Labor DIGESTS

LABOR LAW REVIEW 2018 DIGEST POOL [FIFTH MEETING]
ATTY. BUYCO
categories and classification of workers
3. if the employee has been performing the job for at least one (1)
Regular Employees year, even if the performance is not continuous or merely
intermittent, the law deems the repeated and continuing
Art 280. Regular and casual Employment. The provisions of need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the
written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and necessity if not indispensability of that activity to the
regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment business.
shall be deemed regular where the employee has been engaged a. the employee is also considered regular, but only with
to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in respect to such activity and while such activity exists.
the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the
employment has been fixed or undertaking the completion or Facts:
termination of which has been determined at the time of the
engagement of the employee or where the work or service to be After a service of more than one (1) year, Moises de leon asked La tondena for his
performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the inclusion in the payroll of regular employees, instead of being paid through petty
duration of the season. cash vouchers. La Tondena merely dismissed him. This led de Leon to file a case
xxx. of illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter. He pointed out that he is regular
employee since his work comprises not only painting of company buildings, but
Moises De leon v. NLRC also conducting maintenance chores i.e. cleaning and operating equipment,
GR No. 70705 August 21 1989 assisting the regular maintenance man. He also emphasized that he was re-hired
to do his usual tasks immediately after his termination through La tondena’s labor
Doctrine: agency. La tondena insists that de Leon is a mere casual employee as his
employment terminates after he finished painting a certain building in the
1. The test is whether the employee’s particular work or activity is company premises. It added that de leon’s employment had nothing to do with its
usually necessary or desirable to the usual business or trade of main business i.e. distillery. The LA ruled in favor of de leon. The LA found that the
the employer. reason for de Leon’s dismissal was his request for inclusion in the payroll, which he
thought to be an attempt to circumvent La tondena’s obligation as employer. LA’s
2. there must be a reasonable connection between the particular decision was reversed on appeal before the NLRC.
activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual
business or trade of the employer. Issue:
a. The connection can be determined by considering the
nature of the work performed and is relation to the Is de leon a regular employee?
scheme of the particular business or trade in its
entirety. Held:
b. It is not the will and word of the employer, much less
the procedure of hiring the employee or the manner of Yes.
paying his salary that determines regular or casual
employment. 1. the tasks assigned to De Leon included not only painting of company
c. It is the nature of the activities performed in relation to buildings, equipment and tools but also cleaning and oiling machines,
the particular business considering all circumstances even operating a drilling machine, and other odd jobs assigned to him
and in some cases, the length of time of its when he had not painting job as supported by the Maintenance Man’s
performance and its continued existence. affidavit.
1
ATTY. BUYCO
2. the nature and entirety of the activities performed by the employee must
be considered. 1. although the work to be performed is only for a specific project
a. In this case, the painting and maintenance work given him or seasonal, where a person thus engaged has been performing
manifest a treatment consistent with a maintenance man and the job for at least one (1) year, even if the performance is not
not just a painter, for if his job was truly only to paint a building continuous or is merely intermittent, the law the repeated and
there would have been no basis for giving him other work continuing need for its performance as being sufficient to
assignments in between painting activities. indicate the necessity or desirability of that activity to the
b. Painting and maintenance work are necessary activities, just as business or trade of the employer. The employment such person
the process of producing wines and liquors. Otherwise, there is also deed to be regular with respect to such activities and
would be no need for the regular maintenance section of the while such exists.
company’s engineering department, manned by regular
employees. 2. the work assigned to workers are sales route helpers are
c. De leon had already been regularized when his continued necessary or desirable in the usual course of trade or business,
performance of his work consisting of painting and maintenance and not on a confined scope.
activities has exceeded one (1) year.
3. the repeated rehiring of the workers and the continuing need for
Magsalin & Coca-cola Bottlers Phils v. National Organization of Working their services clearly attest to the necessity or desirability of their
Men et al services in the regular conduct or trade of Coca-cola company.
GR No. 148492 May 9 2003
4. the pernicious practice of having employees, workers and
Facts: laborers, engaged for a fixed period of few months, short of the
six month probationary period of employment, and thereafter, to
Coca-cola bottlers engaged the services of several men who were members of be hired on a day to day basis, mocks the law.
NOWM as sales route helpers for a limited period of five (5) months. After the a. a contract of employment is impressed with public
lapse of the fifth month, Coca-cola bottlers employed them on a day-to-day basis interest.
as substitutes for regular sales route helpers in cases where regular sales route b. The provisions of applicable statutes are deemed
helpers are unavailable, or in cases of unexpected shortage of manpower in any of written into the contract, and the parties are not at
its work places or unusual volume of work. These people wait regularly every liberty to insulate themselves and their relationships
morning and if hired would get their wages at the end of the day. A request for from the impact of labor laws and regulations by simply
the extension of their appointments had been sought before the company, to no contracting with each others.
avail. Hence, these people filed a complaint for regularization before the NLRC.
When Coca- cola terminated their services, it prompted them to file a notice of
strike and a complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice. Casual Employees
Issue: xxx An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not

covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, that any employee
Are the respondent workers considered as regular employees? who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such
service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular
Held: employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and
his employment shall continue while such activity exists.
Yes.
2
ATTY. BUYCO
Notes:
Owing to their length of service with the company, these workers became regular
1. employment is casual when it is irregular, unpredictable, sporadic and employees, by operation of law, one year after they were employed by KIMBERLY
brief in nature, and outside the usual business of the employer ( Caro v. through RANK. While the actual regularization of these employees entails the
Rilloraza, 102 Phil. 70). mechanical act of issuing regular appointment papers and compliance with such
other operating procedures as may be adopted by the employer, the status of
regular employment attaches to the casual worker on the day immediately after
KILUSAN-OLALIA, Roque Jimenez et al v. NLRC the end of his first year of service. To rule otherwise, and to instead make their
GR No. L-77629 May 9 1990 regularization dependent on the happening of some contingency or the fulfillment
of certain requirements, is to impose a burden on the employee which is not
Facts: sanctioned by law.
Kilusan Olalia filed a petition for certification election. While Kimberly-Clark and As long as the employee has rendered at least one year of service, he becomes a
UKCEU-PTGWO, a rival union, did not object to the holding of the certification regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed. The law
election, they are objecting to the inclusion of the so-called contractual workers does not provide the qualification that the employee must first be issued a regular
whose employment with Kimberly was allegedly coursed through an independent appointment or must first be formally declared as such before he can acquire a
contractor, RANK Manpower. The Med-arbiter declared them as eligible to vote in regular status. Obviously, where the law does not distinguish, no distinction should
the certification election. Kilusan- Olalia filed a notice of strike accusing Kimberly be drawn.
Clark with ULP, which among others included the non-regulation of
casuals/contractuals with over six months services. Since conciliation proceedings From the foregoing, those workers not perforce janitorial and yard maintenance
had become futile, Kilusan-Olalia declared a strike. MOLE assumed jurisdiction over service are entitled to the payment of salary differential, COLA, 13 Month pay, and
the dispute, upon petition of Kimberly Clark. MOLE issued a decision declaring, such other benefits extended to regular employees under the CBA. Therefore, the
among others, that these so-called 64 contractual employees are regular votes cast by those employees not performing janitorial and yard maintenance,
employees of the employer. the crux of this controversy is the validity of MOLE’s which form part of the 64 challenged votes, must be counted for purposes of
decision declaring UKCEU-PTGWO as the certified bargaining representative of certification election.
Kimberly, by counting the challenged 64 votes.
Policarpio Capule and Luis Madoro v. NLRC
Issue: GR No. 90653 November 12 1990
Are the so-called “contractual employees” not performing janitorial or yard Facts:
maintenance regular employees of Kimberly?
Capule and Madoro were been hired to cut cogon grass and weeds at the back of
Held: the factory building used by Yakult. They were not required to work on a fixed
schedule and they worked on any day of the week on their own discretion and
Yes. convenience. Their services had been terminated by Yakult. Capule and Madoro
cried foul, prompting them to file a case for illegal dismissal. the issue revolves
The 64 workers i.e. the mechanics, electricians, machinists machine shop helpers, around the status of capule and Madoro.
warehouse helpers, painters, carpenters, pipefitters and masons are regular
employees as they have been in the employ of KIMBERLY for more than one year Issue:
at the time of the filing of the Petition for certification election by KILUSAN-
OLALIA. Is capule and Madoro Regular employees of Yakult?
3
ATTY. BUYCO
the intervention of DOLE. However, Hacienda Fatima dismissed the officers and
Held: members. This prompted the union to file a complaint for illegal dismissal against
the Hacienda Fatima. While the LA ruled in favor of the Hacienda, NLRC on appeal,
No. ruled to reinstate the dismissed employees and ordered Hacienda Fatima to
reinstate their labor standards. It found them to be regular employees even as
The usual business or trade of private respondents is the manufacture of cultured their work is seasonable in nature. This ruling has been affirmed by the Court of
milk. The cutting of the cogon grasses in the premises of its factory is hardly Appeals.
necessary or desirable in the usual business of the private respondents. Indeed, it
is alien thereto. Thus, Capule and Madoro are casual employees who cannot be Issue:
considered regular employees. Nevertheless, they may be considered regular
employees if they have rendered services for at least one (1) year. 1. Are the union-members regular employees?
2. are they illegally dismissed?
When, as in this case, they were dismissed from their employment before the
expiration of the one-year period they cannot lawfully claim that their dismissal Held:
was illegal. Indeed, yakult had shown that the services of the petitioners were
found to be unsatisfactory, so, their termination. 1. Yes.
Seasonal Employment evidence proves that they perform work or service that are seasonal in
nature. The Hacienda failed to prove that the dismissed employees had
Hacienda Fatima Inc v. National Federation of Sugarcane Workers been employed only for the duration of one season. Evidence discloses
GR No. 149440 January 28 2003 that these sugarcane workers had repeatedly worked for Hacienda for
several years. Since they had been employed for more than one season,
Doctrine: they are regular employees.
1. For workers to be excluded from those classified as regular 2. Yes.

