1. Buenaventura C. Magsalin & Coca-Cola, Bottlers Phils. Inc. vs.

National Organization of
Working Men
Facts:
The private respondents worked as sales route helpers for the petitioner (Coca Cola) for 5
months and thereafter they were hired on a daily basis. According to the petitioner, the respondents were
merely hired as substitutes for regular helpers when the latter were unavailable or due to shortage of
manpower/high volume of work. These workers would then wait every morning outside the gates and if
hired, they would be paid their wages at the end of the day. The respondents asked the petitioner to
make them regular but the latter refused. Hence, 23 of these temporary workers filed a case for illegal
dismissal.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondents' work is deemed necessary and desirable in the usual business or
trade of the petitioner

Held:
Yes. The repeated hiring of the respondent workers and continuing need of their daily services
clearly attest to the necessity or desirability of their services in the regular conduct of the business/trade
of petitioner.
In determining whether employment is regular or not, the applicable test is the reasonable
connection between a particular activity performed in relation to the usual business or trade of the
employer. The nature of work must be viewed from the perspective of the business in its entirety and not
confined scope.

2. ALU-TUCP, vs. National Labor Relations Commission and National Steel Corporation
Facts:
National Steel Corporation is engaged in the business of constructing buildings and installing
plant machinery for the general business community. NSC holds itself out to public as a construction
company and as an engineering corporation. These are the necessary or desirable activities in the usual
business or trade of NSC. NSC employed the petitioners as project employees to its Five Year
Expansion Program which work involved the construction of buildings, electrical works, and the
installation and commissioning of machinery only for itself, after which the petitioners were dismissed.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioners have become regular employees of NSC after their employment
for the Project

Held:
No. The fact that the employment of the petitioners as project employees had gone beyond one
year does not detract from or legally dissolve their status as project employees. There is no showing that
they were engaged to perform work-related activities to the business of NSC because the project was
done only for itself. NSC was not in business and it did not hold itself out to public as a construction
company.

3. Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Felicito Ibañez, Aligwas Carolino,
Elmer Gacula, Enrique Dagotdot and Ruel Calda
Facts:
Petitioner HANJIN is a foreign company duly registered with the Securities and Exchange
Commission to engage in the construction business in the Philippines. Petitioners Hak Kon Kim and
Jhunie Adajar were employed as Project Director and Supervisor, respectively, by HANJIN. On 11
April 2002, respondents Felicito Ibañez, Aligwas Carolino, Elmer Gacula, Enrique Dagotdot, Ruel
Calda, and four other co-workers filed a complaint before the NLRC for illegal dismissal with prayer for
reinstatement. Respondents stated that their tasks were usual and necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of HANJIN. Respondents additionally averred that they were employed as members of
a work pool from which HANJIN draws the workers to be dispatched to its various construction
projects. Petitioners maintained that respondents were hired as project employees for the construction of
the LRT/MRT Line 2 Package 2 and 3 Project. HANJIN and respondents purportedly executed contracts
of employment, in which it was clearly stipulated that the respondents were to be hired as project
employees for a period of only three months, but that the contracts may be renewed. However,
petitioners failed to furnish the Labor Arbiter a copy of said contracts of employment. The LA ruled for
respondents but the decision was reversed by the NLRC. On appeal, the CA reinstated the LA’s ruling.
Hence, this recourse.

Issue:
Whether or not respondents are regular employees of the petitioner
Held:
Yes. The principal test for determining whether particular employees are properly characterized
as "project employees" as distinguished from "regular employees" is whether or not the project
employees were assigned to carry out a "specific project or undertaking," the duration and scope of
which were specified at the time the employees were engaged for that project. Even though the absence
of a written contract does not by itself grant regular status to respondents, such a contract is evidence
that respondents were informed of the duration and scope of their work and their status as project
employees. In this case, where no other evidence was offered, the absence of an employment contract
puts into serious question whether the employees were properly informed at the onset of their
employment status as project employees. It is doctrinally entrenched that in illegal dismissal cases, the
employer has the burden of proving with clear, accurate, consistent and convincing evidence that a
dismissal was valid. Had respondents' allegations been false, petitioners could simply present as
evidence documents and records in their custody to disprove the same, i.e., payroll for such projects or
termination reports, which do not bear respondents' names. Petitioners, instead, chose to remain vague
as to the circumstances surrounding the hiring of the respondents. This Court finds it unusual that
petitioners cannot even categorically state the exact year when HANJIN employed respondents. Due to
petitioners' failure to adduce any evidence showing that petitioners were project employees who had
been informed of the duration and scope of their employment, they were unable to discharge the burden
of proof required to establish that respondents' dismissal was legal and valid. Furthermore, it is a well-
settled doctrine that if doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and that by the
employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. For these reasons, respondents are to
be considered regular employees of HANJIN. Finally, in the instant case, records failed to show that
HANJIN afforded respondents, as regular employees, due process prior to their dismissal, through the
twin requirements of notice and hearing. Respondents were not served notices informing them of the
particular acts for which their dismissal was sought. Nor were they required to give their side regarding
the charges made against them. Certainly, the respondents' dismissal was not carried out in accordance
with law and was, therefore, illegal. Affirmed CA’s ruling.

4. D.M. Consunji, Inc. vs. Estelito L. Jamin

Facts:
On December 17, 1968, petitioner D.M. Consunji, Inc. (DMCI), a construction company, hired
respondent Estelito L. Jamin as a laborer. Sometime in 1975, Jamin became a helper carpenter. Since his
initial hiring, Jamin’s employment contract had been renewed a number of times. On March 20, 1999,
his work at DMCI was terminated due to the completion of the SM Manila project. This termination
marked the end of his employment with DMCI as he was not rehired again.
On April 5, 1999, Jamin filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, with several money claims
(including attorney’s fees), against DMCI and its President/General Manager, David M. Consunji. Jamin
alleged that DMCI terminated his employment without a just and authorized cause at a time when he
was already 55 years old and had no independent source of livelihood. He claimed that he rendered
service to DMCI continuously for almost 31 years. In addition to the schedule of projects (where he was
assigned) submitted by DMCI to the labor arbiter, he alleged that he worked for three other DMCI
projects: Twin Towers, Ritz Towers, from July 29, 1980 to June 12, 1982; New Istana Project, B.S.B.
Brunei, from June 23, 1982 to February 16, 1984; and New Istana Project, B.S.B. Brunei, from January
24, 1986 to May 25, 1986.
DMCI denied liability. It argued that it hired Jamin on a project-to-project basis, from the start of
his engagement in 1968 until the completion of its SM Manila project on March 20, 1999 where Jamin
last worked. With the completion of the project, it terminated Jamin’s employment. It alleged that it
submitted a report to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) everytime it terminated
Jamin’s services.

