G.R. No.

122653 December 12, 1997 respondents'] right to security of tenure" and should
therefore be struck down and disregarded for being
PURE FOODS CORPORATION, petitioner, contrary to law, public policy, and morals. Hence, their
vs. dismissal on account of the expiration of their respective
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, contracts was illegal.
RODOLFO CORDOVA, VIOLETA CRUSIS, ET
AL., * respondents. Accordingly, the NLRC ordered the petitioner to reinstate
the private respondents to their former position without
DAVIDE, JR., J.: loss of seniority rights and other privileges, with full back
wages; and in case their reinstatement would no longer
be feasible, the petitioner should pay them separation
The crux of this petition for certiorari is the issue of
pay equivalent to one-month pay or one-half-month pay
whether employees hired for a definite period and whose
for every year of service, whichever is higher, with back
services are necessary and desirable in the usual
wages and 10% of the monetary award as attorney's
business or trade of the employer are regular
fees.
employees.

Its motion for reconsideration having been denied, 5 the

The private respondents (numbering 906) were hired by
petitioner came to this Court contending that respondent
petitioner Pure Foods Corporation to work for a fixed
NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
period of five months at its tuna cannery plant in
lack of jurisdiction in reversing the decision of the Labor
Tambler, General Santos City. After the expiration of
Arbiter.
their respective contracts of employment in June and
July 1991, their services were terminated. They forthwith
executed a "Release and Quitclaim" stating that they had The petitioner submits that the private respondents are
no claim whatsoever against the petitioner. now estopped from questioning their separation from
petitioner's employ in view of their express conformity
with the five-month duration of their employment
On 29 July 1991, the private respondents filed before the
contracts. Besides, they fell within the exception
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Sub-
provided in Article 280 of the Labor Code which reads:
Regional Arbitration Branch No. XI, General Santos City,
"[E]xcept where the employment has been fixed for a
a complaint for illegal dismissal against the petitioner
specific project or undertaking the completion or
and its plant manager, Marciano Aganon. 1 This case
termination of which has been determined at the time of
was docketed as RAB-11-08-50284-91.
the engagement of the employee." Moreover, the first
paragraph of the said article must be read and
On 23 December 1992, Labor Arbiter Arturo P. Aponesto interpreted in conjunction with the proviso in the second
handed down a decision 2 dismissing the complaint on paragraph, which reads: "Provided that any employee
the ground that the private respondents were mere who has rendered at least one year of service, whether
contractual workers, and not regular employees; hence, such service is continuous or broken, shall be
they could not avail of the law on security of tenure. The considered a regular employee with respect to the
termination of their services by reason of the expiration activity in which he is employed . . ." In the instant case,
of their contracts of employment was, therefore, justified. the private respondents were employed for a period of
He pointed out that earlier he had dismissed a case five months only. In any event, private respondents'
entitled "Lakas ng Anak-Pawis-NOWM v. Pure Foods prayer for reinstatement is well within the purview of the
Corp." (Case No. RAB-11-02-00088-88) because the "Release and Quitclaim" they had executed wherein they
complainants therein were not regular employees of unconditionally released the petitioner from any and all
Pure Foods, as their contracts of employment were for a other claims which might have arisen from their past
fixed period of five months. Moreover, in another case employment with the petitioner.
involving the same contractual workers of Pure Foods
(Case No. R-196-ROXI-MED-UR-55-89), then Secretary
In its Comment, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
of Labor Ruben Torres held, in a Resolution dated 30
advances the argument that the private respondents
April 1990, that the said contractual workers were not
were regular employees, since they performed activities
regular employees.
necessary and desirable in the business or trade of the
petitioner. The period of employment stipulated in the
The Labor Arbiter also observed that an order for private contracts of employment was null and void for being
respondents' reinstatement would result in the contrary to law and public policy, as its purpose was to
reemployment of more than 10,000 former contractual circumvent the law on security of tenure. The expiration
employees of the petitioner. Beside, by executing a of the contract did not, therefore, justify the termination
"Release and Quitclaim," the private respondents had of their employment.
waived and relinquished whatever right they might have
against the petitioner.
The OSG further maintains that the ruling of the then
Secretary of Labor and Employment in LAP-NOWM
The private respondents appealed from the decision to v. Pure Foods Corporation is not binding on this Court;
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Fifth neither is that ruling controlling, as the said case
Division, in Cagayan de Oro City, which docketed the involved certification election and not the issue of the
case as NLRC CA No. M-001323-93. nature of private respondents' employment. It also
considers private respondents' quitclaim as ineffective to
On 28 October 1994, the NLRC affirmed the Labor bar the enforcement for the full measure of their legal
Arbiter's decision. 3 However, on private respondents' rights.
motion for reconsideration, the NLRC rendered another
decision on 30 January 1995 4 vacating and setting aside The private respondents, on the other hand, argue that
its decision of 28 October 1994 and holding that the contracts with a specific period of employment may be
private respondent and their co-complainants were given legal effect provided, however, that they are not
regular employees. It declared that the contract of intended to circumvent the constitutional guarantee on
