one's classification as a project
employee. In this case, the duration of the specific/identified undertaking for which Ando
was engaged was reasonably determinable. Although the employment contract provided
that the stated date may be "extended or shortened depending on the work phasing," it
specified the termination of the parties' employment relationship on a "day certain,"
which is "upon completion of the phase of work for which [he was] hired for." Ando's
tenure as a project employee remained definite because there was certainty of
completion or termination of the Bahay Pamulinawen and the West Insula Projects. The
project employment contracts sufficiently apprised him that his security of tenure with
EGI would only last as long as the specific projects he was assigned to were subsisting.
When the projects were completed, he was validly terminated from employment since
his engagement was coterminous thereto.

see: GMA Network, Inc. v. Carlos P. Pabriga, et. al. (4 others), GR 176419; November
27, 2013
Facts: Private respondents were hired and rehired by petitioner ad infinitum from 1996-
1999 as television technicians but performing activities such as VTR men, manning of
technical operations center, and as cameramen. They filed a case assailing their
 employment condition against the petitioner, however when the latter found out, private
respondents were terminated from their jobs. The LA found that there was no illegal
dismissal, but this was promptly reversed by the NLRC and affirmed by the CA.
Issue: WON petitioners are regular employees
Ruling: Yes. According to the Court, the petitioners were regular employees because they
perform jobs and undertakings that are clearly within the regular or usual business of the
employer company and are not identifiably distinct or separate from the other
undertakings of the company. There is no denying that the manning of the operations
center to air commercials, acting as transmitter/VTR men, maintaining the equipment,
and acting as cameramen are not undertakings separate or distinct from the business of
a broadcasting company. Even if petitioners were project employees, they have gained
regular status because of their continuous rehiring. As previously stated, petitioner
interchangeably characterizes respondents service as project and fixed term
employment. These types of employment, however, are not the same. While the former
requires a project as restrictively defined above, the duration of a fixed-term
employment agreed upon by the parties may be any day certain, which is understood
to be that which must necessarily come although it may not be known when. The
decisive determinant in fixed-term employment is not the activity that the employee is
called upon to perform but the day certain agreed upon by the parties for the
commencement and termination of the employment relationship.

3. No implied renewal of employment contract

Antonio E. Unica v. Anscor Swire Ship Management Corp., GR 184318; February 12,
2014
Facts: Petitioner was a seaman who was engaged by private respondent on several
employment contracts. In his last contract, he was deployed for nine months from January
29, 2000 to October 25, 2000; however he was only repatriated after 20 days as the vessel
was still at sea. Petitioner then claims that since he was allowed to stay longer in the
vessel, there was an implied renewal of his employment contract to which both the LA
and the NLRC agreed, but the CA did not.
Issue: WON there was an implied renewal of employment contract
Ruling: No. According to the Court, it is a settled rule that seafarers are considered
contractual employees. Their employment is governed by the contracts they sign every
time they are rehired and their employment is terminated when the contract expires.
Their employment is contractually fixed for a certain period of time. Thus, when
petitioners contract ended on October 25, 2000, his employment is deemed
automatically terminated, there being no mutually-agreed renewal or extension of the
expired contract.