Issue:
Whether there was violation of security of tenure

Held:
Jamin worked for DMCI for almost 31 years, initially as a laborer and, for the most part, as a
carpenter. Through all those years, DMCI treated him as a project employee, so that he never obtained
tenure. On the surface and at first glance, DMCI appears to be correct. Jamin entered into a contract of
employment (actually an appointment paper to which he signified his conformity) with DMCI either as a
field worker, a temporary worker, a casual employee, or a project employee everytime DMCI needed his
services and a termination of employment paper was served on him upon completion of every project or
phase of the project where he worked.
The CA pierced the cover of Jamin’s project employment contract and declared him a regular
employee who had been dismissed without cause and without notice. To reiterate, the CA’s findings
were based on: (1) Jamin’s repeated and successive engagements in DMCI’s construction projects, and
(2) Jamin’s performance of activities necessary or desirable in DMCI’s usual trade or business.
We agree with the CA. In Liganza v. RBL Shipyard Corporation, the Court held that "assuming,
without granting, that the petitioner was initially hired for specific projects or undertakings, the repeated
re-hiring and continuing need for his services for over eight (8) years have undeniably made him a
regular employee." We find the Liganza ruling squarely applicable to this case, considering that for
almost 31 years, DMCI had repeatedly, continuously and successively engaged Jamin’s services since
he was hired on December 17, 1968 or for a total of 38 times — 35 as shown by the schedule of projects
submitted by DMCI to the labor arbiter and three more projects or engagements added by Jamin, which
he claimed DMCI intentionally did not include in its schedule so as to make it appear that there were
wide gaps in his engagements.
We reviewed Jamin’s employment contracts as the CA did and we noted that while the contracts
indeed show that Jamin had been engaged as a project employee, there was an almost unbroken string of
Jamin’s rehiring from December 17, 1968 up to the termination of his employment on March 20, 1999.
While the history of Jamin’s employment (schedule of projects) relied upon by DMCI shows a gap of
almost four years in his employment for the period between July 28, 1980 (the supposed completion
date of the Midtown Plaza project) and June 13, 1984 (the start of the IRRI Dorm IV project), the gap
was caused by the company’s omission of the three projects.
For not disclosing that there had been other projects where DMCI engaged his services, Jamin
accuses the company of suppressing vital evidence that supports his contention that he rendered service
in the company’s construction projects continuously and repeatedly for more than three decades. The
non-disclosure might not have constituted suppression of evidence — it could just have been overlooked
by the company — but the oversight is unfair to Jamin as the non-inclusion of the three projects gives
the impression that there were substantial gaps not only of several months but years in his employment
with DMCI.
To reiterate, Jamin’s employment history with DMCI stands out for his continuous, repeated and
successive rehiring in the company’s construction projects. In all the 38 projects where DMCI engaged
Jamin’s services, the tasks he performed as a carpenter were indisputably necessary and desirable in
DMCI’s construction business. He might not have been a member of a work pool as DMCI insisted that
it does not maintain a work pool, but his continuous rehiring and the nature of his work unmistakably
made him a regular employee. In Maraguinot, Jr. v. NLRC, the Court held that once a project or work
pool employee has been: (1) continuously, as opposed to 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, then the employee must be deemed a regular employee.
Further, as we stressed in Liganza, "respondent capitalizes on our ruling in D.M. Consunji, Inc.
v. NLRC which reiterates the rule 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."
"Surely, length of time is not the controlling test for project employment. Nevertheless, it is vital
in determining if the employee was hired for a specific undertaking or tasked to perform functions vital,
necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer. Here, [private] respondent
had been a project employee several times over. His employment ceased to be coterminous with specific
projects when he was repeatedly re-hired due to the demands of petitioner’s business." Without doubt,
Jamin’s case fits squarely into the employment situation just quoted.
5. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation vs. Hon. Blas F. Ople
Facts:
On 2 December 1978, petitioner Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIA), a foreign
corporation licensed to do business in the Philippines, executed in Manila 2 separate contracts of
employment, one with private respondent Farrales and the other with private respondent Mamasig. 1
The contracts, which became effective on 9 January 1979, provided in pertinent portion as follows:
5. DURATION OF EMPLOYMENT AND PENALTY
This agreement is for a period of 3 years, but can be extended by the mutual consent of the
parties.
6. TERMINATION
Notwithstanding anything to contrary as herein provided, PIA reserves the right to terminate this
agreement at any time by giving the EMPLOYEE notice in writing in advance one month before the
intended termination or in lieu thereof, by paying the EMPLOYEE wages equivalent to one month’s
salary.
10. APPLICABLE LAW:
This agreement shall be construed and governed under and by the laws of Pakistan, and only the
Courts of Karachi, Pakistan shall have the jurisdiction to consider any matter arising out of or under this
agreement.
Farrales & Mamasig (employees) were hired as flight attendants after undergoing training. Base
station was in Manila and flying assignments to different parts of the Middle East and Europe.
Roughly 1 year and 4 months prior to the expiration of the contracts of employment, PIA
through Mr. Oscar Benares, counsel for an official of the local branch of PIA, sent separate letters,
informing them that they will be terminated effective September 1, 1980.
Farrales and Mamasig jointly instituted a complaint, for illegal dismissal and non-payment of
company benefits and bonuses, against PIA with the then Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE).
PIA’s Contention:
The PIA submitted its position paper, but no evidence, and there claimed that both private
respondents were habitual absentees; that both were in the habit of bringing in from abroad sizeable
quantities of “personal effects”; and that PIA personnel at the Manila International Airport had been
discreetly warned by customs officials to advise private respondents to discontinue that practice. PIA
further claimed that the services of both private respondents were terminated pursuant to the provisions
of the employment contract.
Favorable decision for the respondents
The Order stated that private respondents had attained the status of regular employees after they had
rendered more than a year of continued service; that the stipulation limiting the period of the
employment contract to 3 years was null and void as violative of the provisions of the Labor Code and
its implementing rules and regulations on regular and casual employment; and that the dismissal, having
been carried out without the requisite clearance from the MOLE, was illegal and entitled private
respondents to reinstatement with full backwages. Decision sustained on appeal. Hence, this petition for
certiorari.

Issue:
Which law should govern over the case? Which court has jurisdiction?

Held:
The Philippine courts. Petitioner PIA cannot take refuge in paragraph 10 of its employment
agreement which specifies, firstly, the law of Pakistan as the applicable law of the agreement and,
secondly, lays the venue for settlement of any dispute arising out of or in connection with the agreement
“only in courts of Karachi Pakistan”.
We have already pointed out that the relationship is much affected with public interest and that
the otherwise applicable Philippine laws and regulations cannot be rendered illusory by the parties
agreeing upon some other law to govern their relationship.
The contract was not only executed in the Philippines, it was also performed here, at least
partially; private respondents are Philippine citizens and respondents, while petitioner, although a
foreign corporation, is licensed to do business (and actually doing business) and hence resident in the
Philippines; lastly, private respondents were based in the Philippines in between their assigned flights to
the Middle East and Europe. All the above contacts point to the Philippine courts and administrative
agencies as a proper forum for the resolution of contractual disputes between the parties.
Under these circumstances, paragraph 10 of the employment agreement cannot be given effect so
as to oust Philippine agencies and courts of the jurisdiction vested upon them by Philippine law. Finally,
and in any event, the petitioner PIA did not undertake to plead and prove the contents of Pakistan law on
the matter; it must therefore be presumed that the applicable provisions of the law of Pakistan are the
same as the applicable provisions of Philippine law.

Notes:
Another Issue: Petitioner P.I.A. invokes paragraphs 5 and 6 of its contract of employment with private
respondents Farrales and Mamasig, arguing that its relationship with them was governed by the
provisions of its contract rather than by the general provisions of the Labor Code. A contract freely
entered into should, of course, be respected, as PIA argues, since a contract is the law between the
parties. The principle of party autonomy in contracts is not, however, an absolute principle. The rule in
Article 1306, of our Civil Code is that the contracting parties may establish such stipulations as they
may deem convenient, “provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or
public policy.” Thus, counter-balancing the principle of autonomy of contracting parties is the equally
general rule that provisions of applicable law, especially provisions relating to matters affected with
public policy, are deemed written into the contract. Put a little differently, the governing principle is that
parties may not contract away applicable provisions of law especially peremptory provisions dealing
with matters heavily impressed with public interest. The law relating to labor and employment is clearly
such an area and parties are not at liberty to insulate themselves and their relationships from the impact
of labor laws and regulations by simply contracting with each other. It is thus necessary to appraise the
contractual provisions invoked by petitioner PIA in terms of their consistency with applicable Philippine
law and regulations.

6. Pure Foods Corporation vs. NRLC, Rodolfo Cordova, Violeta Crusis

Facts:
The private respondents (numbering 906) were hired by petitioner Pure Foods Corporation to
workfor a fixed period of five months at its tuna cannery plant in Tambler, General Santos City. After
the expiration of their respective contracts of employment in June and July 1991, their services were
terminated. They forthwith executed a “Release and Quitclaim” stating that they had no
claim whatsoever against the petitioner. On December 1992, Private respondents filed before the NLRC
a complaint for illegal dismissal against the petitioner and its plant manager, Marciano Aganon. The
Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint on the ground that the private respondents were mere contractual
workers, and not regular employees; hence, they could not avail of the law on security of tenure. The
private respondents appealed from the decision to the NLRC which affirmed the Labor Arbiter's
decision. On private respondents’ motion for reconsideration, the NLRC rendered another decision on
30 January 1995 vacating and setting aside its earlier decision and held that the private respondents and
their co-complainants were regular employees. It declared that the contract of employment for five
months was a “clandestine scheme employed by the petitioner to stifle private respondents’ right to
security of tenure” and should therefore be struck down and disregarded for being contrary to law,
public policy, and morals. Hence, their dismissal on account of the expiration of their respective
contracts was illegal. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied; hence, this appeal. Petitioner’s
submission before the Court: the private respondents are now estopped from questioning their separation
from petitioner’s employ in view of their express conformity with the five-month duration of their
employment contracts. In the instant case, the private respondents were employed for aperiod of five
months only. In any event, private respondents' prayer for reinstatement is well within the purview of
the “Release and Quitclaim” they had executed wherein they unconditionally released the petitioner
from any and all other claims which might have arisen from their past employment with the petitioner.
Issue:
Whether or not the 5-month period specified in private respondents’ employment contract is
invalid and is therefore violative of their constitutional right to security of tenure.

Held:
The five-month period specified in private respondents’ employment contract is invalid. The
Court also held that where from the circumstances it is apparent that the periods have been imposed to
preclude acquisition of tenurial security by the employee, they should be struck down or disregarded as
contrary to public policy and morals. In the case of Brent it also laid down the criteria under which term
employment cannot be said to be in circumvention of the law on security of tenure: 1) The fixed period
of employment was 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 2) It satisfactorily appears that the employer and the employee dealt with each other on
more or less equal terms with no moral dominance exercised by the former or the latter.
None of these criteria had been met in the present case. It could not be supposed that private
respondents and all other so-called “casual” workers of the petitioner KNOWINGLY and
VOLUNTARILY agreed to the 5-month employment contract. The scheme of the petitioner was
apparently designed to prevent the private respondents and the other “casual” employees from attaining
the status of a regular employee. It was a clear circumvention of the employees’ right to security of
tenure and to other benefits. The NLRC was correct in finding that the private respondents were regular
employees and that they were illegally dismissed from their jobs. Under Article 279 of the Labor
Code and the recent jurisprudence, the legal consequence of illegal dismissal is reinstatement without
loss of seniority rights and other privileges, with full back wages computed from the time of dismissal
up to the time of actual reinstatement, without deducting the earnings derived elsewhere pending the
resolution of the case. However, since reinstatement is no longer possible because the petitioner's tuna
cannery plant had, admittedly, been closed in November 1994, the proper award is separation pay
equivalent to one monthpay or one-half month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher, to be
computed from thecommencement of their employment up to the closure of the tuna cannery plant. The
amount of backwages must be computed from the time the private respondents were dismissed until the
time petitioner's cannery plant ceased operation.