employees, it is not enough that they perform work or services
that are seasonal in nature. They must have also been employed The hacienda’s refusal to use the dismissed workers’ services –even if
only for the duration of one season. they were ready, and willing to perform their usual duties whenever these
were available- and hiring of other workers to perform tasks originally
2. any employment who has rendered at least one year of service, assigned to them amounts to illegal dismissal.
whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be
considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in Gaco v. NLRC
which he is employed and his employment shall continue while GR No. 104690 February 23 1994
such activity exist.
Facts:
Facts:
Orient Leaf Tobacco hired Zenaida Gaco as picker. After a year of service, she was
National Federation of Sugarcane Workers-Food and General trade filed a notice of promoted to the position of Production Recorder. She held this position for a
strike against Hacienda Fatima, Patricio Villegas, Alfonso Villegas and Christine period of fourteen (14) years until Orient Leaf’s working season in 1989. When she
Segura for Hacienda fatima’s refusal to enter a CBA, and for not giving the union reported for work at the start of the working season in 1990, she was surprised
members work for more than one month. A conciliation was entered into through that her position had been occupied by another person. She was also demoted to
4
ATTY. BUYCO
the position of Picker. Sensing this move as a case of constructive dismissal, she Doctrine:
filed a complaint before the LA. Orient Leaf’s defense relies on the argument that
she has been validly terminated from her employment on the ground of gross 1. Farm workers generally fall under the definition of seasonal
inefficiency. LA ruled in favor of Gaco. On appeal, while NLRC also found that workers. Regular seasonal workers are those called to work from
demotion was without justiable cause, it did not find any circumstance that shows time to time. The nature of their relationship with the employer is
a clear case of constructive dismissal. It held that its part of management such that during the off season, they are temporarily laid off; but
prerogative to transfer, demote or even dismiss to protect its business subject. reemployed during the summer season or when their services
may be needed. They are in regular employment because of the
Issue: nature of their job, and not because of the length of time they
have worked.
1. is there a case of constructive dismissal?
2. is Gaco entitled to separation pay? 2. for regular employees to be considered as such, the primary
standard used is the reasonable connection between the
Held: particular activity they perform and they usual trade or
business of the employer.
Yes.
3. pakyaw workers are regular employees for as long as their
The demotion was unjustified. The series of memoranda was a mere afterthought, employers exercise control over them.
as surmised from the lack of evidence to support the improper recording as basis
for claimed inefficiency. There is also no evidence that prove that Gaco had been Facts:
notified of an impending action against her and the reasons behind such action.
When Gaco refused to work as pikcer, they immediately promoted somebody to Jaime fulo died of acute renal failure secondary to 1 st degree burn 70% secondary
that position. When Gaco refused again, they offered her a much a lower position electrocution while doing repairs at the residence and business establishment of
i.e. relief crew. All these circumstances show a clear case of illegal dismissal. Jaime Gapayao. After executing a compromise agreement before the Court, Fulo’s
widow Rosario filed a claim for social security benefits with SSS. Upon verification
Yes. and evaluation, SSS discovered that Jaime Fulo was not a registered member of
SSS. This prompted SSS to conduct field investigation to determine the status of
While it may appear that the work is seasonal, Gaco was repeatedly re-hired, Fulo’s employment. It discovered Fulo had been employed as farm worker from
sufficiently establishing the necessity and indispensability of her services to the 19983 to 1997, apart from several instances that he had been hired by Gapayao to
former’s business or trade. She has been employed since 1974 to the end of the undertake job repairs. SSS demanded Gapayao to remit social security
season in 1989. Owing to her length of service she became a regular employee by contributions of Fule. Gapayao put forth the defense that Fule is an independent
operation of law, one year after she was employed. Being a regular employee, she contract whose tasks are not subject to his control and supervision. He also
enjoys security of tenure, where she cannot be terminated without just or pointed out that even assuming that Fule is his employee, Fule is not entitled to
authorized cause. premiums for the intervening period when he was not at work, because Fule is
allegedly an “intermittent worker who was only summoned every now and then as
Since her termination from employment does not constitute a just or authorized the need arose.
cause, the award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement is proper under the
circumstances. Issue:
Gapayo v. Fulo & SSS What is the status of Jaime Fulo’s employment?
GR No. 193493 June 13 2013
5
ATTY. BUYCO
Held: with full knowledge that he was described as the
employer of the Fulo.This knowledge cannot simply
Jaime Fulo is a regular seasonal worker [ pakyaw worker] . be denied by a statement that Jaime Gapayao was
merely forced or threatened into such an agreement.
1. Farm workers generally fall under the definition of seasonal
workers. Regular seasonal workers are those called to work from 2. pakyaw workers are considered employees for as long as their
time to time. The nature of their relationship with the employer is employers exercise control over them.
such that during the off season, they are temporarily laid off; but
reemployed during the summer season or when their services a. Gapayao wielded control over the deceased in the
may be needed. They are in regular employment because of the discharge of its functions. Being the owner of the
nature of their job, and not because of the length of time they farm on which Fule worked, Gapayao on his own or
have worked. through his overseer Amado Gacelo [ manager]
necessarily had the right to review the quality of work
a. Fulo was indeed a farm worker who was in the produced by his laborers.
regular employ of Jaime Gapayao. From year to year,
starting January 1983 up until his death, the Fulo had Project Employment
been working on Jaime Gapayao’s land by harvesting
abaca and coconut, processing copra, and clearing POLICY INSTRUCTIONS NO. 20-76
weeds. His employment was continuous in the sense
that it was done for more than one harvesting Generally, there are two types of employees in the construction industry
season. Moreover, no amount of reasoning could
detract from the fact that these tasks were necessary 1. Project employees
or desirable in the usual business of Jaime Gapayao.
a. Project employees are those employed in connection
b. The other tasks allegedly done by the Fulo outside his with a particular construction project.
usual farm work only bolster the existence of an
employer-employee relationship. As found by the b. Project employees are not entitled to termination pay if
SSC, the Fulo was a construction worker in the they are terminated as a result of completion of the
building and a helper in the bakery, grocery, project or any phase thereof in which they are
hardware, and piggery – all owned by Jaime employed, regardless of the number of projects in which
Gapayao. This fact only proves that even during the they have been employed by a particular construction
off season, the Fulo was still in the employ of Jaime company.
Gapayao.
i. The company is not required to obtain a
c. The most telling indicia of this relationship is the clearance from the secretary of labor in
Compromise Agreement executed by Jaime Gapayao connection with such termination. What is
and Rosario Fule. Once executed by the workers or required of the company is a report to the
employees and their employers to settle their nearest public employment office for
differences, and done in good faith, a Compromise statistical purposes.
Agreement is deemed valid and binding among the
parties.Jaime Gapayao entered into the agreement
6
ATTY. BUYCO
c. If a construction project or any phase thereof has a
duration of more than one year and a project employee f. Members of a work pool from which a construction
is allowed to be employed therein for at least one year: company draws its project employees, if considered
employees of the construction company while in the
i. such employee may not be terminated until work pool, are NON-PROJECT employees or
completion of the project or of any phase employees for an indefinite period. If they are
thereof in which he is employed without a employed in the particular project, the completion of the
previous written clearance from the project or of any phase thereof will not mean severance
secretary of labor. of the employer-employee relationship.
ii. If such employee is terminated without a
clearance from the secretary of labor, he g. If the workers in the work pool are free to leave
shall be entitled to reinstatement with anytime and offer their services to other employers then
backwages. they are project employees employed by a construction
company in a particular project or in a phase thereof.
d. The employees of a particular project are not
terminated at the same time. Some phases are 2. Non Project employees
completed ahead of others. For this reason:
a. Non-project employees are those employed by a
i. the completion of a phase of the project is construction company without reference to any
the completion of the project for an particular project.
employee employed in such phase.
ii. In other words, employees terminated upon b. there are three types of non project employees:
the completion of their phase of the project i. probationary employees are those who,
are not entitled to separation pay and upon the completion of the probationary
exempt from the clearance requirement. period, are entitled to regularization;
ii. regular employees are those who have
e. On the other hand, those employed in a particular completed the probationary period or those
phase of a construction project are also not terminated appointed to fill up regular positions vacated
at the same time. as a result of death, retirement, resignation,
or termination of the regular holders thereof.
i. Normally, less and less employees are iii. Casual employees are those employed for a
required as the phase draws closer to short term duration to perform work not
completion. related to the main line of business of the
ii. Project employees terminated because their employer
services are no longer needed in their
particular phase of the project are not c. Non-project employees of a construction company shall
entitled to separation pay and are exempt have the right to self-organization and free collective
from clearance requirement, provided they bargaining. They may constitute or form part of the
are not replaced. appropriate rank and file collective bargaining unit
iii. If they are replaced, they shall be entitled to within the company.
reinstatement with backwages.
7
ATTY. BUYCO
d. For project employees the appropriate bargaining unit is W/N the petitioners were project employees of NSC though their alleged
the industry, not a particular project or any phase employment exceeded one year.
thereof. The employees of a particular project cannot
constitute an appropriate collective bargaining unit. Held:
They may join the recognized industry union in the
construction industry. YES.
ALU-TUCP v. NLRC The principal test for determining whether particular employees are properly
G.R. No. 109902 August 2, 1994 characterized as "project employees" as distinguished from "regular employees," is
whether or not the "project employees" were assigned to carry out a "specific
Doctrine: project or undertaking," the duration (and scope) of which were specified at the
time the employees were engaged for that project.
The "project" for the carrying out of which "project employees"
are hired would ordinarily have some relationship to the usual The particular component projects embraced in the FAYEP, to which petitioners
business of the employer. Exceptionally, the "project" were assigned, were distinguishable from the regular or ordinary business of NSC
undertaking might not have an ordinary or normal relationship to which, of course, is the production or making and marketing of steel products.
the usual business of the employer. During the time petitioners rendered services to NSC, their work was limited to one
or another of the specific component projects which made up the FAYEP I and II.
Facts: There is nothing in the record to show that petitioners were hired for, or in fact
assigned to, other purposes, e.g., for operating or maintaining the old, or
ALU-TUCP members Barinque et al. were employees of National Steel Corporation previously installed and commissioned, steel-making machinery and equipment, or
(NSC) in connection with the Five Year Expansion Program (FAYEP I & II) for for selling the finished steel products.
varying lengths of time. They filed separate complaints for ULP, among others with
the NLRC. The LA declared the members to be regular project employees who As to the petitioners’ claim that they should be considered regular employees
shall continue their employment as such for as long as such [project] activity because they rendered service to NSC for more than 6 years is without legal basis.
exists," but entitled to the salary of a regular employee pursuant to the provisions The simple fact that the employment of petitioners as project employees had gone
in the collective bargaining agreement. It also ordered payment of salary beyond 1 year, does not detract from, or legally dissolve, their status as project
differentials. employees. Par. 2 , Art. 280 of the Labor Code providing that an employee who
has served for at least 1 year shall be considered a regular employee, relates to
On appeal to the NLRC, it affirmed the LA’s Decision that they were project casual employees, not to project employees.
employees as they were hired to work for a specific undertaking (FAYEP);
however, it set aside the award of benefits for lack of legal basis. The petitioners Fernandez v. NLRC
then elevated the case to the SC, averring grave abuse of discretion on the part of G.R. No. 106090 February 28, 1994
NLRC and argued that they are "regular" employees of NSC because: (i) their jobs
are "necessary, desirable and work-related to private respondent's main business, Doctrine:
steel-making"; and (ii) they have rendered service for six (6) or more years to
private respondent NSC. Par. 2 of Art. 280 specifically exempts project employees
from being considered as regular employees because the
Issue: same refers to casual employees only. Furthermore, the
requirement in Policy Instruction No. 20 that to qualify
as member of a work pool, the worker must still be
8
ATTY. BUYCO
considered an employee of the construction company Fernandez’s employment was governed by Policy Instruction No. 20, issued by
while in the work pool. In other words, there must be then Labor Sec. Blas Ople to stabilize employer-employee relations in the
proof to the effect that employee was under an construction industry. The NLRC was correct to observe that in order to qualify as
obligation to be always available on call of the employer a member of a work pool, the worker must still be considered an employee of the
and that he was not free to offer his services to other construction company while in the work pool. In other words, there must be proof
employers. to the effect that the employee was under an obligation to be always available on
call of the employer and that he was not free to offer his services to other
Facts: employers. Unfortunately, Fernandez failed to introduce any evidence of such
nature during the times when there were no project.
Ricardo Fernandez was hired as a laborer by D.M. Consunji, Inc. (DMCI) then
became a skilled welder until he was terminated by the company because the D.M. Consunji, Inc. v. Jamin
project he was assigned to was already complete. Fernandez then filed a case with G.R. No. 192514, April 18, 2012
the NLRC and the LA, after consolidating the other cases, ruled that there was
illegal dismissal because the complainants worked continuously in various projects Doctrine:
ranging from five (5) to twenty (20) years and belonged to a work pool. DMCI
questioned the LA’s Decision because it averred that the complainants were project Once a project or work pool employee has been: (1)
employees who were hired on a project-to-project basis, depending on the continuously, as opposed to intermittently, rehired by the
availability of projects that the former was able to close with its clients. DMCI same employer for the same tasks or nature of tasks; and
pointed to the gaps in complainants' respective employment histories to show that (2) these tasks are vital, necessary and indispensable to
they were indeed hired on an "off-and-on" basis. The NLRC then reversed the LA’s the usual business or trade of the employer, then the
Decision. employee must be deemed a regular employee.
Issue: Facts:
W/N the complainants were project employees of DMCI DMCI hired Estelito Jamin as a laborer then he became a helper carpenter. His
employment contract was renewed several times since his initial hiring then he
Held: was terminated due to the completion of the SM Manila project. He was not
rehired after the completion of the same. Jamin then filed an illegal dismissal case
YES. DMCI presented material documents that clearly showed Fernandez was against DMCI as he was allegedly terminated without just and authorized cause.
hired as a project employee with the specific dates of hiring, the duration of hiring, DMCI denied any liability saying that Jamin was hired on a project-to-project basis;
the dates of his lay-offs, including the lay-off reports and the termination reports and that it submitted a report to the DOLE every time it terminated Jamin’s
submitted to the then Ministry of Labor and Employment. Such data covered the services. The LA and NLRC ruled that Jamin was a project employee but the CA
period from November 5, 1974 to March 23, 1986. reversed the decision and ruled that Jamin was a regular employee. It based its
conclusion on: (1) Jamin’s repeated and successive rehiring in DMCI’s various
Fernandez’s reliance on Art. 280 to support his claim of being a regular employee projects; and (2) the nature of his work in the projects — he was performing
is incorrect because it was in another case that the SC ruled that par. 2 of the activities necessary or desirable in DMCI’s construction business. It considered the
same Article deems as regular employees only those "casual" employees who have project employee contracts to not be definitive of the actual status of Jamin in
rendered at least one year of service regardless of the fact that such service may DMCI and that DMCI failed to submit a report to the DOLE everytime Jamin’s
be continuous or broken. It is not applicable to "project" employees, who are employment was terminated.
specifically excepted.
9
ATTY. BUYCO
ISSUE: W/N Jamin was a project employee therefore was not illegally dismissed Instruction No. 20. Failure of the employer to comply
when the SM Manila project was terminated. with this simple, but nonetheless compulsory,
requirement is proof that an employee is not a project
Held: employee.
No.
Facts:
The ruling of the SC in the case of Liganza v. RBL Shipyard Corp. applies in this
case because for almost 31 years, DMCI had repeatedly, continuously and Honorio Dagui was hired by Doña Aurora Suntay Tanjangco in 1953 to take charge
successively engaged Jamin’s services since he was hired on December 17, 1968 of the maintenance and repair of the Tanjangco apartments and residential
or for a total of 38 times — 35 as shown by the schedule of projects submitted by buildings. He was to perform carpentry, plumbing, electrical and masonry work.
DMCI to the labor arbiter38 and three more projects or engagements added by Upon the death of Doña Aurora in 1982, her daughter Teresita took over the
Jamin, which he claimed DMCI intentionally did not include in its schedule so as to administration of all the Tanjangco properties. On June 8, 1991, Dagui received
make it appear that there were wide gaps in his engagements. the shock of his life when Teresita suddenly told him: "Wala ka nang trabaho mula
ngayon," on the alleged ground that his work was unsatisfactory. On August 29,
The contracts indeed show that Jamin had been engaged as a project employee 1991, Dagui, who was then already 62 years old, filed a complaint for illegal
but there was an almost unbroken string of Jamin’s rehiring from December 17, dismissal with the LA. Aurora Land argued that Dagui was never its employee as
1968 up to the termination of his employment on March 20, 1999. While the he was only a job contractor; Dagui was hired only as a "tubero" or plumber as the
history of Jamin’s employment (schedule of projects) relied upon by DMCI shows a need arises in order to unclog sewerage pipes. The LA ruled in favor of Dagui and
gap of almost four years in his employment for the period between July 28, 1980 ordered Aurora Land and/or Teresita to pay separation pay as well as attorney’s
(the supposed completion date of the Midtown Plaza project) and June 13, 1984 fees. The NLRC affirmed the LA’s decision with modification as to amount of
(the start of the IRRI Dorm IV project), the gap was caused by the company’s separation pay and deletion of attorney’s fees.
omission of the three projects above mentioned.
Issue:
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 W/N Dagui was an project employee of Aurora Land though his job was only
38 projects where DMCI engaged Jamin’s services, the tasks he performed as a limited to unclogging the pipes.
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 Held:
it does not maintain a work pool, but his continuous rehiring and the nature of his
work unmistakably made him a regular employee. NO.
Aurora Lands Corp. v. NLRC The jobs assigned to Dagui as maintenance man, carpenter, plumber, electrician
G.R. No. 114733. January 2, 1997 and mason were directly related to the business of petitioners as lessors of
residential and apartment buildings. Moreover, such a continuing need for his
DOCTRINE: services by herein petitioners is sufficient evidence of the necessity and
indispensability of his services to petitioners' business or trade. Dagui should
The employer should have submitted a report of likewise be considered a regular employee by the mere fact that he rendered
termination to the nearest public employment office service for the Tanjangcos for more than one year, that is, beginning 1953 until
every time his employment is terminated due to 1982, under Doña Aurora; and then from 1982 up to June 8, 1991 under Aurora
completion of each project, as required by Policy Land, for a total of 29 and 9 years respectively. Owing to Dagui’s length of service,
10
ATTY. BUYCO
he became a regular employee, by operation of law, one year after he was Is the separation of the project employees was justified?
employed in 1953 and subsequently in 1982.
Held:
Dagui cannot be considered a project employee under the Labor Code though No.
Aurora Land insists that his job was limited to unclogging the pipes. It was
previously held in other cases that the employer should have submitted a report of
termination to the nearest public employment office every time his employment is
terminated due to completion of each project, as required by Policy Instruction No. Although the contracts of the project workers had indeed expired, the project itself
20. Throughout the duration of Dagui’s employment as maintenance man, there was still on-going and so continued to require the workers' services for its
should have been filed as many reports of termination as there were projects completion. There is no showing that such services were unsatisfactory to justify
actually finished, if it were true that Dagui was only a project worker. Failure of their termination. This is not even alleged by the private respondent. One can
Aurora Land to comply with this simple, but nonetheless compulsory, requirement therefore only wonder why, in view of these circumstances, the contract workers
is proof that Dagui is not a project employee. were not retained to finish the project they had begun and were still working on.
This had been done in past projects. This arrangement had consistently been
Luis de Ocampo v. NLRC followed before, which accounts for the long years of service many of the workers
GR No. 81077 June 6 1990. had with the MDC.
Facts:
Contractual employees/ Fixed Period Employment
On September 30, 1980, the services of 65 employees of private respondent
Makati Development Corporation were terminated on the ground of the expiration Brent School v Zamora
of their contracts; that the said employees filed a complaint for illegal dismissal GR No. L-48494 February 5 1990
against the MDC on October 1, 1980; ** that on October 8, 1980, as a result of
the aforementioned termination, the Philippine Transport and General Workers Facts:
Association, of which the complainants were members, filed a notice of strike on
the grounds of union-busting, subcontracting of projects which could have been Alegre was an athletic director at Brent, at a yearly compensation of P20,000. His
assigned to the dismissed employees, and unfair labor practice; that on October contract fixed a specific term of 5 years for its existence, from July, 1971, to July,
14, 1980, the PTGWA declared a strike and established picket lines in the 1976. Subsequent subsidiary agreements in March 1973, August 1973, and Sept.
perimeter of the MDC premises; that on November 4, 1980, the MDC filed with the 1974 reiterated the same terms and conditions, including the expiry date, as those
Bureau of LaborRelations a motion to declare the strike illegal and restrain the contained in the original contract of July, 1971.- 3 months before the expiration of
workers from continuing the strike; that on that same day and several days the stipulated period, in April 1976, Alegre was given a copy of the report filed by
thereafter the MDC filed applications for clearance to terminate the employment of Brent with the Dep. of Labor advising of the termination of his services, effective
90 of the striking workers, whom it had meanwhile preventively suspended; that of July 16, 1976. The stated ground for termination was “completion of contract,
the said workers, 74 were project employees under contract with the MDC with expiration of the definite period of employment.”
fixed terms of employment; and that on August 31, 1982, Labor Arbiter Apolinar L.
Sevilla rendered a decision 1denying the applications for clearance filed by the Alegre protested the announced termination of his employment. He argued that
MDC and directing it to reinstate the individual complainants with two months back although his contract did stipulate that the same would terminate on July 17,
wages each.This is the decision modified by the NLRC 2 which is now faulted by 1976, since his services were necessary and desirable in the usual business of his
the petitioners for grave abuse of discretion. employer, and his employment had lasted for five years, he had acquired the
status of regular employee and could not be removed except for valid cause.
Issues:
11
ATTY. BUYCO
The employment contract of 1971 was executed when the Labor Code of the an amount equivalent to his salaries or wages corresponding to
Philippines had not yet been promulgated, which came into effect some 3 years the required period of notice.
after the perfection of the contract.
There was, to repeat, clear albeit implied recognition of the licitness of term
Issue: employment. RA 1787 also enumerated what it considered to be just causes for
Whether or not the provisions of the Labor Code as amended (regarding terminating an employment without a definite period, either by the employer or by
probationary/regular employees), have anathematized "fixed period employment" the employee without incurring any liability therefor.
or employment for a term.
Millares et al. v. NLRC
Held: GR No. 110524 July 29 2002.
No. Before the Labor Code, there was no doubt about the validity of term
employment. It was impliedly but clearly recognized by the Termination Pay law, Facts:
RA 1052.
Douglas Millares was employed by ESSO International Shipping Company through
The employment contract between Brent School and Alegre was executed on July its local manning agency,Trans-Global Maritime Agency, as a machinist he was
18, 1971, at a time when the Labor Code of the Philippines (P.D. 442) had not yet promoted as Chief Engineer which position Millares applied for a leave of absence
been promulgated. Indeed, the Code did not come into effect until November 1, for almost 1month.Trans-Global, approved the request for leave of absence.
1974, some three years after the perfection of the employment contract, and Millares wrote to the Operations Manager of Exxon International Co. informing him
rights and obligations there under had arisen and been mutually observed and of his intention to avail of the optional retirement plan under the Consecutive
enforced. At that time, i.e., before the advent of the Labor Code, there was no Enlistment Incentive Plan (CEIP) considering that he had already rendered more
doubt whatever about the validity of term employment. It was impliedly but than twenty (20) years of continuous service. Esso International, denied the
nonetheless clearly recognized by the Termination Pay Law, R.A. 1052, 11 as request for optional retirement on the following grounds, to wit: (1) he was
amended by R.A. 1787. 12 Basically, this statute provided that— employed on a contractual basis; (2) his contract of enlistment (COE) did not
provide for retirement before the age of sixty (60) years; and (3) he did not
In cases of employment, without a definite period, in a comply with the requirement for claiming benefits under the CEIP, i.e., to submit a
commercial, industrial, or agricultural establishment or enterprise, written advice to the company of his intention to terminate his employment within
the employer or the employee may terminate at any time the thirty (30) days from his last disembarkation date Millares requested for an
employment with just cause; or without just cause in the case of extension of his leave of absence for another 15 days.
an employee by serving written notice on the employer at least The Crewing Manager, Ship Group A, Trans-Global, wrote petitioner Millares
one month in advance, or in the case of an employer, by serving advising him that respondent Esso International "has corrected the deficiency in its
such notice to the employee at least one month in advance or manpower requirements specifically in the Chief Engineer rank by promoting a
one-half month for every year of service of the employee, First Assistant Engineer to this position as a result of (his) previous leave of
whichever is longer, a fraction of at least six months being absence which expired last August 8, 1989. The adjustment in said rank was
considered as one whole year. required in order to meet manpower schedules as a result of (his) inability.Esso
The employer, upon whom no such notice was served in case of International advised Millares that his absence without leave, which is equivalent
termination of employment without just cause, may hold the to abandonment of his position.
employee liable for damages.
On the other hand Lagda was employed by Esso International as wiper/oiler He
The employee, upon whom no such notice was served in case of
was promoted as Chief Engineer in 1980, a position he continued to occupy until
termination of employment without just cause, shall be entitled to
his last COE expired on April 10, 1989.Lagda applied for a leave of absence from
compensation from the date of termination of his employment in
June 19,1989 up to the whole month of August 1989. Then the Trans-Global’s
12
ATTY. BUYCO
approved petitioner Lagda’s leave of absence from June 22, 1989 to July 20, No.
1989[7] and advised him to report for re-assignment on July 21, 1989. Lagda
1. There was no valid cause for the termination of petitioners. It will be
wrote a letter to Operations Manager of Esso International, through Trans-Global’s
recalled, that petitioner Millares was dismissed for allegedly having
President informing him of his intention to avail of the optional early retirement
"abandoned" his post; and petitioner Lagda, for his alleged "unavailability
plan in view of his twenty (20) years continuous service in the company Trans-
for contractual sea service." However, that petitioners did not abandon
Global denied petitioner Lagda’s request for availment of the optional early
their jobs such as to justify the unlawful termination of their employment
retirement scheme on the same grounds upon which petitioner Millares’ request
is borne out by the records. To constitute abandonment, two elements
was denied.he requested for an extension of his leave of absence up to August 26,
must concur: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or
1989 and the same was approved. However Esso International through Personnel
justifiable reason; and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-
Administrator, advised petitioner Lagda that in view of his "unavailability for
employee relationship. Furthermore, the absence of petitioners was
contractual sea service," he had been dropped from the roster of crew members
justified by the fact that they secured the approval of respondents to take
effective September 1, 1989.
a leave of absence after the termination of their last contracts of
Millares and Lagda filed a complaint-affidavit, for illegal dismissal and non-payment enlistment. Clearly, petitioners’ termination is illegal.
of employee benefits against private respondents Esso International and Trans-
Global, before the POEA. POEA: dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. NLRC
Philippine Village Hotel vs NLRC
dismissing petitioners’ appeal and denying their motion for new trial for lack of
GR No. 105033 February 28 1994.
merit.
Issue: Facts:
1. Are they regular employees?
Private Respondents Juanito Acuin, Mamerta Mangubat, Raul Sonon, Elgar Pemis,
2. are they validly dismissed? Orlando Paraguison, Ferdinand Velasco, Mike Astulero, Magno Decalso, Nenita
Held: Orosea, Jose Timing, Antonio Manalili, Rodelio Queria and Reynaldo Santos were
employees of petitioner Philippine Village Hotel. Petitioner had to close and totally
Yes. discontinue its operations due to serious financial and business reverses resulting
in the termination of the services of its employees. This prompted the Philippine
Village Hotel Employees and Workers Union to file against petitioner a complaint
1. petitioners were employees of private respondents until their services for separation pay, unfair labor practice and illegal lock-out.
were terminated on September 1, 1989. They served in their capacity as
Chief Engineers, performing activities which were necessary and desirable The Labor Arbiter issued and order finding the losses suffered by petitioner to be
in the business of private respondents Esso International, a shipping actual, genuine and of such magnitude as to validly terminate the services of
company; and Trans-Global, its local manning agency which supplies the private respondents but directed petitioner "to give priority to the private
manpower and crew requirements of Esso International’s vessels.It is, respondents in the hiring of personnel should they resume their business
likewise, clear that petitioners had been in the employ of private operations in the future."
respondents for 20 years. The records reveal that petitioners were
repeatedly re-hired by private respondents even after the expiration of On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the validity of the closure of petitioner. Petitioner
their respective eight-month contracts. Such repeated re-hiring which decided to have a one (1) month dry-run operation to ascertain the feasibility of
continued for 20 years, cannot but be appreciated as sufficient evidence resuming its business operations. In order to carry out its dry-run operation,
of the necessity and indispensability of petitioners’ service to the private petitioner hired casual workers, including private respondents, for a one (1) month
respondents’ business or trade. Verily, as petitioners are by express period. Thereafter, Petitioner terminated the services of private respondents. The
provision of Article 280 of the Labor Code, considered regular employees. private respondents and Tupas Local Chapter No. 1362 filed a complaint against
13
ATTY. BUYCO
petitioner for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice. The Labor Arbiter In the instant case, private respondents were validly terminated by the petitioner
dismissed the complaint. On appeal, NLRC reversed the same, reinstating the when the latter had to close its business due to financial losses. Following the
private respondents. The motion for reconsideration filed by the private directives of the NLRC to give priority in hiring private respondents should it
respondents was denied for lack of merit. resume its business, petitioner hired private respondents during their one (1)
month dry-run operation. However, this does not mean that private respondents
Issue: were deemed to have continued their regular employment status, which they had
enjoyed before their aforementioned termination due to petitioner's financial
Whether the private complainants are regular employees. losses.
Held. Medenilla v. Philippine Veterans Bank