employment for five months was a "clandestine scheme security of tenure. They submit that the practice of the
employed by [the petitioner] to stifle [private
petitioner in hiring workers to work for a fixed duration of negates petitioner's contention that those workers were
five months only to replace them with other workers of hired for a specific project or undertaking only.
the same employment duration was apparently to
prevent the regularization of these so-called "casuals," Now on the validity of private respondents' five-month
which is a clear circumvention of the law on security of contracts of employment. In the leading case of Brent
tenure. School, Inc. v. Zamora, 8 which was reaffirmed in
numerous subsequent cases, 9 this Court has upheld the
We find the petition devoid of merit. legality of fixed-term employment. It ruled that the
decisive determinant in term employment should not be
Article 280 of the Labor Code defines regular and casual the activities that the employee is called upon to perform
employment as follows: but the day certain agreed upon by the parties for the
commencement and termination of their employment
relationship. But, this Court went on to say that where
Art. 280. Regular and Casual
from the circumstances it is apparent that the periods
Employment. — The provisions of
have been imposed to preclude acquisition of tenurial
written agreement to the contrary
security by the employee, they should be struck down or
notwithstanding and regardless of the
disregarded as contrary to public policy and morals.
oral argument of the parties, an
employment shall be deemed to be
regular where the employee has been Brent also laid down the criteria under which term
engaged to perform activities which are employment cannot be said to be in circumvention of the
usually necessary or desirable in the law on security of tenure:
usual business or trade of the employer,
except where the employment has been 1) The fixed period of employment was knowingly and
fixed for a specific project or undertaking voluntarily agreed upon by the parties without any force,
the completion or termination of which duress, or improper pressure being brought to bear upon
has been determined at the time of the the employee and absent any other circumstances
engagement of the employee or where vitiating his consent; or
the work or services to be performed is
seasonal in nature and the employment 2) It satisfactorily appears that the employer and the
is for the duration of the season. employee dealt with each other on more or less equal
terms with no moral dominance exercised by the former
An employment shall be deemed to be over the latter. 10
casual if it is not covered by the
preceding paragraph; Provided, That, None of these criteria had been met in the present case.
any employee who has rendered at least As pointed out by the private respondents:
one year of service, whether such
service is continuous or broken, shall be [I]t could not be supposed that private
considered a regular employee with respondents and all other so-called
respect to the activity in which he is "casual" workers of [the petitioner]
employed and his employment shall KNOWINGLY and VOLUNTARILY
continue while such activity exists. agreed to the 5-month employment
contract. Cannery workers are never on
Thus, the two kinds of regular employees are (1) those equal terms with their employers. Almost
who are engaged to perform activities which are always, they agree to any terms of an
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of employment contract just to get
the employer; and (2) those casual employees who have employed considering that it is difficult to
rendered at least one year of service, whether find work given their ordinary
continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in which qualifications. Their freedom to contract
they are employed.6 is empty and hollow because theirs is
the freedom to starve if they refuse to
In the instant case, the private respondents' activities work as casual or contractual workers.
consisted in the receiving, skinning, loining, packing, and Indeed, to the unemployed, security of
casing-up of tuna fish which were then exported by the tenure has no value. It could not then be
petitioner. Indisputably, they were performing activities said that petitioner and private
which were necessary and desirable in petitioner's respondents "dealt with each other on
business or trade. more or less equal terms with no moral
dominance whatever being exercised by
Contrary to petitioner's submission, the private the former over the latter. 10
respondents could not be regarded as having been hired
for a specific project or undertaking. The term "specific The petitioner does not deny or rebut private
project or undertaking" under Article 280 of the Labor respondents' averments (1) that the main bulk of its
Code contemplates an activity which is not commonly or workforce consisted of its so-called "casual" employees;
habitually performed or such type of work which is not (2) that as of July 1991, "casual" workers numbered
done on a daily basis but only for a specific duration of 1,835; and regular employee, 263; (3) that the company
time or until completion; the services employed are then hired "casual" every month for the duration of five
necessary and desirable in the employer's usual months, after which their services were terminated and
business only for the period of time it takes to complete they were replaced by other "casual" employees on the
the project.7 same five-month duration; and (4) that these "casual"
employees were actually doing work that were
The fact that the petitioner repeatedly and continuously necessary and desirable in petitioner's usual business.
hired workers to do the same kind of work as that
performed by those whose contracts had expired As a matter of fact, the petitioner even stated in its
position paper submitted to the Labor Arbiter that,
according to its records, the previous employees of the NLRC CA No. N-001323-93 is hereby AFFIRMED
company hired on a five-month basis numbered about subject to the above modification on the computation of
10,000 as of July 1990. This confirms private the separation pay and back wages.
respondents' allegation that it was really the practice of
the company to hire workers on a uniformly fixed SO ORDERED.
contract basis and replace them upon the expiration of
their contracts with other workers on the same
employment duration.