7. Lynvil Fishing Enterprises, Inc., and/or Rosendo S. De Borja vs. Andres G. Ariola
Facts:
Lynvil Fishing Enterprises, Inc. (Lynvil) is a company engaged in deep-sea fishing, operating
along the shores of Palawan and other outlying islands of the Philippines. Lynvil received a report from
RomanitoClarido, one of its employees, that on 31 July 1998, he witnessed that while on board the
company vessel Analyn VIII, Lynvil employees conspired with one another and stole eight (8) tubs of
"pampano" and "tangigue" fish and delivered them to another vessel, to the prejudice of Lynvil.
By reason of the report and after initial investigation, Lynvils General Manager Rosendo S. De
Borja (De Borja) summoned respondents to explain within five (5) days why they should not be
dismissed from service. Failing to explain as required, respondents employment was terminated.
Lynvil, through De Borja, filed a criminal complaint against the dismissed employees for
violation of P.D. 532, or the Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974 before the Office of
the City Prosecutor of Malabon City. First Assistant City Prosecutor Rosauro Silverio found probable
cause for the indictment of the dismissed employees for the crime of qualified theft.
Upon being informed about this, Ariola, Calinao, Nubla and Sebullen went to the Lynvil office.
However, they were told that their employments were already terminated. Aggrieved, the employees
filed with the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission-National Capital Region
on 25 August 1998 a complaint for illegal dismissal with claims for backwages, salary differential
reinstatement, service incentive leave, holiday pay and its premium and 13th month pay from 1996
to1998. They also claimed for moral, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees for their dismissal with
bad faith.
Labor Arbiter Ramon Valentin C. Reyes found merit in complainant’s charge of illegal
dismissal. NLRC reversed and set aside the Decision of the Labor Arbiter. The private respondents
except ElordeBaz filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals alleging grave abuse of
discretion on the part of NLRC. The Court of Appeals found merit in the petition and reinstated the
Decision of the Labor Arbiter except as to the award of attorney’s fees. Hence, this petition.

Issue:
Whether or not the dismissal was illegal

Held:
No, Labor Law. An employer may terminate an employment based on fraud or willful breach of
the trust reposed on the employee.
The Labor Code provides that an employer may terminate an employment based on fraud or
willful breach of the trust reposed on the employee. Such breach is considered willful if it is done
intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done
carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It must also be based on substantial evidence and
not on the employers whims or caprices or suspicions otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at
the mercy of the employer. Loss of confidence must not be indiscriminately used as a shield by the
employer against a claim that the dismissal of an employee was arbitrary. And, in order to constitute a
just cause for dismissal, the act complained of must be work-related and shows that the employee
concerned is unfit to continue working for the employer.
In addition, loss of confidence as a just cause for termination of employment is premised on the
fact that the employee concerned holds a position of responsibility, trust and confidence or that the
employee concerned is entrusted with confidence with respect to delicate matters, such as the handling
or care and protection of the property and assets of the employer. The betrayal of this trust is the essence
of the offense for which an employee is penalized.
Breach of trust is present in this case. We cannot close our eyes to the positive and clear
narration of facts of the three witnesses to the commission of qualified theft. Jonathan Distajo, a crew
member of the Analyn VIII, stated in his letter addressed to De Borja dated 8 August 1998, that while
the vessel was traversing San Nicolas, Cavite, he saw a small boat approach them. When the boat was
next to their vessel, Alcovendas went inside the stockroom while Sebullen pushed an estimated four tubs
of fish away from it. Ariola, on the other hand, served as the lookout and negotiator of the transaction.
Finally, Baz and Calinao helped in putting the tubs in the small boat. He further added that he
received P800.00 as his share for the transaction. Romanito Clarido, who was also on board the vessel,
corroborated the narration of Distajo on all accounts in his 25 August 1998 affidavit. He added that
Alcovendas told him to keep silent about what happened on that day. Sealing tight the credibility of the
narration of theft is the affidavit executed by Elorde Baz dated 3 May 1999. Baz was one of the
dismissed employees who actively participated in the taking of the tubs. He clarified in the affidavit that
the four tubs taken out of the stockroom in fact contained fish taken from the eight tubs. He further
stated that Ariola told everyone in the vessel not to say anything and instead file a labor case against the
management. Clearly, we cannot fault Lynvil and De Borja when it dismissed the employees.

8. Cherry J. Price, Stephanie G. Domingo and Lolita Arbilera vs. Innodata Phils. Inc
Facts:
Innodata, a company that deals with data encoding and data conversion hired the Price and the
others as formatters. Under the employment contract they were hired for a fixed period (one year) which
would end on Feb 16, 2000. On Feb 16, 2000 the HR Manager informed them of their last day of work
due to the end of their contract. Price et al filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and damages against
Innodata. That they should be considered regular employees since their positions as formatters were
necessary and desirable to the usual business of Innodata. That they could not be considered project
employees since there employment was not coterminous with any project or undertaking. Innodata
argued that almost half of the employees was engaged in data encoding. Due to the wide range of
services rendered to its clients, it was constrained to hire new employees for a fixed period of not more
than one year (started on Sept 1999 and ended on feb 16 2000). That Price and the others were not
illegally dismissed for their employment was merely terminated. That Price et al are estopped from a
position contrary to the contracts which they signed knowingly, voluntarily and willfully.
LA ruled in favor of Price. Their jobs were necessary, desirable, and indispensable to the data
processing and encoding business of INNODATA. They were entitled to security of tenure and thus
should only be terminated for just or authorized cause.
NLRC reversed. They were not regular employees but fixed-term employees. The determining
factor of such contracts (fixed term contracts) is not the duty of the employee but the day certain agreed
upon by the parties for the commencement and termination of the employment relationship. Price
entered into the contract freely hence there was no illegal dismissal.
CA sustained NLRC ruling. Only employed for a year and for a project called earthweb. That
there was no showing that they entered into the contracts unknowingly and involuntarily or that innodata
forced them into it.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioners were hired by INNODATA under valid fixed-term employment
contracts

Held:
No. Regular employees: (1) those who are engaged to perform activities which are necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer regardless of length of their employment (2)
those who were initially hired as casual employees, but have rendered at least 1 year service, whether
continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in which they are employed.
The test to determine whether an employment should be considered regular or non-regular is the
reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual
business or trade of the employer.
The fixed-term contract was invalid. An employee may be considered a regular employee if his
work was necessary and desirable to the usual business of the employer or if s/he already worked for
more than a year. In this case the court found that their job as formatters was necessary for the data
encoding business of Innodata. Court also found that the fixed term in the contract was a way for
Innodata to deprive the employees of security of tenure. SC held that they are regular employees,
entitled to security of tenure and could not be removed except for just or authorized cause.
9. Rosita Pangilinan, Yolanda Layola vs. General Milling Corporation
Facts:
The respondent General Milling Corporation is a domestic corporation engaged in the production
and sale of livestock and poultry. It is, likewise, the distributor of dressed chicken to various restaurants
and establishments nationwide. As such, it employs hundreds of employees, some on a regular basis and
others on a casual basis, as “emergency workers.” The petitioners were employed by the respondent on
different dates as emergency workers at its poultry plant in Cainta, Rizal, under separate
“temporary/casual contracts of employment” for a period of five months. Most of them worked as
chicken dressers, while the others served as packers or helpers. Upon the expiration of their respective
contracts, their services were terminated. They later filed separate complaints for illegal dismissal and
non-payment of holiday pay, 13th month pay, night-shift differential and service incentive leave pay
against the respondent before the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission.
The petitioners alleged that their work as chicken dressers was necessary and desirable in the
usual business of the respondent, and added that although they worked from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.,
they were not paid night-shift differential. They stressed that based on the nature of their work, they
were regular employees of the respondent; hence, could not be dismissed from their employment unless
for just cause and after due notice. They asserted that the respondent GMC terminated their contract of
employment without just cause and due notice. They further argued that the respondent could not rely on
the nomenclature of their employment as “temporary or casual.”

Issue:
Whether or not the petitioners were regular employees of the respondent GMC when their
employment was terminated

Held:
The SC held the petitioners were employees with a fixed period, and, as such, were not regular
employees. Article 280 of the Labor Code comprehends three kinds of employees: (a) regular employees
or those whose work is necessary or desirable to the usual business of the employer; (b) project
employees or those 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; and, (c) casual employees or those who are neither regular nor project
employees.
A regular employee is one who is engaged to perform activities which are necessary and
desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer as against those which are undertaken for a
specific project or are seasonal.[41] There are two separate instances whereby it can be determined that
an employment is regular: (1) if the particular activity performed by the employee is necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer; and, (2) if the employee has been performing
the job for at least a year. Article 280 of the Labor Code does not proscribe or prohibit an employment
contract with a fixed period. It does not necessarily follow that where the duties of the employee consist
of activities usually necessary or desirable in the usual business of the employer, the parties are
forbidden from agreeing on a period of time for the performance of such activities. There is thus nothing
essentially contradictory between a definite period of employment and the nature of the employee’s
duties.
Stipulations in employment contracts providing for term employment or fixed period
employment are valid when the period were agreed upon knowingly and voluntarily by the parties
without force, duress or improper pressure, being brought to bear upon the employee and absent any
other circumstances vitiating his consent, or where it satisfactorily appears that the employer and
employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance whatever being
exercised by the former over the latter. An examination of the contracts entered into by the petitioners
showed that their employment was limited to a fixed period, usually five or six months, and did not go
beyond such period. The records reveal that the stipulations in the employment contracts were
knowingly and voluntarily agreed to by the petitioners without force, duress or improper pressure, or
any circumstances that vitiated their consent. Similarly, nothing therein shows that these contracts were
used as a subterfuge by the respondent GMC to evade the provisions of Articles 279 and 280 of the
Labor Code.
The petitioners were hired as “emergency workers” and assigned as chicken dressers, packers
and helpers at the Cainta Processing Plant. While the petitioners’ employment as chicken dressers is
necessary and desirable in the usual business of the respondent, they were employed on a mere
temporary basis, since their employment was limited to a fixed period. As such, they cannot be said to
be regular employees, but are merely “contractual employees.” Consequently, there was no illegal
dismissal when the petitioners’ services were terminated by reason of the expiration of their contracts.
Lack of notice of termination is of no consequence, because when the contract specifies the period of its
duration, it terminates on the expiration of such period. A contract for employment for a definite period
terminates by its own term at the end of such period.