GR No. 127673 March 13 2000.
No.
Facts:
Under Article 280 of the Labor Code, an employment shall be deemed to be
regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are Petitioners were employees of the Philippine Veterans Bank. On June 15, 1985,
usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer xxx. their services were terminated as a result of the liquidation of PVB pursuant to the
An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding order of the Monetary Board of the Central Bank embodied in MB Resolution No.
paragraph. The fact that private respondents were required to render services 612 dated June 7, 1985. On the same day of their termination, petitioners were
usually necessary or desirable in the operation of petitioner's business for the rehired through PVBs Bank Liquidator. However, all of them were required to sign
duration of the one (1) month dry-run operation period does not in any way impair employment contracts which provided that:
the validity of the contractual nature of private respondents' contracts of
employment which specifically stipulated that the employment of the private 1. The employment shall be strictly on a temporary basis and only for the
respondents was only for one (1) month. duration of the particular undertaking for which a particular employee is
hired;
Inasmuch as private respondents' contracts of employment categorically provided 2. Such temporary employment will not entitle an employee to any benefits
a fixed period and their termination had already been agreed upon at the time of except those granted by law;
their engagement, private respondents' employment was one with a specific period 3. The Liquidator reserves the right to terminate the services of the
or day certain agreed upon by the parties. In Philippine National Oil Company- employee at any time during the period of such employment if the
Energy Development Corporation vs. NLRC, we held that the two guidelines by employee is found not qualified, competent or, efficient in the
which fixed contracts of employments can be said NOT to circumvent security of performance of his job, or have violated any rules and regulations, or
tenure, are either: such circumstances and conditions recognized by law.
1. The fixed period of employment was knowingly and voluntarily agreed Petitioners received a uniform notice of dismissal effective a month from the date
upon by the parties, without any force, duress or improper pressure being of receipt, which notice contained the reasons justifying the termination: to reduce
brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other circumstances costs and expenses in the liquidation of closed banks in order to protect the
vitiating his consent; or interests of the depositors, creditors and stockholders of the Philippine Veterans
2. It satisfactorily appears that the employer and employee dealt with each Bank; the employment were on strictly temporary basis. Petitioners instituted a
other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance whatever case for illegal dismissal. In their defense, the Respondents said it was a fixed-
being exercised by the former on the latter." period employment. The Labor Arbiter declared this dismissal of petitioners as
illegal. The NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter, ruling that there was
a valid fixed-period of employment.
14
ATTY. BUYCO
Liquidator also reserves the right to terminate your services
Issue: at any time under the circumstances and conditions
recognized by law on the matter. In any event, you will be
1. Whether or not the employment of Petitioners is a fixed-term entitled to collect your compensation up to the close of
employment. working hours of the last day of the actual service, which
compensation shall be paid to you after proper clearance."
2. Whether or not the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion in finding
that there was no illegal dismissal. The reason given by the Liquidator for the termination of petitioners employment
was "in line with the need of the objective of the Supervision and Examination
Held: Sector, Department V, Central Bank of the Philippines, to reduce costs and
expenses in the liquidation of closed banks in order to protect the interest of the
YES. depositors, creditors and stockholders. In cases of illegal dismissal, the burden is
on the employer to prove that there was a valid ground for dismissal. Mere
The Court has repeatedly upheld the validity of fixed-term employment. In the allegation of reduction of costs without any proof to substantiate the same cannot
case of Philippine National Oil Company-Energy Development Corporation vs. be given credence by the Court. As the respondents failed to rebut petitioners
NLRC, it was held: "As can be gleaned from the said case, the two guidelines by evidence, the irresistible conclusion is that the dismissal in question was illegal. As
which fixed contracts of employment can be said NOT to circumvent security of aptly ratiocinated by the Labor Arbiter: "As can be seen from the termination
tenure, are either: letters Exhs. "A", "A-1" to "A-19" (inclusive), complainants were terminated thirty
(30) days after receipt of such letters allegedly to reduce costs and expenses in
1. The fixed period of employment was knowingly and voluntarily agreed the liquidation of closed banks in order to protect the interests of the depositors,
upon by the parties, without any force, duress or improper pressure being creditors and stockholders of the Philippine Veterans Bank, which termination
brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other circumstances papers speaks of finality by their very wordings that left complainants with no
vitiating his consent; or: alternative but to accept it with grief foreseen sacrifice and only by going into this
2. It satisfactorily appears that the employer and employee dealt with each forum they may be vindicated by such action of the liquidator.
other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance whatever
being exercised by the former on the latter." Thus the failure of bank to dispute complainants evidence pertinent to the various
unnecessary and highly questionable expenses incurred renders the termination
The employment contract entered into by the parties herein appears to have process as a mere subterfuge, as the same was not on the basis as it purports to
observed the said guidelines. Furthermore, it is evident from the records that the see, for reason that immediately after the termination from their respective
subsequent re-hiring of petitioners which was to continue during the period of positions, the same were given to other employees who appear not qualified. What
liquidation and the process of liquidation ended prior to the enactment of RA 7169 respondents counsel did was merely to dispute by pleadings the jurisdiction of this
entitled, "An Act to Rehabilitate Philippine Veterans Bank", which was promulgated Office and the claims for damages, which evidentiary matters respondent is
on January 2, 1992. required to prove to sustain the validity of such dismissals."
Subject employment contract stipulated, that:

Probationary Employment
"(9) The Liquidator reserves the right to terminate your
services at any time during this period of temporary
employment if you are found not qualified, competent or Art 295. Probationary employment. – Probationary
inefficient in the performance of your job, or if you are found employment shall not exceed six (6) months from the date the
to have violated any of the rules and regulations. The employee started working, unless it is covered by an apprenticeship
15
ATTY. BUYCO
agreement stipulating a longer period. The services of an
employee who has been engaged on a probationary basis may be Held:
terminated for a just cause or when he fails to qualify as a regular
employee in accordance with the reasonable standards made YES.
known by the employer to the employee at the time of his
engagement. An employee who is allowed to work after a Agreements stipulating longer probationary periods may constitute lawful
probationary period shall be considered a regular employee. exceptions to the statutory prescription limiting such periods to six months.
Mariwasa Manufacturing and Angel Dazo v. Hon Vicente Leogardo The SC in its decision in Buiser vs. Leogardo, Jr. (1984) said that “Generally, the
GR No. 74246 January 26 1989 probationary period of employment is limited to six (6) months. The exception to
this general rule is when the parties to an employment contract may agree
Doctrine: otherwise, such as when the same is established by company policy or when the
same is required by the nature of work to be performed by the employee. In the
By voluntarily agreeing to an extension of the probationary period, latter case, there is recognition of the exercise of managerial prerogatives in
Dequila in effect waived any benefit attaching to the completion of requiring a longer period of probationary employment, such as in the present case
said period if he still failed to make the grade during the period of where the probationary period was set for eighteen (18) months, i.e. from May,
extension. By reasonably extending the period of probation, the 1980 to October, 1981 inclusive, especially where the employee must learn a
questioned agreement actually improved the probationary particular kind of work such as selling, or when the job requires certain
employee’s prospects of demonstrating his fitness for regular qualifications, skills experience or training.”
employment.
In this case, the extension given to Dequila could not have been pre-arranged to
Facts: avoid the legal consequences of a probationary period satisfactorily completed. In
fact, it was ex gratia, an act of liberality on the part of his employer affording him
Joaquin A. Dequila (or Dequilla) was hired on probation by Mariwasa a second chance to make good after having initially failed to prove his worth as an
Manufacturing, Inc. as a general utility worker on January 10, 1979. After 6 employee. Such an act cannot now unjustly be turned against said employer’s
months, he was informed that his work was unsatisfactory and had failed to meet account to compel it to keep on its payroll one who could not perform according to
the required standards. To give him another chance, and with Dequila’s written its work standards.
consent, Mariwasa extended Dequila’s probationary period for another three
months: from July 10 to October 9, 1979. Dequila’s performance, however, did not By voluntarily agreeing to an extension of the probationary period, Dequila in
improve and Mariwasa terminated his employment at the end of the extended effect waived any benefit attaching to the completion of said period if he still failed
period. Dequila filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Mariwasa and its VP to make the grade during the period of extension. By reasonably extending the
for Administration, Angel T. Dazo, and violation of Presidential Decrees Nos. 928 period of probation, the questioned agreement actually improved the probationary
and 1389. the director of the MOLE upheld the termination. On appeal to the employee’s prospects of demonstrating his fitness for regular employment.
minister of labor, Deputy Minister Vicente Leogardo, Jr. held that Dequila was
already a regular employee at the time of his dismissal, thus, he was illegally Ver Buiser v. Vicente Leogardo
dismissed. GR No. L-63316 July 31 1984
Issue: Facts:
Can employer and employee may, by agreement, extend the probationary period Ver Buiser and Ma. P. Intengan were employed by the GENERAL TELEPHONE
of employment beyond the six months prescribed in Art. 282 of the Labor Code? DIRECTORY COMPANY as sales representatives and charged with the duty of
16
ATTY. BUYCO
soliciting advertisements for inclusion in a telephone directory. Ma. Cecilia Rillo-
Acuña entered into the same employment contract on June 11, 1980. The contract Generally, the probationary period of employment is limited to six (6) months. The
is worded thus: exception to this general rule is When the parties to an employment contract may
agree otherwise, such as when the same is established by company policy or when
The company hereby employs the employee as telephone the same is required by the nature of work to be performed by the employee. In
sales representative on a probationary status for a period of the latter case, there is recognition of the exercise of managerial prerogatives in
eighteen (18) months,... The Employee recognizes the fact requiring a longer period of probationary employment, such as in the present case
that the nature of the telephone sales representative's job is where the probationary period was set for eighteen (18) months, i.e. from May,
such that the company would be able to determine his true 1980 to October, 1981 inclusive, especially where the employee must learn a
character, conduct and selling capabilities only after the particular kind of work such as selling, or when the job requires certain
publication of the directory, and that it takes about eighteen qualifications, skills, experience or training. Policy Instruction No. 11 of the Minister
(18) months before his worth as a telephone sales of Labor and Employment has clarified any and all doubts on the period of
representative can be fully evaluated inasmuch as the probationary employment. It states as follows:
advertisement solicited by him for a particular year are
published in the directory only the following year." Probationary Employment has been the subject of
misunderstanding in some quarter. Some people believe six (6)
The records show that General Telephone Directory terminated the services of months is the probationary period in all cases. On the other
Iluminada Ver Buiser and Cecilia Rillo-Acuña on May 14, 1981 and Ma. Mercedes P. hand employs who have already served the probationary period
Intengan on May 18, 1981 for their failure to meet their sales quotas. are sometimes required to serve again on probation. Under the
Labor Code, six (6) months is the general probationary period '
On appeal, Deputy Minister Vicente Leogardo, Jr. of the Ministry of Labor issued an but the probationary period is actually the period needed to
Order dated January 7, 1983, affirming the Regional Director's Order dated determine fitness for the job. This period, for lack of a better
September 21, 1982. He ruled that the Ver Buiser et al. have not attained measurement is deemed to be the period needed to learn the
permanent status since General Telephone Directory was justified in requiring a job. The purpose of this policy is to protect the worker at the
longer period of probation, and that the termination of petitioners' services was same time enable the employer to make a meaningful employee
valid since the latter failed to meet their sales quotas. The question posed before selection. This purpose should be kept in mind in enforcing this
the Supreme Court are the these orders. provision of the Code. This issuance shall take effect
immediately.
Ver Buiser et al contend that under Articles 281-282 of the Labor Code, having
served the General Telephone continuously for over six (6) months, they have In the case at bar, it is shown that private respondent Company needs at least
become automatically regular employees notwithstanding an agreement to the eighteen (18) months to determine the character and selling capabilities of the
contrary. petitioners as sales representatives. The Company is engaged in advertisement
and publication in the Yellow Pages of the PLDT Telephone Directories. Publication
Issue: of solicited ads are only made a year after the sale has been made and only then
win the company be able to evaluate the efficiency, conduct, and selling ability of
Were the Ver Buiser et al regularized upon serving the company beyond the six its sales representatives, the evaluation being based on the published ads.
month period? Moreover, an eighteen month probationary period is recognized by the Labor
Union in the private respondent company, which is Article V of the Collective
Held: Bargaining Agreement thus:
No.
17
ATTY. BUYCO
Probationary Period — New employees hired for regular or
permanent shall undergo a probationary or trial period of six (6) Honasan was placed by the petitioner on probation twice, first during her on-the-
months, except in the cases of telephone or sales job training for three weeks, and next during another period of six months,
representatives where the probationary period shall be eighteen ostensibly in accordance with Article 281. Her probation clearly exceeded the
(18) months. period of six months prescribed by this article.
And as indicated earlier, the very contracts of employment signed and acquiesced Probation is the period during which the employer may determine if the employee
to by the petitioners specifically indicate that "the company hereby employs the is qualified for possible inclusion in the regular force. In the case at bar, the period
employee as telephone sales representative on a probationary status for a period was for three weeks, during Honasan's on-the-job training. When her services
of eighteen (18) months, i.e. from May 1980 to October 1981, inclusive. This were continued after this training, the petitioners in effect recognized that she had
stipulation is not contrary to law, morals and public policy. passed probation and was qualified to be a regular employee. Honasan was
certainly under observation during her three-week on-the-job training. If her
Probationary employment of petitioners set to eighteen (18) months is legal and services proved unsatisfactory then, she could have been dropped as early as
valid and that the Regional Director and the Deputy Minister of Labor and during that period. But she was not. On the contrary, her services were continued,
Employment committed no abuse of discretion in ruling accordingly. presumably because they were acceptable, although she was formally placed this
time on probation.
Holiday Inn Manila v. NLRC
GR No. 109114 September 14 1993 Even if it be supposed that the probation did not end with the three-week period
of on-the-job training, there is still no reason why that period should not be
Facts: included in the stipulated six-month period of probation. Honasan was accepted for
on-the-job training on April 15, 1991. Assuming that her probation could be
Elena Honasan applied for employment with the Holiday Inn and was on April 15, extended beyond that date, it nevertheless could continue only up to October 15,
1991, accepted for "on-the-job training" as a telephone operator for a period of 1991, after the end of six months from the earlier date. Under this more lenient
three weeks. On May 13, 1992, after completing her training, she was employed approach, she had become a regular employee of Holiday Inn and acquired full
on a "probationary basis" for a period of six months ending November 12,... 1991 security of tenure as of October 15, 1991.
On November 8, 1991, four days before the expiration of the stipulated deadline,
Holiday Inn notified her of her dismissal, on the ground that her performance had The consequence is that she could no longer be summarily separated on the
not come up to the standards of the Hotel through counsel, Honasan filed a ground invoked by the petitioners.
complaint for illegal dismissal, claiming that she was already a regular employee at
the time of her separation and so was entitled to full security of tenure. The In the Hotel's system of double probation a transparent scheme to circumvent the
complaint was dismissed by the Labor Arbiter because probationary employment plain mandate of the law and make it easier for it to dismiss its employees even
shall not exceed six (6) months from the date the employee started working, after they shall have already passed probation. The petitioners had ample time to
unless it is covered by an apprenticeship agreement stipulating a longer period. In summarily terminate Honasan's services during her period of probation if they
its own decision dated November 27, 1992, the NLRC ordered Holiday Inn to were deemed unsatisfactory. Not having done so, they may dismiss her now only
reinstate Honasan "to her former position without loss of seniority rights and other upon proof of any of the legal grounds for the separation of regular employees, to
privileges with backwages without deduction and qualification. be established according to the prescribed procedure.
Issue: A.M. Oreta vs. NLRC