This scheme of the petitioner was apparently designed

to prevent the private respondents and the other "casual"
employees from attaining the status of a regular
employee. It was a clear circumvention of the
employees' right to security of tenure and to other
benefits like minimum wage, cost-of-living allowance,
sick leave, holiday pay, and 13th month pay. 11 Indeed,
the petitioner succeeded in evading the application of
labor laws. Also, it saved itself from the trouble or burden
of establishing a just cause for terminating employees by
the simple expedient of refusing to renew the
employment contracts.

The five-month period specified in private respondents'

employment contracts having been imposed precisely to
circumvent the constitutional guarantee on security of
tenure should, therefore, be struck down or disregarded
as contrary to public policy or morals. 12 To uphold the
contractual arrangement between the petitioner and the
private respondents would, in effect, permit the former to
avoid hiring permanent or regular employees by simply
hiring them on a temporary or casual basis, thereby
violating the employees' security of tenure in their jobs. 13

The execution by the private respondents of a "Release

and Quitclaim" did not preclude them from questioning
the termination of their services. Generally, quitclaims by
laborers are frowned upon as contrary to public policy
and are held to be ineffective to bar recovery for the full
measure of the workers' rights. 14 The reason for the rule
is that the employer and the employee do not stand on
the same footing. 15

Notably, the private respondents lost not time in filing a

complaint for illegal dismissal. This act is hardly
expected from employees who voluntarily and freely
consented to their dismissal. 16

The NLRC was, thus, correct in finding that the private

respondents were regular employees and that they were
illegally dismissed from their jobs. Under Article 279 of
the Labor Code and the recent jurisprudence, 17 the legal
consequence of illegal dismissal is reinstatement without
loss of seniority rights and other privileges, with full back
wages computed from the time of dismissal up to the
time of actual reinstatement, without deducting the
earnings derived elsewhere pending the resolution of the
case.