10. Ma. Mercedes L. Barba vs. Liceo De Cagayan University

Facts:
Petitioner Dr. Ma. Mercedes L. Barba (Barba) was the Dean of the College of Physical Therapy
of respondent Liceo de Cagayan University, Inc. (Liceo).
In the school year 2003 to 2004, the College of Physical Therapy suffered a dramatic decline in
the number of enrollees from a total of 1,121 students in the school year 1995 to 1996 to only 29
students in the first semester of school year 2003 to 2004. Due to the low number of enrollees, Liceo
decided to freeze the operation of the College of Physical Therapy indefinitely. Thereafter, the College
of Physical Therapy ceased operations and Barba went on leave without pay starting. Subsequently,
Liceo sent Barba a letter dated April 27, 2005 instructing Barba to return to work on and report to Ma.
Chona Palomares, the Acting Dean of the College of Nursing, to receive her teaching load and
assignment as a full-time faculty member in that department. Barba did not report to Palomares and
requested for the processing of her separation benefits in view of the closure of the College of Physical
Therapy.
Another letter was sent to Barba but the latter still refused to return to work. Hence, Liceo sent
Barba a notice terminating her services on the ground of abandonment.
Barba filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal, payment of separation pay
and retirement benefits againstLiceo. She alleged that her transfer to the College of Nursing as a faculty
member is a demotion amounting to constructive dismissal.
The LA ruled that Barba was not constructively dismissed. The NLRC reversed the LA. Liceo
went to the CA and filed a Supplemental Petition raising for the first time the issue of lack of
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC over the case. Liceo claimed that a College Dean is a
corporate officer under its by-laws and Barba was a corporate officer of Liceo since her appointment
was approved by the board of directors. Thus, Liceo maintained that the jurisdiction over the case is
with the regular courts and not with the labor tribunals.
In its original Decision, the CA reversed the NLRC resolutions. The CA did not find merit in
Liceos assertion in its Supplemental Petition that the position of Barba as College Dean was a corporate
office. The CA further found that no constructive dismissal occurred nor has Barba abandoned her work.
Unsatisfied, both Barba and Liceo sought reconsideration of the CA decision. Thereafter, the CA
reversed its earlier ruling. Hence,Barba filed the present petition.

Issues:
(1) Whether or not the labor tribunals have jurisdiction over Barbas complaint for constructive
dismissal
(2) Whether or not Barba was constructively dismissed

Held:
Labor tribunals have jurisdiction over Barbas complaint. Corporate officers are elected or
appointed by the directors or stockholders, and are those who are given that character either by the
Corporation Code or by the corporations by-laws. Section 25 of the Corporation Code enumerates
corporate officers as the president, the secretary, the treasurer and such other officers as may be
provided for in the by-laws. In Matling Industrial and Commercial Corporation v. Coros, the phrase
"such other officers as may be provided for in the by-laws" has been clarified, thus: "Conformably with
Section 25, a position must be expressly mentioned in the By-Laws in order to be considered as a
corporate office. The rest of the corporate officers could be considered only as employees of subordinate
officials."
However, an assiduous perusal of these documents does not convince us that Barba occupies a
corporate office position in the university. In Liceos by-laws, there are four officers specifically
mentioned, namely, a president, a vice president, a secretary and a treasurer. In addition, it is provided
that there shall be other appointive officials, a College Director and heads of departments whose
appointments, compensations, powers and duties shall be determined by the board of directors. It is
worthy to note that a College Dean is not among the corporate officers mentioned in Liceos by-laws.
Barba was not directly elected nor appointed by the board of directors to any corporate office but her
appointment was merely approved by the board together with the other academic deans of respondent
university in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Liceos Administrative Manual. Though the
board of directors may create appointive positions other than the positions of corporate officers, the
persons occupying such positions cannot be deemed as corporate officers as contemplated by Section 25
of the Corporation Code. Thus, petitioner, being an employee of respondent, her complaint for
illegal/constructive dismissal against respondent was properly within the jurisdiction of the LaborArbiter
and the NLRC.
(2) On the issue of constructive dismissal, we agree with the Labor Arbiter and the appellate
courts earlier ruling that Barba was not constructively dismissed. Barbas letter of appointment
specifically appointed her as Dean of the College of Physical Therapy and Doctor-in-Charge of the
Rehabilitation Clinic "for a period of three years effective July 1, 2002 unless sooner revoked for valid
cause or causes." Evidently, Barbas appointment as College Dean was for a fixed term, subject to
reappointment and revocation or termination for a valid cause. When Liceo decided to close its College
of Physical Therapy due to drastic decrease in enrollees, Barbas appointment as its College Dean was
validly revoked and her subsequent assignment to teach in the College of Nursing was justified as it is
still related to her scholarship studies in Physical Therapy. Particularly, for a transfer not to be
considered a constructive dismissal, the employer must be able to show that such transfer is not
unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee.

11. Hacienta Fatima and/or Patricio Villegas vs. National Federation of Sugarcane Workers-Food
and General Trade
Facts:
In the course of a labor dispute between the petitioner and respondent union, the union members
were not given work for more than one month. In protest, complainants staged a strike which was
however settled upon the signing of a Memorandum of Agreement. A conciliation meeting was
conducted wherein Luisa Rombo, Ramona Rombo, Bobong Abrega, and Boboy Silva were not
considered by the company as employees, and thus may not be members of the union. It was also agreed
that a number of other employees will be reinstated. When respondents again reneged on its
commitment, complainants filed the present complaint. It is alleged by the petitioners that the above
employees are mere seasonal employees.

Issue:
Whether or not the seasonal employees have become regular employees

Held:
The SC held that for respondents to be excluded from those classified as regular employees, it is
not enough that they perform work or services that are seasonal in nature. They must have also been
employed only for the duration of one season. The evidence proves the existence of the first, but not of
the second, condition. The fact that respondents -- with the exception of Luisa Rombo, Ramona Rombo,
Bobong Abriga and Boboy Silva -- repeatedly worked as sugarcane workers for petitioners for several
years is not denied by the latter. Evidently, petitioners employed respondents for more than one season.
Therefore, the general rule of regular employment is applicable.
The primary standard of determining regular employment is the reasonable connection between
the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual trade or business of the
employer. The test is whether the former is usually necessary or desirable in the usual trade or business
of the employer. The connection can be determined by considering the nature of the work performed and
its relation to the scheme of the particular business or trade in its entirety. Also if the employee has been
performing the job for at least a year, even if the performance is not continuous and merely intermittent,
the law deems repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity if
not indispensability of that activity to the business. Hence, the employment is considered regular, but
only with respect to such activity and while such activity exists.

12. Fortunato Mercado, Sr. Rosa Mercado vs. NLRC,

Facts:
Petitioners were agricultural workers of the private respondent's sugar land who were dismissed.
They had worked in all agriculture phases for several years in the said sugar land. The respondent denied
that petitioners were regular employees alleging that their services were engaged through 'mandarols' or
supply workers to do a particular phase of the agricultural work. As a result, the petitioners filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter held that the petitioners were not regular employees
and the NLRC affirmed this ruling.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioners are regular and permanent farm workers

Held:
No, they are project/seasonal employees. A project employee is one whose employment has been
fixed for a specific project or undertaking, the completion has been determined at the time of
engagement, or where work or service is seasonal in nature and employment is for the duration of the
season. As such, the termination of employment cannot be considered as illegal dismissal. The
petitioners are free to contract their services to work for other farm owners.