is Honasan illegally dismissed? G.R. No. 74004 August 10, 1989
Held: Doctrine:
18
ATTY. BUYCO
undergo a probationary period for three months before he can qualify as
Although a probationary or temporary employee has limited tenure, a regular employee. There is also no evidence on record showing that the
he still enjoys security of tenure. During his tenure of employment or respondent Grulla had been apprised of his probationary status and the
before his contract expires, he cannot be removed except for cause requirements which he should comply in order to be a regular employee.
as provided for by law. In the absence of these requisites, there is justification in concluding that
Grulla was a regular employee at the time he was dismissed by AM Oreta.
Facts: As such, he is entitled to security of tenure during his period of
employment and his services cannot be terminated except for just and
Grulla was engaged by Engineering Construction and Industrial Development authorized causes enumerated under the Labor Code and under the
Company (ENDECO) through A.M. Oreta and Co., Inc., as a carpenter in its employment
projects in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The contract of employment, which was entered
into June 11, 1980 was for a period of twelve (12) months. 3. Although a probationary or temporary employee has limited tenure, he
still enjoys security of tenure. During his tenure of employment or before
On October 9, 1980, he received a notice of termination of his employment. He his contract expires, he cannot be removed except for cause as provided
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. AM Oreta contends that the Grulla was for by law.
validly dismissed because the latter was still a probationary employee; and that his
dismissal was justified on the basis of his unsatisfactory performance of his job Euro-Linea Philippines Inc, v NLRC
during the probationary period.
GR No. 75782 December 1 1987
Issue:
Whether respondent Grulla was illegaly terminated by the AM Oreta?
Held: Facts:
Yes.
On August 17, 1983, Euro-Linea hired Pastoral as shipping expediter on a