However, since reinstatement is no longer possible

because the petitioner's tuna cannery plant had,
admittedly, been close in November 1994, 18 the proper
award is separation pay equivalent to one month pay or
one-half month pay for every year of service, whichever
is higher, to be computed from the commencement of
their employment up to the closure of the tuna cannery
plant. The amount of back wages must be computed
from the time the private respondents were dismissed
until the time petitioner's cannery plant ceased
operation. 19

WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the instant petition is

DISMISSED and the challenged decision of 30 January
1995 of the National Labor Relations Commission in
 workers. Claiming that petitioner company meanwhile
terminated their services, respondent workers filed a
notice of strike and a complaint for illegal dismissal and
unfair labor practice with the NLRC.

On 01 April 1998, the parties agreed to submit the

controversy, including the issue raised in the complaint
for regularization of employment, for voluntary
arbitration. On 18 May 1998, the voluntary arbitrator
rendered a decision dismissing the complaint on the
thesis that respondents (then complainants) were not
regular employees of petitioner company.chanrob1es
G.R. No. 148492. May 9, 2003.] virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

BUENAVENTURA C. MAGSALIN & COCA-COLA Respondent workers filed with the Court of Appeals a
BOTTLERS PHILS., INC., Petitioners, v. NATIONAL petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Civil
ORGANIZATION OF WORKING MEN (N.O.W.M.), Procedure assailing the decision of the voluntary
RODOLFO MELGAR, ARNEL DELOS SANTOS, arbitrator, therein contending that —
SILVERIO MINDAJAO, RUBEN NAVALES, BOBBY
AUSTERO, RAYMUNDO GAUDICOS, CHRISTOPHER "1. The Voluntary Arbitrator committed errors in finding
PERALTA, GIOVANI DELA CRUZ, JOSELITO that petitioners voluntarily and knowingly agreed to be
OCCIDENTAL, AMADO BODASAN, FREDERIK employed on a day-to-day basis; and
MAGALINO, CHITO OCCIDENTAL, ALEXANDER
DELOS SANTOS, DEONIL MESA, OLIVER "2. The Voluntary Arbitrator committed errors in finding
VILLAFLOR, ROBERTO TUMONBA, RODRIGO that petitioners’ dismissal was valid." 1
ANGELES, ROMMEL ABAD, FELIX AVENIDO,
ARMANDO AMOR, FREDERICK DE GUZMAN, CEA In its decision of 11 August 2000, the Court of Appeals
CARMELO, MARIANO CAÑETE, ALBERTO reversed and set aside the ruling of the voluntary
ANTONES, ROMEO BASQUINAS, ROGELIO arbitrator, it concluded —
MALINIS, EDMUNDO BAYOS, RAMIL REVADO, JOEL
PIATA, OSCAR MALINAY, ROBERT REYES, JIMMY "WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the Voluntary
REYES, RETCHEL HAUTEA, VICTORINO Arbitrator is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a
TORRALBA, NOEL RUBAI, RENATO DE OCAMPO, new one is entered:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
JESUS NOZON, JOEL MALINIS, REYNALDO
GREGORY, MICHAEL RUBIA, JOSELITO "1. Declaring petitioners as regular employees of Coca-
VILLANUEVA, LEONARDO MONDINA, EDUARDO Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. and their dismissal from
BELLA, WILFREDO BELLA, ALBERTO MAGTIBAY, employment as illegal;
MIGUEL CUESTA, JOSE MARCOS RODRIGUEZ III,
HERMINIO ROFLO, ERNIE CHAVEZ, NELSON "2. Ordering respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc.
LOGRONIO, LEONILO GALAPIN, REY PANGILINAN, to reinstate petitioners to their former positions with full
LARRY JAVIER, MATIAS ARBUES, RONILO backwages, inclusive of allowances that petitioners had
AUSTERO, ADEMAR ESTUITA, EDWIN DE LEON, been receiving during their employment and 13th month
RANDY DE CHAVEZ, Respondents. pay, computed from the date of their termination up to
the time of their actual reinstatement (Paramount Vinyl
DECISION Product Corp. v. NLRC, 190 SCRA 526)." 2

Petitioner company’s motion for reconsideration was

VITUG, J.: denied in a resolution, dated 21 May 2001, of the
appellate court.

Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc., herein petitioner, The focal issues revolve around the matter of whether or
engaged the services of respondent workers as "sales not the nature of work of respondents in the company is
route helpers" for a limited period of five months. After of such nature as to be deemed necessary and desirable
five months, respondent workers were employed by in the usual business or trade of petitioner that could
petitioner company on a day-to-day basis. According to qualify them to be regular employees.
petitioner company, respondent workers were hired to
substitute for regular sales route helpers whenever the The basic law on the case is Article 280 of the Labor
latter would be unavailable or when there would be an Code. Its pertinent provisions
unexpected shortage of manpower in any of its work read:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
places or an unusually high volume of work. The practice
was for the workers to wait every morning outside the "Art. 280. Regular and Casual Employment. — The
gates of the sales office of petitioner company. If thus provisions of written agreement to the contrary
hired, the workers would then be paid their wages at the notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of
end of the day.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be
regular where the employee has been engaged to
Ultimately, respondent workers asked petitioner perform activities which are usually necessary or
company to extend to them regular appointments. desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer,
Petitioner company refused. On 07 November 1997, except where the employment has been fixed for a
twenty-three (23) of the "temporary" workers (herein specific project or undertaking the completion or
respondents) filed with the National Labor Relations termination of which has been determined at the time of
Commission (NLRC) a complaint for the regularization of the engagement of the employee or where the work or
their employment with petitioner company. The services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the
complaint was amended a number of times to include employment is for the duration of the season.
other complainants that ultimately totaled fifty-eight (58)
"An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not
covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, That, and laborers, engaged for a fixed period of few months,
any employee who has rendered at least one year of short of the normal six-month probationary period of
service, whether such service is continuous or broken, employment, and, thereafter, to be hired on a day-to-day
shall be considered a regular employee with respect to basis, mocks the law. Any obvious circumvention of the
the activity in which he is employed and his employment law cannot be countenanced. The fact that respondent
shall continue while such activity exists."cralaw workers have agreed to be employed on such basis and
virtua1aw library to forego the protection given to them on their security of
tenure, demonstrate nothing more than the serious
Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc., is one of the leading and problem of impoverishment of so many of our people
largest manufacturers of softdrinks in the country. and the resulting unevenness between labor and capital.
Respondent workers have long been in the service of A contract of employment is impressed with public
petitioner company. Respondent workers, when hired, interest. The provisions of applicable statutes are
would go with route salesman on board delivery trucks deemed written into the contract, and "the parties are not
and undertake the laborious task of loading and at liberty to insulate themselves and their relationships
unloading softdrink products of petitioner company to its from the impact of labor laws and regulations by simply
various delivery points. contracting with each other." 6