4. Non-renewal of contract, a management prerogative

Fonterra Brands Phils. Inc. v. Leonardo Largado and Tetimo Estrellado, GR 205300;
March 18, 2015
Facts: Private respondents were trade merchandising representatives provided by Zytron
to Fonterra in compliance to their marketing agreement. When Fonterra terminated their
agreement with Zytron, private respondents manifested their desire to continue their
work, which was then approved by AC Sicat as evidenced by an employment contract for
a duration of 5 months. After the expiration of the period, however, AC Sicat refused to
 renew the contract which led to the filing of an illegal dismissal case against petitioner
which both the LA and the NLRC denied, but the CA reversed.
Issue: WON private respondents were illegally dismissed
Ruling: No. According to the Court, We find that respondents voluntarily terminated their
employment with Zytron, contrary to their allegation that their employment with Zytron
was illegally terminated. On the other hand, their alleged illegal dismissal from AC Sicat
via non-renewal of contract was simply brought about by the expiration of their
employment contracts. In the case at bar, it is clear that respondents were employed by
A.C. Sicat as project employees. Respondents, by accepting the conditions of the contract
with A.C. Sicat, were well aware of and even acceded to the condition that their
employment thereat will end on said predetermined date of termination. They cannot
now argue that they were illegally dismissed by the latter when it refused to renew
their contracts after its expiration. This is so since the nonrenewal of their contracts by
A.C. Sicat is a management prerogative, and failure of respondents to prove that such
was done in bad faith militates against their contention that they were illegally
dismissed. The expiration of their contract with A.C. Sicat simply caused the natural
cessation of their fixed-term employment thereat

E. Seasonal Employees 295, 1st par.

ART. 295 (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 service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the
duration of the season.
Phil. Tobacco Flue-Curing 7 Redyring Corp. v. LRC Ligaya Lubat, et. al., 300 SCRA 37
(December 10, 1998)
Facts: Petitioner refuses to grant separation pay to the workers belonging to the first
batch (referred to as the Lubat group who filed an illegal dismissal case), because they
had not been given work during the preceding year (1993) and, hence, were no longer in
its employ at the time it closed its Balintawak plant. Likewise, it claims exemption from
awarding separation pay differential to the second batch (the Luris group who also filed
an illegal dismissal case), because the closure of its plant was due to serious business
losses, as defined in Article 283 of the Labor Code. Both the LA and NLRC found for the
private respondent Lubat and Luris groups, ordering the petitioner to pay the
corresponding separation pay equivalent to (1/2) month salary for every year of service,
while dismissing Luris Groups charge of illegal dismissal.
Issue: WON private respondents were illegally dismissed
Ruling: Yes. According to the Court, seasonal workers who are called to work from time
to time and are temporarily laid off during off-season are not separated from service in
said period, but are merely considered on leave without pay until reemployed. As
seasonal workers, they are entitled to a separation pay equivalent to one-half (1/2) their
respective average monthly pay during the last season they worked multiplied by the
number of years they actually rendered service, provided that they worked for at least six
months during a given year.
 see: Zenaida Paz v. Norther Tobacco Redrying Co., Inc. &/or Angelo Ang, GR 199554,
February 18, 2015
see: Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corp. and Rene Cabati v. Fernando Acibo, et. al.,
GR 186439; January 15, 2014
F. Probationary Employees 296; 61, 2nd sentence; Omnibus Rules, Book VI, Rule 1, Sec. 6; Art. 75(d)
ART. 296 (281). Probationary employment. Probationary employment shall not exceed six (6)
months from the date the employee started working, unless it is covered by an apprenticeship
agreement stipulating a longer period. The services of an employee who has been engaged on a
probationary basis may be terminated for a just cause or when he fails to qualify as a regular
employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the employer to the
employee at the time of his engagement. An employee who is allowed to work after a
probationary period shall be considered a regular employee.
ART. 61. Employment of Apprentices. Only employers in the highly technical industries may
employ apprentices and only in apprenticeable occupations approved by the Secretary of Labor
and Employment.
ART. 75. Learnership Agreement. Learnership Agreement. Any employer desiring to employ
learners shall enter into a learnership agreement with them, which agreement shall include:
xxx (d) A commitment to employ the learners if they so desire, as regular employees upon
completion of the learnership. All learners who have been allowed or suffered to work during the
first two (2) months shall be deemed regular employees if training is terminated by the employers
before the end of the stipulated period through no fault of the learners.
Omnibus Rules, Book VI, Rule 1, Sec. 6. Probationary employment. (a) Where the work for
which an employee has been engaged is learnable or apprenticeable in accordance with the
standards prescribed by the Department of Labor, the probationary employment period of the
employee shall be limited to the authorized learnership or apprenticeship period, whichever is
applicable.
(b) Where the work is neither learnable nor apprenticeable, the probationary employment period
shall not exceed six (6) months reckoned from the date the employee actually started working.
(c) The services of an employee who has been engaged on probationary basis may be terminated
only for a just cause or when authorized by existing laws, or when he fails to qualify as a regular
employee in accordance with reasonable standards prescribed by the employer.
(d) In all cases involving employees engaged on probationary basis, the employer shall make
known to the employee the standards under which he will qualify as a regular employee at the
time of his engagement.
1. Definition/Purpose
Oyster Plaza Hotel v. Errol O. Melivo, GR No. 217455; October 5, 2016
Facts: Melivo was first hired in August 2008 as a trainee room boy; in November of the
same year, he was hired as a probationary room boy until March 2009 when his contract
expired, and subsequently renewed starting April 2009 until its expiration on September
the same year. Upon expiration of the contract, Melivo was told to stop reporting from
work. He subsequently filed a case for illegal dismissal where the LA, NLRC, and the CA all
concurred in finding the same.
Issue: WON respondent was illegally dismissed
Ruling: Yes. According to the Court, probation is the period during which the employer
may determine if the employee is qualified for possible inclusion in the regular force.
The employer has the right or is at liberty to choose who will be hired and who will be
denied employment. In that sense, it is within the exercise of the right to select his
employees that the employer may set or fix a probationary period within which the
 latter may test and observe the conduct of the former before hiring him permanently.
An employee allowed to work beyond the probationary period is deemed a regular
employee. In this case, Melivo was first hired as a trainee in August 2008. His training
lasted for three (3) months. As a room boy, his performance was certainly under
observation. Thus, it can be reasonably deduced that Melivos probationary employment
actually started in August 2008, at the same time he started working as a trainee.
Therefore, when he was rehired as room boy after his training period sometime in
November 2008 he attained regular employment status.