1. AM Oreta admitted that Grulla was employed in the company as a
probationary basis for a period of six months ending February 18, 1984. However,
carpenter for a period of twelve months before he was dismissed on
prior to hiring by Euro-Linea, Pastoral had been employed by Fitscher
October 9, 1980. A perusal of the employment contract reveals that
Manufacturing Corporation also as shipping expediter for more than one and a half
although the period of employment of Grulla is twelve (12) months, the
years. Pastoral was absorbed by Euro-Linea but under a probationary basis. On
contract period is renewable subject to future agreement of the parties. It
February 4, 1984, Pastoral received a memorandum terminating his probationary
is clear from the employment contract that the Grulla was hired by the
employment effective also on February 4, 1984 in view of his failure to meet the
company as a regular employee and not just a mere probationary
performance standards set by the company. To contest his dismissal, Pastoral filed
employee.In all cases involving employees engaged on probationary'
a complaint for illegal dismissal against Euro-Linea. The Labor Arbiter found Euro-
basis, the employer shall make known to the employee at the time he is
Linea guilty of illegal dismissal and ordered to reinstate complainant with six
hired, the standards by which he will qualify as a regular employee.
months backwages. Euro-Linea appealed the decision to the NLRC, but the appeal
was dismissed.
2. Nowhere in the employment contract executed between AM Oreta
company and respondent Grulla is there a stipulation that the latter shall
19
ATTY. BUYCO
All employees, be they regular or probationary, are expected to

Issue: comply with company-imposed rules and regulations, else why
establish them in the first place. Probationary employees
unwilling to abide by such rules have no right to expect, much
less demand, permanent employment.
Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission acted with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction in ruling against the dismissal of
the respondent, a temporary or probationary employee, by his employer (Euro- Facts:
Linea)?
PDI hired Magtibay on a contractual basis for a period of 5 months to assist the
regular phone operator.Before the expiration of his contractual employment, PDI
Held: and Magtibay agreed to extend the contract for 15 days. After his contract expired,
PDI announced the availability of a new position for a second phone operator.
The company had a policy to offer new posts to its regular employees. But since
the applicant who was a regular employee, withdrew her application, Magtibay’s
In the instant case, it is evident that the NLRC correctly applied Article 282 in the
application was processed and was later hired on a probationary status for a
light of the foregoing and that its resolution is not tainted with unfairness or
period of six (6) montsh. A week before the end of his probationary employment,
arbitrariness that would amount to grave abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction.
Magtibay was handed with his termination papers, because he failed to meet the
Although a probationary or temporary employee has a limited tenure, he
company standards. This caused Magtibay to file a case for illegal dismissal before
still enjoys the constitutional protection of security of tenure. During his
the labor arbiter. The PDIEU (Union) also filed a supplemental complaint for ULP.
tenure of employment or before his contract expires, he cannot be
removed except for cause as provided for by law. Euro-Linea not only
Magtibay claims that his employment had ripen into regular employment,
failed to present sufficient evidence to substantiate the cause of private
considering that he had worked in PDI for more than 6 months (first contract +
respondent's dismissal, but likewise failed to cite particular acts or
probationary status).
instances to show the latter's poor performance.
The Labor arbiter dismissed the complaint, because although the termination was
It must be emphasized that the prerogative of management to dismiss or lay- off couched in general terms “you did not meet the standards of the company”, three
an employee must be done without abuse of discretion, for what is at stake is not reasons were cited to justify Magtibay’s termination:
only Euro-Linea's position but also his means of livelihood…
1. he repeatedly violated the company rule prohibiting unauthorized persons
Finally, it is significant to note that in the interpretation of the protection to labor from entering the telephone operator’s room;
and social justice provisions of the constitution and the labor laws and rules and 2. he intentionally omitted to indicate in his application form his having a
regulations implementing the constitutional mandate, the Supreme Court has dependent child
always adopted the liberal approach which favors the exercise of labor rights. 3. he exhibited lack of sense of responsibility by locking the door of the
telephone operator’s room without switching the proper lines to the
Philippine Daily Inquirer v. Magtibay company guards so that incoming calls may be answered by them.
GR No. 164532 July 24 2007
NLRC reversed the LA, finding that Magtibay had become a regular employee. The
Doctrine: CA sustained the NLRC’s decision.
20
ATTY. BUYCO
2. By the very nature of a probationary employment, the employee knows
Issue: from the very start that he will be under close observation and his
performance of his assigned duties and functions would be under
Was the dismissal proper? continuous scrutiny by his superiors. It is in apprising him of the
standards against which his performance shall be continuously assessed
Held: where due process regarding the second ground lies, and not in notice
and hearing as in the case of the first ground.
Yes.
a. Magtibay has not denied PDIs assertion that he was
1. Within the limited legal six-month probationary period, probationary duly apprised of the employment standards expected of
employees are still entitled to security oftenure. It is expressly provided in him at the time of his probationary employment when
the afore-quoted Article 281 that a probationary employee may be he underwent a one-on-one orientation with
terminated only on two grounds: (a) for just cause, or (b) when he fails PDIs personnel assistant, Ms. Rachel Isip-Cuzio. Neither
to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards has he denied nor rebutted PDIs further claim that his
made known by the employer to the employee at the time of his direct superior, Benita del Rosario, briefed him
engagement. regarding his responsibilities in PDI.
a. Magtibay committed obstinate infractions of company b. When PDI took him in on September 21, 1995,
rules and regulations, which in turn constitute sufficient Magtibay was already very much aware of the level of
manifestations of his inadequacy to meet reasonable competency and professionalism PDI wanted out of him
employment norms. The suggestion that Magtibay for the entire duration of his probationary employment.
ought to have been made to understand during his
briefing and orientation that he is expected to obey and
comply with company rules and regulations strains Mercado vs AMA Computer College-Paranaque city, Inc.
credulity for acceptance. G.R. No. 183572 April 13 2010
b. The CAs observation that nowhere can it be found in Doctrine:

the list of Basic Responsibility and Specific Duties and
Responsibilities of respondent Magtibay that he has to in a situation where the probationary status overlaps with a fixed-
abide by the duties, rules and regulations that he has term contract not specifically used for the fixed term it offers,
allegedly violated is a strained rationalization of an Article 281 should assume primacy and the fixed-period character
unacceptable conduct of an employee. Common of the contract must give way.
industry practice and ordinary human experience do not
support the CAs posture. All employees, be they regular Facts:
or probationary, are expected to comply with company-
imposed rules and regulations, else why establish them On May 25, 1998 AMACC hired the petitioners on a probationary status as
in the first place. Probationary employees unwilling to stipulated in their term-to-term employment contracts. For the school year 2000-
abide by such rules have no right to expect, much less 2001, AMACC implemented new faculty screening guidelines, set forth in its
demand, permanent employment. Guidelines on the Implementation of AMACC Faculty Plantilla. Under the new
screening guidelines, teachers were to be hired or maintained based on extensive
21
ATTY. BUYCO
teaching experience, capability, potential, high academic qualifications and a primary example of the fine balancing of interests between
research background. labor and management that the Code has institutionalized
pursuant to the underlying intent of the Constitution.
On September 7, 2000, the petitioners individually received a memorandum from
AMACC, through, informing them that with the expiration of their contract to b. Labor, for its part, is given the protection during the
teach, their contract would no longer be renewed. The Labor Arbiter Ruling probationary period of knowing the company standards the new
declared that the petitioners had been illegally dismissed. On appeal, CA granted hires have to meet during the probationary period, and to be
AMACC’s petition for certiorari and dismissed the petitioners’ complaint for illegal judged on the basis of these standards, aside from the usual
dismissal. standards applicable to employees after they achieve permanent
status. Under the terms of the Labor Code, these standards
Note that until the filing of this case, their teaching stints only covered a period of should be made known to the teachers on probationary status at
at least seven (7) consecutive trimesters or two (2) years and three (3) months of the start of their probationary period, or at the very least under
service. the circumstances of the present case, at the start of the
semester or the trimester during which the probationary
Issue: standards are to be applied. Of critical importance in invoking a
failure to meet the probationary standards, is that the school
Should the teachers’ probationary status be disregarded simply because the should show – as a matter of due process – how these
contracts were fixed-term? standards have been applied.
Held: 3. The school, however, cannot forget that its system of fixed-term contract
is a system that operates during the probationary period and for this
No. reason is subject to the terms of Article 281 of the Labor Code. Unless
this reconciliation is made, the requirements of this Article on
1. The use of employment for fixed periods during the teachers’ probationary status would be fully negated as the school may freely
probationary period is likewise an accepted practice in the teaching choose not to renew contracts simply because their terms have expired.
profession. The inevitable effect of course is to wreck the scheme that the
Constitution and the Labor Code established to balance relationships
2. in a situation where the probationary status overlaps with a fixed-term between labor and management.
contract not specifically used for the fixed term it offers, Article 281
should assume primacy and the fixed-period character of the contract 4. Given the clear constitutional and statutory intents, in a situation where
must give way. the probationary status overlaps with a fixed-term contract not specifically
used for the fixed term it offers, Article 281 should assume primacy and
the fixed-period character of the contract must give way. This conclusion
a. AMACC has the inherent right to establish high standards of is immeasurably strengthened by the petitioners’ and the AMACC’s hardly
competency and efficiency for its faculty members in order to concealed expectation that the employment on probation could lead to
achieve and maintain academic excellence. The school’s permanent status, and that the contracts are renewable unless the
prerogative to provide standards for its teachers and to petitioners fail to pass the school’s standards.
determine whether or not these standards have been met is in
accordance with academic freedom that gives the educational 5. While we can grant that the standards were duly communicated to the
institution the right to choose who should teach. The provision petitioners and could be applied beginning the 1st trimester of the school
on employment on probationary status under the Labor Code is year 2000-2001, glaring and very basic gaps in the school’s evidence still
22
ATTY. BUYCO
exist. The exact terms of the standards were never introduced as in the morning. Masa and Funtecha live in the same place so they usually go home
evidence; neither does the evidence show how these standards were together. Funtecha had a student driver’s license so Masa let him take the driver’s
applied to the petitioners. Without these pieces of evidence (effectively, seat. While Funtecha was driving, he accidentally hit an elderly Kapunan which led
the finding of just cause for the non-renewal of the petitioners’ to his hospitalization for 20 days. Kapunan filed a criminal case and an
contracts), we have nothing to consider and pass upon as valid or invalid independent civil action based on Article 2180 against Funtecha. In the
for each of the petitioners. independent civil action, the lower court ruled that Filamer is subsidiarily liable for
the tortious act of Funcheta and was compelled to pay for damages based on
Article 2180 which provides that employers shall be liable for the damages caused
Apprentices/Learners by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned
tasks. Filamer assailed the decision and it argued that under Section 14, Rule X,
Apprentices Learners Book III of the Labor Code IRR, working scholars are excluded from the
Highly technical industries Semi-skilled industrial occupations employment coverage hence there is no employer-employee relations between
Practical training supplemented by Practical training ( whether or not such Filamer and Funcheta; that the negligent act of Funcheta was due to negligence
related theoretical instruction practical traning is supplemented by only attributable to him alone as it is outside his assigned task of being the school
theoretical instruction janitor. The CA denied Filamer’s appeal but the Supreme Court agreed with
Apprenticeable occupations Non-apprenticeable occupations Filamer. Kapunan filed for a motion for reconsideration.
approved by SOLE
Apprenticeship agreement ratified Learnership agreement, not to exceed Issue:
by the appropriate committees 3 months
(1) The person is at least (15) years (1) when no experienced workers are is the term "employer" as used in Article 2180 is applicable to petitioner Filamer
of age but less than eighteen may available; (2) the employment of with reference to Funtecha?
be eligible for apprentices only in learners is necessary to prevent
non-hazardous occupation; (2) the curtailment of employment Held:
person is physically fit for the opportunities; (3) the employment
occupation in which he desires to be does not create unfair competition in no.
trained; (3) the person possess terms of labor costs or impair or lower
vocational aptitude. working standards. Filamer cannot be considered as employer. The provision of Section 14 is obviously
intended to eliminate an erstwhile gray area in labor relations and seeks to define
in categorical terms the precise status of working scholars in relation to the
1. a learner is hired as a trainee in an industrial occupation.
learning institutions in which they work for the privilege of a free education.
Specifically Section 14, Rule X of Book III reads:
Filamer vs IAC
GR No. 75112 October 16 1990
Sec. 14. Working scholars. — There is no employer-
employee relationship between students on the one hand,
Facts:
and schools, colleges or universities on the other, where
students work for the latter in exchange for the privilege
Daniel Funtecha was a working student at the Filamer Christian Institute. He was
to study free of charge; provided the students are given
assigned as the school janitor to clean the school 2 hours every morning. Allan
real opportunity, including such facilities as may be
Masa was the son of the school president and at the same time he was the
reasonable, necessary to finish their chosen court under
school’s jeepney service driver. On October 20, 1977 at about 6:30pm, after
such arrangement. (Emphasis supplied).
driving the students to their homes, Masa returned to the school to report and
thereafter have to go home with the jeep so that he could fetch the students early
23
ATTY. BUYCO
But even if we were to concede the status of an employee on Funtecha, still the the same compensation, privileges, benefits, fringe benefits,
primary responsibility for his wrongdoing cannot be imputed to petitioner Filamer incentives or allowances as a qualified able-bodied person.
for the plain reason that at the time of the accident, it has been satisfactorily
shown that Funtecha was not acting within the scope of his supposed 2. reserved positions
employment. His duty was to sweep the school passages for two hours every a. five percent (5%) of all casual, emergency and contractual
morning before his regular classes. Taking the wheels of the Pinoy jeep from the positions in the DSWD, DOH, DepEd, and other government
authorized driver at 6:30 in the evening and then driving the vehicle in a reckless agencies, offices or corporations engaged in social development
manner resulting in multiple injuries to a third person were certainly not within the shall be reserved for disabled persons.
ambit of his assigned tasks. In other words, at the time of the injury, Funtecha
was not engaged in the execution of the janitorial services for which he was 3. sheltered employment
employed, but for some purpose of his own. It is but fair therefore that Funtecha a. if suitable employment for disabled persons cannot be found
should bear the full brunt of his tortious negligence. Petitioner Filamer cannot be through open employment, the State shall endeavour to provide
made liable for the damages he had caused. it by means of sheltered employment.
4. apprenticeship opportunity
Handicapped workers a. disabled persons are eligible as apprentice or learners, provided:
i. their handicap is not a much as to effectively impede
RA 7277 their performance of job operations in the particular
occupations for which they are hired
1. Disabled persons are those suffering from restriction of different abilities ii. after the lapse of the period of apprenticeship if found
as a result of a mental, physical, or sensory impairment, to perform an satisfactory in the job performance, they shall be
activity in the manner or within the range considered normal for a human eligible for employment.
being.
2. Impairment is any loss, diminution or aberration of psychological, 5. full minimum wage
physiological, or anatomical structure or function. a. all qualified handicapped workers shall receive the full amount
3. Disability shall mean: of the minimum wage rate prescribed pursuant to RA 7277;
a. A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or b. They are covered by art 295, LC[ Bernardo v. NLRC, 1999].
more psychological, physiological or anatomical function of an
individual or activities of such individual; 6. prohibition on discrimination
b. A record of such an impairment a. no entity shall discriminate against a qualified disabled person by
c. Being regarded as having such an impairment. reason of disability in regard to job application procedures, the
4. a handicap is a disadvantage for a given individual, resulting from an hiring, promotion, or discharge of employees, employee
impairment or a disability that limits or prevents the function or activity compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions and
considered normal given his age/ sex. privileges of employment.
Rights and privileges under RA 7277 Incentives for Employer
1. equal opportunity for employment 1. private entities that employ disabled persons either as regular employee,
a. no disabled person shall be denied access to opportunities for apprentice or learner is entitled to additional deduction from their GROSS
suitable employment. A qualified disabled employee shall be income equivalent to 25% of the total amount paid as salaries and wages
subject to the same terms and conditions of employment and of disabled persons;
24
ATTY. BUYCO
a. the entities must show present proof, certified by the DOH, that Yes.
disabled persons are in their employ;
b. the disabled persons are accredited with DOH, as to their 1. The uniform employment contracts of the petitioners stipulated that they
disability, skills and qualification. shall be trained for a period of one month, after which the employer shall
determine whether or not they should be allowed to finish the 6-month
2. an additional deduction from the NET income, equivalent to 50% of the term of the contract. Furthermore, the employer may terminate the
direct costs of improvements or modifications in physical facilities. contract at any time for a just and reasonable cause. Unless renewed in
a. This rule does not apply to improvements or modification of writing by the employer, the contract shall automatically expire at the end
facilities required under RA 7277. of the term. FEBTC bank entered into the aforesaid contract with a total
of 56 handicapped workers and renewed the contracts of 37 of them. In
Bernardo v NLRC fact, two of them worked from 1988 to 1993. Verily, the renewal of the
GR No 122917 July 12 1999 contracts of the handicapped workers and the hiring of others lead to the
conclusion that their tasks were beneficial and necessary to the bank.
Doctrine: More important, these facts show that they were qualified to perform the
responsibilities of their positions. In other words, their disability did not
The fact that the employees were qualified disabled persons render them unqualified or unfit for the tasks assigned to them.
necessarily removes the employment contracts from the ambit
of Article 80. Since the Magna Carta accords them the rights of 2. In this light, the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons mandates that a
qualified able-bodied persons, they are thus covered by Article qualified disabled employee should be given the same terms and
280 of the Labor Code. conditions of employment as a qualified able-bodied person. Section 5 of
the Magna Carta provides:
Facts:
“Section 5. Equal Opportunity for Employment.—No
Petitioners numbering 43 are deaf–mutes who were hired on various periods from disabled person shall be denied access to opportunities
1988 to 1993 by Far East Bank and Trust Co. as Money Sorters and Counters for suitable employment. A qualified disabled employee
through a uniformly worded agreement called ‘Employment Contract for shall be subject to the same terms and conditions of
Handicapped Workers. Subsequently, they are dismissed. Petitioners maintain that employment and the same compensation, privileges,
they should be considered regular employees, because their task as money sorters benefits, fringe benefits, incentives or allowances as a
and counters was necessary and desirable to the business of FEBTC. They further qualified able bodied person.”
allege that their contracts served merely to preclude the application of Article 280
and to bar them from becoming regular employees. FEBTC, on the other hand, 3. The fact that the employees were qualified disabled persons necessarily
submits that petitioners were hired only as “special workers and should not in any removes the employment contracts from the ambit of Article 80. Since the
way be considered as part of the regular complement of the Bank.”[12] Rather, Magna Carta accords them the rights of qualified able-bodied persons,
they were “special” workers under Article 80 of the Labor Code. they are thus covered by Article 280 of the Labor Code.
Issue: 4. FEBTC bank entered into the aforesaid contract with a total of 56
handicapped workers and renewed the contracts of 37 of them. In fact,
are petitioners have become regular employees? two of them worked from 1988 to 1993. Verily, the renewal of the
contracts of the handicapped workers and the hiring of others lead to the
Held: conclusion that their tasks were beneficial and necessary to the bank.
These facts show that they were qualified to perform the responsibilities
25
ATTY. BUYCO
of their positions. In other words, their disability did not render them i. The acts, whether verbal or physical must be
unqualified or unfit for the tasks assigned to them. Without a doubt, the committed in WET environment i.e. work,
task of counting and sorting bills is necessary and desirable to the educational, training environment.
business of FEBTC bank. With the exception of sixteen of them,
petitioners performed these tasks for more than six months. b. Who?
i. Any employer, employee, manager, supervisor,
Women employees agent of the employer, teacher, instructor,
professor, coach, trainer or any other person,
PROVISIONS AGAINST DISCRIMINATION regardless of whether the demand,
request, for requirement or submission is
1. it shall be unlawful for any employer to discriminate against any accepted by the object of sexual
woman employee with respect to terms and conditions of harassment.
employment solely on account of her sex. [ art 135, LC] 1. Provided, these people have Moral
ascendancy influence or authority
2. It shall be unlawful for an employer to require as a condition of over the person object of sexual
employment or continuation of employment that a woman harassment.
employee shall not get married, or upon getting married a ii. Any person who directs or induces another to
woman employee shall be deemed resigned or separated or to commit any;
actually dismiss, discharge, discriminate merely by reason of her iii. Any person who cooperates in the commission
marriage [ art 136, LC]. by another.
a. under the Bonafide disqualification rule, an employer c. How?