13. Jaime N. Gapayao vs. Rosalio Fulo, Social Security System and Social Security Commission
Facts:
Jaime Fulo died of "acute renal failure secondary to 1st degree burn 70% secondary
electrocution" while doing repairs at the residence and business establishment of Gapayao. Gapayao
extended some financial assistance to Rosario Fulo, the wife of the deceased and the latter executed an
Affidavit of Desistance stating that she was not holding them liable for the death of her late husband.
Thereafter, private respondent filed a claim for social security benefits with the Social Security System
(SSS) Sorosogon Branch. However, upon verification and evaluation, it was discovered that the
deceased was not a registered member of the SSS. Upon Rosario's insistence that her late husband had
been employed by petitioner from January 1983 up to his untimely death on 4 November 1997, the SSS
conducted a field investigation to clarify his status of employment. The findings revealed that Mr. Jaime
Fulo was an employee of Jaime Gapayao as farm laborer from 1983 to 1997 and that Mr. Jaime Fulo
receives compensation on a daily basis ranging from P5.00 to P60.00 from 1983 to 1997. As per
interview, Mrs. Estela Gapayao contends that Jaime Fulo is an employee of Mr. & Mrs. Jaime Gapayao
on an extra basis. The SSS demanded that petitioner remit the social security contributions of the
deceased. Gapayao denied that the deceased was his employee but was rather an independent contractor
whose tasks were not subject to his control and supervision. Assuming arguendo that the deceased was
his employee, he was still not entitled to be paid his SSS premiums for the intervening period when he
was not at work, as he was an "intermittent worker who was only summoned every now and then as the
need arose." Hence, Gapayao insisted that he was under no obligation to report the former’s demise to
the SSS for social security coverage. Rosario alleges that her late husband had been in the employ of
petitioner for 14 years, from 1983 to 1997. During that period, he was made to work as a laborerin the
agricultural landholdings, a harvester in the abaca plantation, and a repairman/utility worker in several
business establishments owned by petitioner. The considerable length of time during which [the
deceased] was given diverse tasks by Gapayao was a clear indication of the necessity and
indispensability of her late husband’s services to Gapayao's business.
Issue:
Whether or not there exists between the deceased Jaime Fulo and Gapayao an employer-
employee relationship that would merit an award of benefits in favor of Rosario Fulo under social
security laws

Held:
Yes. Farm workers may be considered regular seasonal employees. Farm workers generally fall
under the definition of seasonal employees. Court held that seasonal employees may be considered as
regular employees. Regular seasonal employees are those called to work from time to time. The nature
of their relationship with the employer is such that during the off season, they are temporarily laid off;
but reemployed during the summer season or when their services may be needed. They are in regular
employment because of the nature of their job,and not because of the length of time they have worked.
The other tasks allegedly done by the deceased outside his usual farm work only bolster the existence of
an employer-employee relationship. It only proves that even during the off season, the deceased was still
in the employ of Gapayao. The most telling indicia of this relationship is the Compromise Agreement
executed by Gapayao and Rosario. Gapayao entered into the agreement with full knowledge that he was
described as the employer of the deceased. Pakyaw workers are considered employees for as long as
their employers exercise control over them. In this case, Gapayao wielded control over the deceased in
the discharge of his functions. The right of an employee to be covered by the Social Security Act is
premised on the existence of an employer-employee relationship. That having been established, the
Court ruled in favor of Rosario.

14. Pedy Caseres and Andito Pael vs. Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation
Facts:
Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation (respondent) is a corporation engaged in the cane
sugar milling business. Petitioners were employees. At the start of their respective employments, they
were made to sign a Contract of Employment for Specific Project or Undertaking. Petitioners’ contracts
were renewed from time to time, until May 1999 when they were informed that their contracts will not
be renewed anymore. Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, regularization, incentive leave
pay, 13th month pay, damages and attorney’s fees. The Labor arbiter ruled that they were not regular
employees. NLRC and CA affirmed the decision.

Issue:
Whether the petitioners are regular employees
Held:
They are NOT regular employees. ART. 280. Regular and Casual Employees. – The provision of
written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an
employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities
which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the
employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which
has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be
performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season. An employment
shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, That, any
employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken,
shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his
employment shall continue while such actually exists.
The principal test for determining whether an employee is a project employee or a regular
employee is whether 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.
A true project employee should be assigned to a project which begins and ends at determined or
determinable times, and be informed thereof at the time of hiring.
The very nature of the terms and conditions of complainants’ hiring reveals that they were
required to perform phases of special projects for a definite period after, their services are available to
other farm owners. This is so because the planting of sugar does not entail a whole year operation, and
utility works are comparatively small during the off-milling season.
It must be noted that there were intervals in petitioners’ respective employment contracts, and
that their work depended on the availability of such contracts or projects. Consequently, the employment
of URSUMCO’s work force was not permanent but co-terminous with the projects to which the
employees were assigned and from whose payrolls they were paid
The fact that petitioners were constantly re-hired does not ipso facto establish that they became
regular employees. Their respective contracts with respondent show that there were intervals in their
employment. In petitioner Caseres’s case, while his employment lasted from August 1989 to May 1999,
the duration of his employment ranged from one day to several months at a time, and such successive
employments were not continuous. With regard to petitioner Pael, his employment never lasted for more
than a month at a time. These support the conclusion that they were indeed project employees, and since
their work depended on the availability of such contracts or projects, necessarily the employment of
respondent’s work force was not permanent but co-terminous with the projects to which they were
assigned and from whose payrolls they were paid.
Moreover, even if petitioners were repeatedly and successively re-hired, still it did not qualify
them as regular employees, as length of service is not the controlling determinant of the employment
tenure of a project employee, but whether the employment has been fixed for a specific project or
undertaking, its completion has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee. Further,
the proviso in Article 280, stating that an employee who has rendered service for at least one (1) year
shall be considered a regular employee, pertains to casual employees and not to project employees.

15. Aurora Land Projects Corp. vs. NLRC and Honorio Dagui
Facts:
Private respondent Honorio Dagui was hired by the late mother of the petitioner in 1953 to take charge
of the maintenance and repair of the Tanjangco apartments and residential buildings. He was engaged to
perform carpentry, plumbing, electrical and masonry work whne petitioner took over the administration
of all the Tanjangco Properties. On June 1991, private respondent Dagui received the shock of his life
when Mrs. Quazon suddenly told him: "Wala ka nang trabaho mula ngayon,” on the alleged ground that
his work was unsatisfactory. On Aug. 1991, private respondent filed a comlaint for illegal dismissal. The
Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the private respondent. The petitioner insisted that the private respondent
had never been their employee and Dagui served therein only as a job contractor.

Issue:
Whether or not the private respondent is an employee of the petitioner, and whether he is a
permanent, casual, or probationary employee

Held:
The court ruled that the private respondent is an employee of the petitioner, provided in Sec. 8,
Rule VIII, Book III of IRR of the Labor Code provides in part:
There is job contracting permissible under the Code if the following conditions are met:
(2) The contractor has substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment,
machineries, work premises, and other materials which are necessary in the conduct of his business.”
Dagui earns only P180.00, No proof was adduced by the petitioners to show that Dagui was
merely a job contractor, and it is absurd to expect that private respondent, with such humble resources,
would have substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment, and machineries, with
which to conduct the business of supplying Aurora Plaza with manpower and services for the exclusive
purpose of maintaining the apartment houses owned by the petitioners herein. Also elements of
employer-employee relationship are present on the said case.
Further, the court found that the private respondent is a regular employee as provided under Art.
280 (295 renumbered) of the Labor Code. "Regular and Casual employment. The provisions of written
agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an
employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities
which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the
employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which
has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be
performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.
An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph:
Provided, That, any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is
continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is
employed and his employment shall continue while such actually exists."
As can be gleaned from this provision, there are two kinds of regular employees, namely: (1)
those who are engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer; and (2) those who have rendered at least one year of service, whether
continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in which they are employed. Whichever standard is
applied, private respondent qualifies as a regular employee.

16. Jaime N. Gapayao, vs. Rosario Fulo, Social Security System and Social Security Commission
Facts:
On 4 November 1997, Jaime Fulo (deceased) died of "acute renal failure secondary to 1st degree
burn 70% secondary electrocution"5 while doing repairs at the residence and business establishment of
petitioner located at San Julian, Irosin, Sorsogon.
Allegedly moved by his Christian faith, petitioner extended some financial assistance to private
respondent. On 16 November 1997, the latter executed an Affidavit of Desistance stating that she was
not holding them liable for the death of her late husband, Jaime Fulo, and was thereby waiving her right
and desisting from filing any criminal or civil action against petitioner. On 14 January 1998, both parties
executed a Compromise Agreement
Thereafter, private respondent filed a claim for social security benefits with the Social Security
System (SSS)–Sorosogon Branch. However, upon verification and evaluation, it was discovered that the
deceased was not a registered member of the SSS.
Upon the insistence of private respondent that her late husband had been employed by petitioner
from January 1983 up to his untimely death on 4 November 1997, the SSS conducted a field
investigation to clarify his status of employment.
On 6 May 2003, petitioner disclaiming any liability on the premise that the deceased was not the
former’s employee, but was rather an independent contractor whose tasks were not subject to
petitioner’s control and supervision.
 Subsequently, on 30 June 2003, the SSS filed a Petition-in-Intervention16 before the SSC,
outlining the factual circumstances of the case and praying that judgment be rendered based on the
evidence adduced by the parties.
On 14 March 2007, the Social Security Commission rendered a Resolution, in favor of the
Widow. Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals on 19 December 2007. On 17 March
2010, the CA rendered a Decision in favor of private respondent and affirming the SSC.