see: Enchanted Kingdom, Inc. v. Miguel J. Verzo, GR 209559; December 9,2015

see: Robinsons Galleria et.al. v. Irene Ranchez, GR 177937; January 19, 2011
see: Pilar Espina, et. al. (24 others) v. Hon. Court of Appeals & Monde M.Y. San Biscuit
Corp., GR 164582; March 29, 2007
2. Duration: Rule/Exception
Canadian Opportunities Unlimited, Inc. v. Bart Q. Dalangin, GR No. 172223; February
6, 2012
Facts: Private respondent was hired as a manager by the petitioner. However only after
one month, he was dismissed while under probation. The company terminated his service
after finding his obstinacy and negative working habits, among others including what
private respondent himself thought to be the proximate cause of his dismissal his failure
to attend a required seminar.
Issue: WON respondent, as a probationary employee, was illegally dismissed
Ruling: No. According to the Court, the essence of a probationary period of employment
fundamentally lies in the purpose or objective of both the employer and the employee
during the period. While the employer observes the fitness, propriety and efficiency of
a probationer to ascertain whether he is qualified for permanent employment, the
latter seeks to prove to the former that he has the qualifications to meet the reasonable
standards for permanent employment. As explained in International Catholic Migration
Commission, the word probationary, as used to describe the period of employment,
implies the purpose of the term or period, but not its length. Thus, the fact that
Dalangin was separated from the service after only about four weeks does not necessarily
mean that his separation from the service is without basis. To the Court, four weeks was
enough for the company to assess Dalangins fitness for the job and he was found
wanting. In separating Dalangin from the service before the situation got worse, we find
the company not liable for illegal dismissal.