may discriminate against employee based on the i. Must be a demand, request, and requirement
identity of the employee’s spouse, if the employer for sexual favor [DRR].
proves that the reasonable demands of the
business require a distinction based on marital d. Why?
status and there is no better or available or i. There must be promise in return of the sexual
acceptable policy which could better favor:
accomplish the business purpose. 1. In a work environment, there is a
b. The policy prohibiting an employee from having a promise of employment or continued
personal or marital relationship with an employee of employment, reemployment or other
a competitor is valid, as the relationship might considerations;
compromise the interest of the company. 2. In an educational environment, there
is a promise of grades, honors,
ANTI-SEXUAL HARASSMENT ACT allowances, scholarship, awards and
other considerations i.e. stipend.
1. Tools for analysis:
e. What happens if the demand, request or
a. where? requirement for sexual favor is made?
i. It may result in acceptance or rejection.
1. if it results in acceptance:
26
ATTY. BUYCO
a. Acceptance is not a good i. Impair the employee’s rights or privileges
defense. under existing laws; OR
b. the gravamen of the offense ii. Result in an hostile, offensive intimidating
is the abuse of Moral environment for the employee.
Ascendancy, influence, or
Authority, and not the 3. The victim can institute a separate and independent action for damages
violation of sexuality of the and other affirmative relief.
object of sexual harassment.
2. if it results in rejection: Minor Employees
a. the rejection must result in:
i. the WET Managerial Employees
environment must
become hostile, Supervisory Employees
offensive or
intimidating [ HOI] Confidential Employees
ii. Where the employee is still employed, the
period of continued employment should not be Field Personnel
counted for purposes of estoppel, especially
where upon immediate termination of
Domestic Workers
employment, the victim immediately filed a
complaint for sexual harassment before the
Employment of Househelpers has been repealed by RA. 10631, otherwise
court.
known as Domestic Workers Act or Batas Kasambahay.
iii. But where the delay took years from
resignation, the employee may no longer file a
1. Domestic worker or “kasambahay” is any person engaged in
complaint for sexual harassment.
domestic work within an employment relationship such as but
not limited to: General Househelp/nursemaid, laundry person,
2. Elements:
gardener, Cook, “yaya” [ HELLAU GARCY]
a. The sexual favour is made as a condition:
i. In the hiring or in the re-employment or
2. the definition excludes any person who performs domestic work
continued employment of said individual;
only on occasionally or sporadically, and not on an
ii. In granting said individual favourable
occupational basis.
compensation, terms, conditions, promotions,
or privileges;
3. the term does not include children who are under a foster family
iii. If the refusal to grant the sexual favor
arrangement and are provided access to education and given
resulting in limiting, segregating or classifying,
an allowance incidental to education
the employee who in any way would
discriminate, deprive or diminish employment
4. a houshelper, laundry woman, as well as a gardener, driver or
opportunities or otherwise affect said
houseboy who work in the staff house of a company are NOT
employee.
househelpers. The criterion is not the nature of work but the
personal comfort and enjoyment of the family of the employer in
b. [a] [i][ii][ iii] would either:
the home of said employer.
27
ATTY. BUYCO
OFWs
28

Labor DIGESTS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Labor DIGESTS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Labor DIGESTS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LABOR LAW REVIEW 2018 DIGEST POOL [FIFTH MEETING]

Issue: xxx An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not

1. For workers to be excluded from those classified as regular 2. Yes.

Held. Medenilla v. Philippine Veterans Bank

Subject employment contract stipulated, that:

Issue: A.M. Oreta vs. NLRC

Whether respondent Grulla was illegaly terminated by the AM Oreta?

On August 17, 1983, Euro-Linea hired Pastoral as shipping expediter on a

All employees, be they regular or probationary, are expected to

b. The CAs observation that nowhere can it be found in Doctrine:

Rights and privileges under RA 7277 Incentives for Employer

a. under the Bonafide disqualification rule, an employer c. How?

You might also like