Issue:
Whether or not the decease is a regular employee

Held:
Yes. In asserting the existence of an employer-employee relationship, private respondent alleges
that her late husband had been in the employ of petitioner for 14 years, from 1983 to 1997. During that
period, he was made to work as a laborer in the agricultural landholdings, a harvester in the abaca
plantation, and a repairman/utility worker in several business establishments owned by petitioner. To
private respondent, the "considerable length of time during which [the deceased] was given diverse tasks
by petitioner was a clear indication of the necessity and indispensability of her late husband’s services to
petitioner’s business." This view is bolstered by the admission of petitioner himself in the Compromise
Agreement that he was the deceased’s employer.
Private respondent’s position is similarly espoused by the SSC, which contends that its findings
are duly supported by evidence on record. It insists that pakyaw workers are considered employees, as
long as the employer exercises control over them. In this case, the exercise of control by the employer
was delegated to the caretaker of his farm, Amado Gacelo. The SSC further asserts that the deceased
rendered services essential for the petitioner’s harvest. While these services were not rendered
continuously (in the sense that they were not rendered every day throughout the year), still, the deceased
had never stopped working for petitioner from year to year until the day the former died. In fact, the
deceased was required to work in the other business ventures of petitioner, such as the latter’s bakery
and grocery store. The Compromise Agreement entered into by petitioner with private respondent
should not be a bar to an employee demanding what is legally due the latter.
Lastly, petitioner alleges that the deceased is a freelance worker. Since he was engaged on a
pakyaw basis and worked for a short period of time, in the nature of a farm worker every season, he was
not precluded from working with other persons and in fact worked for them. Under Article 280 of the
Labor Code, seasonal employees are not covered by the definitions of regular and casual employees.
Petitioner cites Mercado, Sr. v. NLRC,51 in which the Court held that seasonal workers do not become
regular employees by the mere fact that they have rendered at least one year of service, whether
continuous or broken.
 Jurisprudence has identified the three types of employees mentioned in the provision: (1) regular
employees or those who have been engaged to perform activities that are usually necessary or desirable
in the usual business or trade of the employer; (2) project employees or those whose employment has
been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, the completion or termination of which has been
determined at the time of their engagement, or those whose work or service is seasonal in nature and is
performed for the duration of the season; and (3) casual employees or those who are neither regular nor
project employees.
Farm workers generally fall under the definition of seasonal employees. We have consistently
held that seasonal employees may be considered as regular employees. Regular seasonal employees are
those called to work from time to time. The nature of their relationship with the employer is such that
during the off season, they are temporarily laid off; but reemployed during the summer season or when
their services may be needed. They are in regular employment because of the nature of their job,and not
because of the length of time they have worked.

17. Wilfredo Aro, Ronilo Tirol, Jose Pacaldo, Primitivo Casquejo and Marcial Abgo, vs. NLRC,
Fourth Division and Benthel Development Corporation
Facts:
Several employees of private respondent Benthel Development Corporation, including the
petitioners, filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal with various money claims and prayer for damages
against the latter. LA found private respondent guilty of illegal dismissal and ordering it to pay its
employees separation pay.
The employees, including the petitioners herein, appealed to the NLRC. NLRC favored
petitioners and affirmed the decision of LA with modification that private respondent pay backwages
computed from the respective dates of dismissal until finality of the decision.
Private respondent filed MR to NLRC. NLRC denied the motion ruling that private respondent
failed to establish the date of the completion of the project. Private respondent went to CA. It was
dismissed.
The employees, including the petitioners, upon the finality of the Court’s resolution, filed a
Motion for Execution before the LA of its decision. The LA ordered for the issuance of a writ of
execution directing the computation of the awards. Private respondent filed an appeal from the said
Order with an urgent prayer for the issuance of a TRO and/or preliminary injunction with public
respondent NLRC. It was denied.
Private respondent appealed to NLRC contending that the computation for backwages must be
only until the completion of the project and not until the finality of the decision. NLRC affirmed the
Order of LA but reduced the total amount it has previously rendered.
 Private respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, alleging NLRC committed grave
abuse of discretion. The CA granted the petition, therefore, annulling and setting aside the decision and
resolution of the NLRC as to the award for backwages and remanded the case to the same public
respondent NLRC for the proper computation of the backwages due to each of the petitioners herein.
But the petitioners did not agree with the reduction made by the NLRC, hence, the present petition.

Issue:
Whether petitioners were project employees or regular employees and how should the
backwages be computed

Held:
Petitioners are project employees. According to the CA, petitioners are project employees as
found by LA because they were hired for the construction of the Cordova Reef Village Resort in
Cordova, Cebu, which was later on affirmed by the NLRC. The only discrepancy is the Order of the
NLRC that petitioners are entitled to backwages up to the finality of its decision, when as project
employees, private respondents are only entitled to payment of backwages until the date of the
completion of the project. In a later resolution on private respondent’s MR, the NLRC changed its
findings by ruling that petitioners herein were regular employees and, therefore, entitled to full
backwages, until finality of the decision, citing that petitioners’ repeated rehiring over a long span of
time made them regular employees.
Article 280 of the Labor Code distinguishes a “project employee” from a “regular employee,”
thus: Article 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 service, whether such service is
continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is
employed and his employment shall continue while such activity exists.
The principal test for determining whether particular employees are properly characterized as
“project employees” as distinguished from “regular employees” is whether or not the project employees
were assigned to carry out a “specific project or undertaking,” the duration and scope of which were
specified at the time the employees were engaged for that project. Such duration, as well as the
particular work/service to be performed, is defined in an employment agreement and is made clear to the
employees at the time of hiring.
The length of service or the re-hiring of construction workers on a project-to-project basis does
not confer upon them regular employment status, since their re-hiring is only a natural consequence of
the fact that experienced construction workers are preferred. Employees who are hired for carrying out a
separate job, distinct from the other undertakings of the company, the scope and duration of which has
been determined and made known to the employees at the time of the employment , are properly treated
as project employees and their services may be lawfully terminated upon the completion of a project.
Should the terms of their employment fail to comply with this standard, they cannot be considered
project employees.
In this case, petitioners did not have that kind of agreement with respondents. Neither did they
inform respondents of the nature of the latter’s work at the time of hiring. Hence, for failure of
petitioners to substantiate their claim that respondents were project employees, SC declare them as
regular employees.
The Court markedly stressed the importance of the employees’ knowing consent to being
engaged as project employees when it clarified that “there is no question that stipulation on 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 absent any other circumstances
vitiating his consent”
CA was correct in finding that petitioners were project employees. It is not disputed that
petitioners were hired for the construction of the Cordova Reef Village Resort in Cordova, Cebu. By the
nature of the contract alone, it is clear that petitioners’ employment was to carry out a specific project.
As project employees, private respondents are only entitled to payment of the backwages until
the date of the completion of the project. It is settled that, without a valid cause, the employment of
project employees cannot be terminated prior to expiration. Otherwise, they shall be entitled to
reinstatement with full backwages. However, if the project or work is completed during the pendency of
the ensuing suit for illegal dismissal, the employees shall be entitled only to full backwages from the
date of the termination of their employment until the actual completion of the work.
Because there was no showing then that the project for which their services were engaged had
already been completed, the private respondents were illegally dismissed and thus entitled to backwages.
While it may be true that in the proceedings below the date of completion of the project for which the
private respondents were hired had not been clearly established, it constitutes grave abuse of discretion
on the part of NLRC for not determining for itself the date of said completion instead of merely ordering
payment of backwages until finality of its decision.
Therefore, being project employees, petitioners are only entitled to full backwages, computed
from the date of the termination of their employment until the actual completion of the work. Illegally
dismissed workers are entitled to the payment of their salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of
their employment where the employment is for a definite period.

18. Ricardo Fernandes vs NLRC, and D.M. Consunji, Inc.

Facts:
On November 1974 Fernandez was hired by DM Consunji. He worked for the latter until March
1936, when his employment was terminated on the ground that the project to which he was assigned was
already completed. He thus filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter. The Labor
Arbiter (May 1988) found that Fernandez worked continuously in various projects ranging from 5 to 20
years and belonged to a work pool and held that his dismissal was illegal.
Private Respondent appealed, on the ground that Fernandez was a project employee hired on a
project-to-project basis, depending on the availability of projects. It pointed to the gaps in Fernandez
employment history to show that he was hired on an off-and-on basis.
The NLRC in view of (1) lack of evidence to prove the continuous employment of Fernandez,
and (2) the intermittent nature of their work as shown by project contracts, ruled that Fernandez was a
project employee.
On July 1991 Fernandez interposed a MFR which was denied for lack of merit. The NLRC also
noted that the MFR was filed only on January 29, 1990, which was beyond the 10day reglementary
period from date of receipt of decision on November 13, 1989. Without mentioning the denial of the
MFR, Ricardo Fernandez filed a petition before the SC, assailing the NLRC Decision, arguing that it is
more in keeping with the intent and spirit of the law to consider him as regular employees.

Issue:
W/N the NLRC acted with GAD in reversing the Labor Arbiteras decision by dismissing the complaint
for illegal dismissal on the finding that they were project employees

Held: No.
[Procedural] The yardstick to measure the timeliness of a petition for certiorari is the
reasonableness of the duration of time that had expired from the commission of the acts complained of
up to the institution of the proceedings to annul the same. Here, Fernandez negligence or indifference for
such a long period of time (November 13, 1989 - receipt of Decision; August 2, 1991 - receipt of denial
of MFR; July 21, 1992 - filing of petition for certiorari) has in the meantime rendered the questioned
decision final and no longer assailable.
 [Substantive] DM Consunji presented material documents (covering November 5, 1974 - March
23, 1986) showing that Fernandez was hired as a project employee with the specific dates of hiring,
duration of hiring, dates of his lay-offs, and the termination reports submitted to the Minister of Labor.
Such documents clearly showed gaps of month/s between the hiring of Fernandez in numerous projects
where he was assigned. Thus, he is governed by Policy Instruction No. 20:
Project employees are those employed in connection with a particular construction project. They
are not entitled to termination pay if they are terminated as a result of the completion of the project or
any phase thereof in which they are employed, regardless of the number of projects in which they have
been employed by a particular construction company.
The proviso in the second par. of Art. 280 Labor Code deems as regular employees only those
casual employees who have rendered at least one year of service regardless of the fact that such service
may be continuous or broken. It is NOT applicable to project employees who are specifically exempt
therefrom.