see again: MacArthur Malicdem and Hermenigildo Flores v. Marulas Industrial Corp.,
GR 204406; February 26, 2014
see: Cathay Pacific Aiways, Ltd. V. Philip Marin, GR 148931, September 12, 2006
3. Limitations on Employers Right to Terminate Probationary Employment/Effect if reasonable
standard is not made known at time of engagement; deemed regular employee
A probationary employee is accorded the constitutional protection of security of
tenure which means that he can only be dismissed from employment for a just
cause or when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with
reasonable standards made known to him by the employer at the time of his
engagement
The power of the employer to terminate a probationary employee is subject to
three limitations, namely: (1) it must be exercised in accordance with the specific
requirements of the contract; (2) the dissatisfaction on the part of the employer
must be real and in good faith, not feigned so as to circumvent the contract or
the law; and (3) there must be no unlawful discrimination in the dismissal
Univac Development, Inc. v. William M. Soriano, 699 SCRA 88 (June 19, 2013)
Facts: Private respondent was hired as a legal assistant on probationary basis. However,
eight days prior the completion of his six months probationary period, private respondent
was terminated effectively immediately despite the his plea of a 30-day notice; petitioner
argued in the negative, saying that he abandoned his job and that he was informed of his
unsatisfactory performance. The LA and NLRC found for the petitioner, while the CA
reversed for the respondent.
Issue: WON private respondent was illegally dismissed
Ruling: Yes. According to the Court, while not enjoying a permanent status, a
probationary employee is accorded the constitutional protection of security of tenure
which means that he can only be dismissed from employment for a just cause or when
he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made
known to him by the employer at the time of his engagement. It is primordial that at the
start of the probationary period, the standards for regularization be made known to the
probationary employee. In this case, as held by the CA, petitioner failed to present
adequate evidence to substantiate its claim that respondent was apprised of said
standards. It is evident from the LA and NLRC decisions that they merely relied on
surmises and presumptions in concluding that respondent should have known the
standards considering his educational background as a law graduate. Equally important is
the requirement that in order to invoke failure to meet the probationary standards as
a justification for dismissal, the employer must show how these standards have been
applied to the subject employee. In this case, aside from its bare allegation, it was not
shown that a performance evaluation was conducted to prove that his performance was
indeed unsatisfactory. Indeed, the power of the employer to terminate a probationary
employee is subject to three limitations, namely: (1) it must be exercised in accordance
with the specific requirements of the contract; (2) the dissatisfaction on the part of the
employer must be real and in good faith, not feigned so as to circumvent the contract
or the law; and (3) there must be no unlawful discrimination in the dismissal. In this
case, not only did petitioner fail to show that respondent was apprised of the standards
for regularization but it was likewise not shown how these standards had been applied in
his case.

4. Extension of Contract/Effect if work continues after probationary employment: deemed

regular EE
 see again: Phil. Federation etc. v. NLRC & Victoria Abril, 300 SCRA 72 (December 11,
1998)

5. Absorbed Employees
Cebu Stevedoring Co. Inc. v. Regional Director, Arsenio Gelig & Maria Luz Quijano, 168
SCRA 315 (88)
Facts: Private respondents were previously employed in Cebu Customs Arrastre Service
which was abolished by the BOC. When CSCI took over, they absorbed the private
respondents as employees with the same position they had with CCAS. However, after 5
months, private respondents were terminated allegedly for redundancy, as casuals and
as probationary employees to which the RD and SoL did not concur.
Issue: WON private respondents were probationary employees
Ruling: No. According to the Court, private respondents could not be considered
probationary employees because they were already well-trained in their respective
functions. This conclusion is further bolstered by the factual findings of the Labor
Minister that said order of the Director was supported by substantial evidence. As
stressed by the Solicitor General, while private respondents were still with the CCAS
they were already clerks. Respondent Gelig had been a clerk for CCAS for more than ten
(10) years, while respondent Quijano had slightly less than ten (10) years of service.
They were, therefore, not novices in their jobs but experienced workers. As regular
employees, therefore, private respondents may not be dismissed and petitioner cannot
terminate their services except for a just or authorized cause provided by law and with
scrupulous observance of due process requirements.

6. Standards to qualify as a regular employee

Abbott Laboratories Phil. et. al. v. Pearlie Ann F. Alcaraz, GR 192571; July 23, 2013
Facts: Private respondent responded to a job offer caused to be published by the
petitioner on a newspaper of general circulation. She was given a pre-employment
orientation, copies of petitioners code of conduct and performance modules and was
briefed on the procedure for performance evaluation. Private respondent was terminated
after she failed to meet petitioners regularization standards.
Issue: Won private respondent was sufficiently informed of the reasonable standards to
qualify her as a regular employee
Ruling: Yes. According to the Court, Abbott clearly conveyed to Alcaraz her duties and
responsibilities as Regulatory Affairs Manager prior to, during the time of her
engagement, and the incipient stages of her employment. On this score, the Court finds
it apt to detail not only the incidents which point out to the efforts made by Abbott but
also those circumstances which would show that Alcaraz was well-apprised of her
employers expectations that would, in turn, determine her regularization. Considering
the totality of the above-stated circumstances, Alcaraz was well-aware that her
regularization would depend on her ability and capacity to fulfill the requirements of
her position as Regulatory Affairs Manager and that her failure to perform such would
give Abbott a valid cause to terminate her probationary employment. Verily, basic
knowledge and common sense dictate that the adequate performance of ones duties is,
by and of itself, an inherent and implied standard for a probationary employee to be
regularized such is a regularization standard which need not be literally spelled out or
mapped into technical indicators in every case. Keeping with the Omnibus Rules of the
Labor Code, an employer is deemed to have made known the standards that would
 qualify a probationary employee to be a regular employee when it has exerted
reasonable efforts to apprise the employee of what he is expected to do to accomplish
during the trial of probation. This goes without saying that the employee is sufficiently
made aware of his probationary status as well as the length of time of the probation.
The exception to the foregoing is when the job is self-descriptive in nature, for instance,
in the case of maids, cooks, drivers, or messengers. Also in Aberdeen Court, Inc v. Agustin,
it has been held that the rule on notifying a probationary employee of the standards of
regularization should not be used to exculpate an employee in a manner contrary to basic
knowledge and common sense in regard to which there is no need to spell out a policy or
standard to be met. In the same light, an employees failure to perform the duties and
responsibilities which have been clearly made known to him constitutes a justifiable basis
for a probationary employees non-regularization.

see: Mylene Carbajal v. Luzon Development Bank, GR 186169, August 1, 2012

7. Project employees and probationary employees cannot co-exist
see: Jeanette v. Manalo, et. al. (3 others) v. TNS Phils. Inc., GR 208567; November 26,
2014
Facts: Petitioners were hired as field personnel on a per project basis by private
respondent TNS Phils, Inc., but they were also required to do office-based tasks from 9:00
AM to 6:00 PM without an employment contract covering such activity. After TNS
informed of petitioners impending replacement, the latter filed a consolidated complaint
for regularization which was later amended to a case for illegal dismissal after they were
terminated. The LA, whose decision was reinstated by the CA, dismissed the complaint
after finding that the employees were project employees.
Issue: WON petitioners were illegally dismissed
Ruling: Yes. According to the Court, petitioners were regular employees as affirmed by
their successive reengagement in order to perform the same kind of work; this firmly
manifested the necessity and desirability of their work in the usual business of TNS as
a market research facility. Undisputed also is the fact that the petitioners were assigned
office-based tasks from 9:00 oclock in the morning up to 6:00 oclock in the evening, at
the earliest, without any corresponding remuneration. Granting arguendo that
petitioners were indeed project employees, a cursory review of their contracts revealed
that a provision pertaining to probationary employment is included. Such phrase changes
the tenor of the contract and runs counter to the very nature of a project employment.