19. Cocomangas Hotel Beach Resort vs. Federico F. Visca, Johnny G. Baredo,
Facts:
Visca et. al., who worked for the maintenance and repairs of the petitioner, filed complaint
against Cocomangas for illegal dismissal. They alleged that they were regular employees, but were
eventually informed by Cocomangas not to report for work because they caused irritation and annoyance
to resorts’ guests, and budgetary constraints. Eventually, they found out that Cocomangas hired new
employees as their replacement.
Cocomangas alleged that there was no employer-employee relationship, and that Visca was an
independent contractor who was called upon from time to time when repairs were needed.
Labor Arbiter ruled that Visca was an independent contractor, and that the other respondents
were hired by him; and that there was no illegal dismissal but rather completion of projects; and that
respondents were project workers, not regular employees. NLRC affirmed the decision. CA reversed.

Issue:
Whether or not Visca et. al. were regular employees

Held:
Yes, Visca et. al. were regular employees. A 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 service to be performed
is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.” Before an employee hired on
a per-project basis can be dismissed, a report must be made to the nearest employment office, of the
termination of the services of the workers every time completes a project, pursuant to Policy Instruction
No. 20.
Visca cannot be classified as project employees, since they worked continuously for
Cocomangas from three to twelve years without any mention of a project to which they were specifically
assigned. While they had designations as foreman, carpenter and mason, they performed work other than
carpentry or masonry. They were tasked with the maintenance and repair of the furniture, motor boats,
cottages, and windbreakers and other resort facilities. There was likewise no evidence of the project
employment contracts covering Visca’s alleged periods of employment. More importantly, there is no
evidence that Cocomangas reported the termination of Visca’s supposed project employment to the
DOLE as project employees. Department Order No. 19, as well as the old Policy Instructions No. 20,
requires employers to submit a report of an employees termination to the nearest public employment
office every time his employment is terminated due to a completion of a project. Cocomangas’ failure to
file termination reports is an indication that Viscaet. al. were not project employees but regular
employees.
An employment ceases to be coterminous with specific projects when the employee is
continuously rehired due to the demands of employers business and re-engaged for many more projects
without interruption. Once a project or work pool employee has been: (1) continuously, as opposed to
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, then the employee must
be deemed a regular employee, pursuant to Article 280 of the Labor Code and jurisprudence.

20. Douglas Millares and Rogelio Lagda, vs. NLRC, Trans-Global Maritime Agency
Facts:
On March 14, 2000, the court promulgated its decision ruling in favor of the petitioners setting
aside and reversing the decision of NLRC over the case of the case between parties.A motion for
reconsideration was filed by the private respondents to which petitioners filed an opposition.Court
resolve to deny the motion for reconsideration with finality. Subsequently, FAME filed a motion for
leave to intervene and to admit a motion for reconsideration in intervention. Private respondents also
filed a motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration of our decision.
In both petitions of respondent and FAME pray to reconsider the court's ruling that "Filipino
seafarers are considered regular employees within the context of Article 280 of the Labor Code." They
claim that the decision may establish a precedent that will adversely affect the maritime industry.
Millares was employed by ESSO through its local manning agency, Trans-global on November 1968 as
a machinist, in 1975 he was promoted as chief engineer until he retired in 1989.
 On June 1989, Millares applied for leave of absence for one month which was approved byt
trans-globa. Then Millares wrote to the operations manager informing him of his intention to avail the
optional retirement considering that he rendered more than 20 years of service to the company. But
ESSO denied the retirement for the following grounds: (1) he was employed on a contractual basis (2)
his contract of enlistment did not provide for retirement before age of 60 and (3) he did not comply with
requirement for claiming benefits under CEIP.
On August 1989 Millares requested for an extension of his leave of absence and the crewing
manager then wrote to Millares advising him that respondent ESSO "has corrected the deficiency in its
manpower requirement specifically in the Chief Engineer rank by promoting a First Assistant Engineer
to this position as a result of (his) previous leave of absence which expired last August 8, 1989. The
adjustment in said rank was required in order to meet manpower schedules as a result of (his) inability."
On September 26, 1989, ESSO advised MIllares that in view of his absence without leave, which
is equivalent to abandonment of his position, he had been dropped from the roster of crew members
effective September 1, 1989.On the other hand. Lagda was employed by ESSO as wiper in June 1969,
promoted as Chief engineer in 1980 until his last COE expired on April 10, 1989. On May 1989, Lagda
applied for a leave of absence which was approved by Trans-global and advised him to report for re-
assignment on July 21, 1989.
On June 26, 1989 Lagda wrote to ESSO through Trans-global resident informing him of his intention to
avail of the optional retirement plan in vies of his 20 years of service. It was denied by Trans-global on
the same grounds as with Millares. He requested to extend his leave of absence and was approved but
later informed by ESSO that in view of his "unavailability for contractual sea service" he had been
dropped from the roster of crew members effective September 1, 1989.
On October 5, 1989, Millares and LAgda filed a complaint-affidavit before POEA for illegal
dismissal and non-payment of employee benefits against ESSO and Trans-global. POEA dismissed the
complaint for lack of merit, which was affirmed by NLRC. So petitioners elevated their case to this
court and obtained favorable action.

Issues:
(1) Are the petitioners regular or contractual employees?
(2) Assuming that they are regular employees, were they dismissed without just cause?
(3) Does provision of POEA standard contract for sea farers on board foreign vessels preclude
the attainment by seamen of the status of regular employees?
(4) Does the decision to contravene international maritime las, allegedly part of the land?
Held:
Petitioners contends that they performed activities which are usually necessary to the usual
business or trade of the company and the fact that they served for 20 years already is an express
acknowledgment that they are regular employees by the private respondents.Respondents invoke that
under the POEA rules and regulation governing overseas employment seafarers are not regular
employees based on international maritime practice. While intervenor FAME avers that our decision of
not reconsidered will have negative consequence of the manning industry in the Philippines.
From the foregoing cases, it is clear that seafarers are considered contractual employees. They
cannot be considered as regular employees under Article 280 of the Labor Code. 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. They fall
under the exception of Article 280 whose employment has been fixed for a specific project or
undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of 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.19 We need not depart from the rulings of the Court in the two
aforementioned cases which indeed constitute stare decisis with respect to the employment status of
seafarers.
From all the foregoing, we hereby state that petitioners are not considered regular or permanent
employees under Article 280 of the Labor Code. Petitioners' employment have automatically ceased
upon the expiration of their contracts of enlistment (COE). Since there was no dismissal to speak of, it
follows that petitioners are not entitled to reinstatement or payment of separation pay or backwages, as
provided by law.
With respect to the benefits under the Consecutive Enlistment Incentive Plan (CEIP), we hold
that the petitioners are still entitled to receive 100% of the total amount credited to him under the CEIP.
Considering that we have declared that petitioners are contractual employees, their compensation and
benefits are covered by the contracts they signed and the CEIP is part and parcel of the contract.
In our March 14, 2000 Decision, we, however, found that petitioners Millares and Lagda were
not guilty of "abandonment" or "unavailability for contractual sea service," as we have stated:
The absence of petitioners was justified by the fact that they secured the approval of private
respondents to take a leave of absence after the termination of their last contracts of enlistment.
Subsequently, petitioners sought for extensions of their respective leaves of absence. Granting arguendo
that their subsequent requests for extensions were not approved, it cannot be said that petitioners were
unavailable or had abandoned their work when they failed to report back for assignment as they were
still questioning the denial of private respondents of their desire to avail of the optional early retirement
policy, which they believed in good faith to exist.26
Neither can we consider petitioners guilty of poor performance or misconduct since they were
recipients of Merit Pay Awards for their exemplary performances in the company. Partial grant.
Petitioners reinstated with modification.
21. Omni Hauling Services, Inc. Lolita Franco and Aniceto Franco vs. Bernardo Bon, Roberto
Tortoles
Facts:
Petitioner Omni Hauling Services, Inc. (Omni) was awarded a one year contract by the local
government of Quezon City to provide garbage hauling service. For this purpose, Omni hired
respondents as garbage truck drivers and paleros who were then paid on a per trip basis.
When the service contract was renewed for another year, Omni required each of the respondents
to sign employment contracts which provided that they will be “re-hired” only for the duration of the
same period. However, respondents refuse to sign the employment contract, claiming that they were
regular employees since they were engaged to perform activities which were necessary and desirable to
Omni’s usual business or trade. Omni terminated their employment. The respondents here in file
complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of ECOLA, 13th Month pay plus damages.
Labor Arbiter’s Decision: Respondents were NOT illegally dismissed. They were informed that
their employment will be limited for a specific period of one year and was co-terminus with the service
contract with the Quezon City Government. Respondents were not regular but merely project employees
whose hiring was solely dependent on the aforesaid service contract.
NLRC’s Decision: Affirmed the decision of NLRC.
CA’s Decision: Reversed the decision of NLRC. NLRC failed to consider the glaring fact that no
contract of employment exist to support petitioner’s allegation that respondents are fixed term (Project)
employees.