8. Private School Teachers- Rule

Jocelyn Herrera-Manaois v. St. Scholasticas College, GR 188914; December 11, 2013
Facts: Petitioner was hired as a probationary full-time faculty member. SSC did not extend
to Manaois the position of permanent full-time faculty member with the rank of
instructor because she failed to acquire a masters degree to which Manaois said that
only her oral defense is required and because her specialization could no longer be
maximized by the institution due to the changes in its curriculum and streamlining. Both
the LA and the NLRC found that petitioner was illegally dismissed, while the CA reversed.
Issue: WON petitioner was illegally dismissed
Ruling: No. According to the Court, earning a masters degree was a precondition to full-
time employment and such was communicated and made known to Manaois. In line
with academic freedom and constitutional autonomy, an institution of higher learning has
the discretion and prerogative to impose standards on its teachers and determine
 whether these have been met. Upon conclusion of the probation period, the college or
university, being the employer, has the sole prerogative to make a decision on whether
or not to rehire the probationer. Mere completion of the three-year probation, even
with an above-average performance, does not guarantee that the employee will
automatically acquire a permanent employment status. This limitation on the right of
private schools, colleges, and universities to select and determine the employment status
of their academic personnel has been imposed by the state in view of the public interest
nature of educational institutions, so as to ensure the quality and competency of our
schools and educators. Pursuant to the 1992 Manual, private educational institutions in
the tertiary level may extend full-time faculty status only to those who possess, inter
alia, a masters degree in the field of study that will be taught; Thus, all those who fail
to meet the criteria under the 1992 Manual cannot legally attain the status of permanent
full-time faculty members, even if they have completed three years of satisfactory service.
For all intents and purposes, this qualification must be deemed impliedly written in the
employment contracts between private educational institutions and prospective faculty
members.

see: La Sallete of Santiago Inc. v. NLRC & Clarita Javier, 195 SCRA 80 (91)
see: St. Paul College, Quezon City, et. al. v. Remigio & Cynthia Ancheta, GR 169905;
September 7, 2011
a. Probationary v. Fixed-term Employee in Private Schools

The common practice is for the employer and the teacher to enter into a contract,
effective for one school year. At the end of the school year, the employer has the option
not to renew the contract, particularly considering the teachers performance. If the
contract is not renewed, the employment relationship terminates. If the contract is
renewed, usually for another school year, the probationary employment continues.
Again, at the end of that period, the parties may opt to renew or not to renew the
contract. If renewed, this second renewal of the contract for another school year would
then be the last year since it would be the third school year of probationary
employment. At the end of this third year, the employer may now decide whether to
extend a permanent appointment to the employee, primarily on the basis of the
employee having met the reasonable standards of competence and efficiency set by the
employer. For the entire duration of this three-year period, the teacher remains under
probation.
A fixed-term contract not specifically used for the fixed term it offers, Article 281
should assume primacy and the fixed period character of the contract must give
way.
An example given of a fixed-term contract specifically used for the fixed term it
offers is a replacement teacher or a reliever contracted for a period of one year
to temporarily take the place of a permanent teacher who is on leave. The
expiration of the relievers fixed-term contract does not have probationary status
implications as he or she was never employed on probationary basis.