Issue:
Whether the petitioners are regular employees or a project employees which would needs to sign
a new employment contract as a result of the renewal of contract between Quezon City Government and
Omni

Held:
A project employee is assigned to a project which begins and end at determined or determinable
TIMES. Unlike regular employees who may only be dismissed for just and/or authorized causes under
the Labor Code, the services of employees who are hired as “project employees” may be lawfully
terminated at the completion of the project.
The principal Test for determining whether particular employees are properly characterized as
project employees as distinguished from regular employee 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 the 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 undertaking of the company; or (2) a particular job or undertaking that is not within the regular
business of the corporation.
Employers claiming that their workers are project employees should not only prove that the
duration and scope of the employment was specific at the time they were engaged, but also that there
was indeed a project. Even though the absence of a written contract does not by itself grant regular
status to respondents, such a contract is evidence that respondents were informed of the duration and
scope of their work and their status as project employees.
In the case herein present, 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. As such, the presumption of regular employment
should be accorded in their favour pursuant to Article 280 of the Labor Code. Furthermore, the fact
remains that respondents have been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade of OMNI, (garbage hauling) thereby confirming the strength of
the aforesaid conclusion

22. Judy O. Dacuital, Eugenio L. Mondano, Jr. Joseph Galer, vs. L.M. Camus Engineering
Corporation and/or Luis M. Camus
Facts:
Petitioners (LMCEC Employees) filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of
monetary benefits against respondent LM Camus Engineering Corp. before the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC). The employees alleged that they were illegally dismissed from employment and
that their employer failed to pay them their holiday pay, premium pay for holiday, rest day, service
incentive leave pay, and 13th month pay during the existence and duration of their employment. They
also averred that they were not provided with sick and vacation leaves.
Respondents denied that petitioners were illegally dismissed from employment. They claimed
that petitioners were project employees and, upon the completion of each project, they were served
notices of project completion. They clarified that the termination of petitioners’ employment was due to
the completion of the projects for which they were hired.
Petitioners, however, countered that they were regular employees as they had been engaged to
perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of LMCEC.
They denied that they were project or contractual employees because their employment was continuous
and uninterrupted for more than one (1) year. Finally, they maintained that they were part of a work pool
from which LMCEC drew its workers for its various projects.
 The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision declaring the dismissal of the complainant-employees as
illegal and the complainants are entitled to reinstatement without back wages. The NLRC modified the
decision of the Labor Arbiter and ordered the reinstatement of the complainants with limited backwages.
The respondents appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals and the appellate court held that the
complainants are project employees and hence, there was no illegal dismissal.

Issue:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals is correct in concluding that the petitioners are project
employees and that their dismissal from employment was legal

Held:
Principal test used to determine whether employees are project employees or regular employees.
The Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Nachura, answered in the negative. Article 280 of the
Labor Code distinguishes a "project employee" from a "regular employee" in this wise:
Article 280. Regular and casual employment.—The provisions of written agreement to the
contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be
deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has
been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been
determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be
performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.
The principal test used to determine whether employees are project employees is whether or not
the employees were assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking, the duration or scope of
which was specified at the time the employees were engaged for that project.
Even though the absence of a written contract does not by itself grant regular status to
petitioners, such a contract is evidence that petitioners were informed of the duration and scope of their
work and their status as project employees.In this case, where no other evidence was offered, the
absence of the employment contracts raises a serious question of whether the employees were properly
informed at the onset of their employment of their status as project employees.
While it is true that respondents presented the employment contract of Dacuital, the contract
does not show that he was informed of the nature, as well as the duration of his employment. In fact, the
duration of the project for which he was allegedly hired was not specified in the contract. Hence, the
dismissal of the petitioners is declared illegal.
23. Moises De Leon vs. NLRC, and La Tondeña Inc.,
Facts:
Petitioner De Leon was employed by respondent company La Tondeña as maintenance man
whose work consisted mainly of painting company building and equipment, and other odd jobs relating
to maintenance. After having worked for respondent for more than a year, petitioner requested that he be
included in the payroll of regular employees, to which the former responded by dismissing petitioner
from his employment. Petitioner having been refused reinstatement filed a complaint before the Labor
Arbiter. Petitioner asserts that he is a regular employee performing similar functions as of a regular
maintenance and was rehired by respondent company’s labor agency to perform the same tasks.
Respondent company meanwhile claims petitioner was a casual worker hired only to paint a certain
building in the premises and that his work as painter terminated upon completion of the job. The Labor
Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner but was reversed on appeal by the NLRC tribunal.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioner De Leon is a regular employee of respondent

Held:
Yes. The primary standard, therefore, of determining a regular employment is the reasonable
connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or
trade of the employer. The test is whether the former is usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer.
It is not tenable to argue that the painting and maintenance work of petitioner are not necessary
in respondent’s business of manufacturing liquors and wines, just as it cannot be said that only those
who are directly involved in the process of producing wines and liquors may be considered as necessary
employees. Otherwise, there would have been no need for the regular Maintenance Section of
respondent company’s Engineering Department, manned by regular employees whom petitioner often
worked with.
The law demands that the nature and entirety of the activities performed by the employee be
considered. In the case of petitioner, the painting and maintenance work given him manifest a treatment
consistent with a maintenance man and not just a painter, for if his job was truly only to paint a building
there would have been no basis for giving him other work assignments in between painting activities.
Furthermore, the petitioner performed his work of painting and maintenance activities during his
employment in respondent’s business which lasted for more than one year. Certainly, by this fact alone
he is entitled by law to be considered a regular employee. And considering further that weeks after his
dismissal, petitioner was rehired by the company through a labor agency and was returned to his post in
the Maintenance Section and made to perform the same activities that he used to do, it cannot be denied
that as activities as a regular painter and maintenance man still exist.

24. D.M. Consunji Corporation vs. Rogelio P. Bello

Facts:
DMCI is engaged in the construction industry. It hired Belo successively to its several projects as
a mason for almost six years whose work relates to building and constructing. DMCI contended that
Belo’s services were deemed necessary and desirable in its usual business but only for the period of time
it took them to complete the projects. On the other hand, with regard to the dismissal of Belo, DMCI
contended that Belo voluntarily resigned from work by presenting his supposed resignation letter. Belo
denied and explained that he signed the letter because DMCI made him believe that the letter was for the
extension of his sick leave.

Issues:
(1) Whether or not the Belo is a regular employee
(2) Whether or not Belo voluntarily resigned

Held:
(1) Yes. The extension of the employment of a project employee long after the supposed project
has been completed removes the employee from the scope of a project employee and makes him a
regular employee so long as the project involves activities which are necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer.
(2) No. DMCI became burdened to prove the genuineness of the document as a letter of
resignation. For a resignation of an employee to be a viable defense in an action for illegal dismissal, the
employer must prove that the resignation was voluntary and its evidence thereon must be clear, positive
and convincing. The employer cannot rely on the weakness of the employee’s evidence.

25. GMA Network, Inc. vs. Carlos P. Pabriga, Geoffrey F. Arias, Kirby N. Campo, Arnold L.
Lagahit and Armand A. Catubig
Facts:
Private respondents were engaged by petitioner for the latters operations in the Technical
Operations Center as Transmitter/VTR men, as Maintenance staff and as Cameramen On July 19 1999
due to the miserable working conditions private respondents were forced to file a complaint against
petitioner before the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch No. VII Cebu City.
Private respondents filed an amended complaint raising the following additional issues of 1)
Unfair Labor Practice; 2) Illegal dismissal; and 3) Damages and Attorneys fees. An amicable settlement
between the parties was set but the same proved to be futile.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint of respondents for illegal dismissal and unfair labor
practice, but held petitioner liable for 13th month pay.
The NLRC reversed the Decision of the Labor Arbiter, and held that

a) All complainants are regular employees with respect to the particular activity to which they
were assigned, until it ceased to exist. As such, they are entitled to payment of separation pay computed
at one (1) month salary for every year of service;
b) They are not entitled to overtime pay and holiday pay; and
c) They are entitled to 13th month pay, night shift differential and service incentive leave pay.
When Petitioner elevated the case to the CA via a Petition for Certiorari, it rendered its Decision
denying the petition for lack of merit. Hence, this present Petition for Review on Certiorari.

Issues:
(1) Whether or not the CA erred in finding the respondents as regular employees of the
petitioner?
(2) Whether or not the CA erred in awarding separation pay to the respondents absent a finding
that respondents were illegally dismissed?

Held:
Respondents claim that they are regular employees of petitioner GMA Network, Inc. The latter,
on the other hand, interchangeably characterize respondents employment as project and fixed
period/fixed term employment.
ARTICLE 280. Regular and casual employment. The provisions of written agreement to the
contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be
deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has
been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been
determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be
performed is seasonal in nature and 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 actually exist.
Pursuant to the above-quoted Article 280 of the Labor Code, 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. The consequence of the
distinction is found in Article 279 of the Labor Code, which provides:
ARTICLE 279. Security of tenure. In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not
terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An
employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of
seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other
benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him
up to the time of his actual reinstatement.
On the other hand, the activities of project employees may or may not be usually necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer.
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. ALU-TUCP v. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 109902, August 2, 1994
The jobs and undertakings 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.
In sum, we affirm the findings of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals that respondents are
regular employees of petitioner. As regular employees, they are entitled to security of tenure and
therefore their services may be terminated only for just or authorized causes. Since petitioner failed to
prove any just or authorized cause for their termination, we are constrained to affirm the findings of the
NLRC and the Court of Appeals that they were illegally dismissed.
Since the respondents were illegally dismissed, they entitled to separation pay in lieu of
reinstatement. As regards night shift differential, the Labor Code provides that every employee shall be
paid not less than ten percent (10%) of his regular wage for each hour of work performed between ten
o'clock in the evening and six o'clock in the morning. LABOR CODE, Article 86.
 As employees of petitioner, respondents are entitled to the payment of this benefit in accordance
with the number of hours they worked from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., if any.
The matter of attorney's fees cannot be touched once and only in the fallo of the decision, else,
the award should be thrown out for being speculative and conjectural. In the absence of a stipulation,
attorney's fees are ordinarily not recoverable; otherwise a premium shall be placed on the right to
litigate. They are not awarded every time a party wins a suit.
In the case at bar, the factual basis for the award of attorney's fees was not discussed in the text
of NLRC Decision. Thus, the Court constrained to delete the same.