Universidad de Sta. Isabel v. Marvin-Julian L. Sambajon, Jr., GR 196280-

196286; April 2, 2014
 Facts: Private respondent was hired as a professor on probationary status by the
petitioner that is covered by an employment contract from November 1, 2002 to
March 30, 2003 upon expiration of which, Sambajon continued receiving teaching
loads from petitioner from June 1, 2003 to March 31, 2005. When respondent
received his masters degree, and was subsequently awarded with a salary increase
and new position, he demanded for a retroactive increase in his salary to which the
petitioner refused to provide. Petitioner informed respondent that his appointment
as Associate Professor did not affect his status as a probationary employee and that
petitioner was not and did not exercise its prerogative to shorten his probationary
period to only two years; later on, respondent received a letter informing him of
petitioners decision not to renew his probationary appointment.
Issue: WON private respondent was illegally dismissed
Ruling: Yes. According to the Court, though Sambajon was hired on a semester
basis, this did not negate the applicable probationary period. His claim that his
probationary period was shortened was unsubstantiated. The fixed-term character of
employment refers to the period agreed upon by employer and the employee;
employment exists only for the duration of the term and ends upon its expiry.
Probationary employment also refers to a perioda maximum 6 months (3 years for
those engaged in teaching). Given the clear constitutional and statutory intents, [it
can be concluded that] in a situation where the probationary status overlaps with
a fixed-term contract not specifically used for the fixed term it offers, Article 281
should assume primacy and the fixed-period character of the contract must give
way. This conclusion is immeasurably strengthened by the petitioners and the
AMACCs hardly concealed expectation that the employment on probation could lead
to permanent status, and that the contracts are renewable unless the petitioners fail
to pass the schools standards. Notwithstanding the limited engagement of
probationary employees, they are entitled to constitutional protection of security of
tenure during and before the end of the probationary period. The services of an
employee who has been engaged on probationary basis may be terminated for any
of the following: (a) a just or (b) an authorized cause; and (c) when he fails to qualify
as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards prescribed by the
employer. During the said probationary period, he cannot be terminated except for
just or authorized causes, or if he fails to qualify in accordance with reasonable
standards prescribed by petitioner for the acquisition of permanent status of its
teaching personnel.

b.
i. Labor Code: supplemented with regard to period of probation by special rules
found in the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools
ii. Due process: ER should show how standards have been applied
Colegio del Santisimo Rosario v. Emmanuel Rojo, GR 170388; September 4,
2013
Facts: Private respondent was hired by petitioner as a probationary high school
teacher for school years 1992-1993, 1993-1994, and 1994-1995. After which,
petitioner did not renew private respondents contract. Private respondent filed an
illegal dismissal case anchoring his argument on a provision on the 1970 Manual of
regulations for Private Schools that provided, full-time teachers who have rendered
three (3) consecutive years of satisfactory services shall be considered permanent to
which the LA, NLR, and the CA unanimously found for the respondent.
Issue: WON private respondent was illegally dismissed
Ruling: Yes. According to the Court, Sec. 93 of the 1992 Manual provides that full-
time teachers become regular or permanent employees once they have
satisfactorily completed the probationary period of three school years. The use of
the term satisfactorily necessarily connotes the requirement for schools to set
reasonable standards to be followed by teachers on probationary employment. In
Mercado v. AMA Computer College-Paranaque City, the Court held that, labor, for
its part, is given the protection during the probationary period of knowing the
company standards the new hires have to meet during the probationary period, and
to be judged on the basis of these standards, aside from the usual standards
applicable to employees after they achieve permanent status. These standards
should be made known to the teachers on probationary status at the start of their
probationary period, or at the very least under the circumstances of the present
case, at the start of the semester or the trimester during which the probationary
standards are to be applied. Should the teachers not have been apprised of such
reasonable standards at the time specified above, they shall be deemed regular
employees. Of critical importance in invoking a failure to meet the probationary
standards, is that the school should show as a matter of due process how these
standards have been applied. This is effectively the second notice in a dismissal
situation that the law requires as a due process guarantee supporting the security
of tenure provision, and is in furtherance, too, of the basic rule in employee
dismissal that the employer carries the burden of justifying a dismissal. As a matter
of due process, teachers on probationary employment, just like all probationary
employees, have the right to know whether they have met the standards against
which their performance was evaluated. Should they fail, they also have the right
to know the reasons therefor. In this case, glaringly absent from petitioners
evidence are the reasonable standards that respondent was expected to meet that
could have served as proper guidelines for purposes of evaluating his performance.
Nowhere in the Teachers Contract could such standards be found. Neither was it
mentioned that the same were ever conveyed to respondent. Even assuming that
respondent failed to meet the standards set forth by CSR and made known to the
former at the time he was engaged as a teacher on probationary status, still, the
termination was flawed for failure to give the required notice to respondent.