Even while the language of law might have been more With respect to the "Release, Waiver and Quitclaim"
definitive, the clarity of its spirit and intent, i.e., to ensure executed by thirty-six (36) of the original complainants,
a "regular" worker’s security of tenure, however, can namely, Rommel Abad, Armando Amor, Bobby Austero,
hardly be doubted. In determining whether an Felix Avenido, Amado Badasan, Edmundo Bayos,
employment should be considered regular or non- Eduardo Bella, Jr., Mariano Cañete, Carmelo Cea, Ernie
regular, the applicable test is the reasonable connection Chavez, Randy Dechaves, Frederick De Guzman,
between the particular activity performed by the Renato De Ocampo, Ademar Estuita, Leonilo Galapin,
employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the Raymund Gaudicos, Retchel Hautea, Larry Javier,
employer. The standard, supplied by the law itself, is Nelson Logrinio, Alberto Magtibay, Frederick Magallano,
whether the work undertaken is necessary or desirable Rogelio Malinis, Rodolfo Melgar, Silverio Mindajao,
in the usual business or trade of the employer, a fact that Leonardo Mondina, Ruben Navales, Rey Pangilinan,
can be assessed by looking into the nature of the Christopher Peralta, Jimmy Reyes, Herminio Roflo,
services rendered and its relation to the general scheme Michael Rubia, Noel Rubia, Roberto Tumomba, Oliver
under which the business or trade is pursued in the Villaflor, and Joselito Villanueva, this Court finds the
usual course. It is distinguished from a specific execution of the same to be in order. During the
undertaking that is divorced from the normal activities pendency of the appeal with the Court of Appeals, these
required in carrying on the particular business or trade. thirty-six (36) complainants individually executed
But, although the work to be performed is only for a voluntarily a release, waiver and quitclaim and received
specific project or seasonal, where a person thus from petitioner company the amount of fifteen thousand
engaged has been performing the job for at least one (P15,000.00) pesos each. The amount accords with the
year, even if the performance is not continuous or is disposition of the case by the voluntary arbitrator
merely intermittent, the law deems the repeated and thusly:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
continuing need for its performance as being sufficient to
indicate the necessity or desirability of that activity to the "WHEREFORE, above premises considered, the herein
business or trade of the employer. The employment of complaint is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
such person is also then deemed to be regular with
respect to such activity and while such activity exists. 3 "However, we cannot completely negate the fact that
complainants did and do actually render services to the
The argument of petitioner that its usual business or Company. It is with this in mind and considering the
trade is softdrink manufacturing and that the work difficulty the complainants may face in looking for
assigned to respondent workers as sales route helpers another job in case they are no longer re-engaged that
so involves merely "postproduction activities," one which we direct the company to pay complainants Fifteen
is not indispensable in the manufacture of its products, Thousand Pesos each (P15,000.00) as financial
scarcely can be persuasive. If, as so argued by petitioner assistance. It is however understood that the financial
company, only those whose work are directly involved in assistance previously extended by the Company to
the production of softdrinks may be held performing some of the complainants shall be deducted from the
functions necessary and desirable in its usual business financial assistance herein awarded." 7
or trade, there would have then been no need for it to
even maintain regular truck sales route helpers. The The receipt of the amount awarded by the voluntary
nature of the work performed must be viewed from a arbitrator, as well as the execution of a release, waiver
perspective of the business or trade in its entirety 4 and and quitclaim, is, in effect, an acceptance of said
not on a confined scope.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary decision. There is nothing on record which could indicate
that the execution thereof by thirty-six (36) of the
The repeated rehiring of respondent workers and the respondent workers has been attended by fraud or
continuing need for their services clearly attest to the deceit. While quitclaims executed by employees are
necessity or desirability of their services in the regular commonly frowned upon as being contrary to public
conduct of the business or trade of petitioner company. policy and are ineffective to bar claims for the full
The Court of Appeals has found each of respondents to measure of their legal rights, there are, however,
have worked for at least one year with petitioner legitimate waivers that represent a voluntary and
company. While this Court, in Brent School, Inc. v. reasonable settlement of laborers’ claims which should
Zamora, 5 has upheld the legality of a fixed-term be so respected by the Court as the law between the
employment, it has done so, however, with a stern parties. 8 Where the person making the waiver has done
admonition that where from the circumstances it is so voluntarily, with a full understanding thereof, and the
apparent that the period has been imposed to preclude consideration for the quitclaim is credible and
the acquisition of tenurial security by the employee, then reasonable, the transaction must be recognized as being
it should be struck down as being contrary to law, a valid and binding undertaking. "Dire necessity" is not
morals, good customs, public order and public policy. an acceptable ground for annulling the release, when it
The pernicious practice of having employees, workers is not shown that the employee has been forced to
execute it. 9 department; That complainants services as mason was
not continuous, in fact, he was employed with
WHEREFORE, the questioned decision of the Court of International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in Opol, Misamis
Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 47872 is hereby AFFIRMED Oriental from January to April 1992; That when his last
with MODIFICATION in that the "Release, Waiver and contract expired on January 15, 1993, it was no longer
Quitclaim" executed by the thirty-six (36) individual renewed and thereafter, complainant filed this instant
respondents are hereby declared VALID and complaint; he prays that this instant petition be
LEGAL.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary dismissed for lack of merit.2cräläwvirtualibräry

SO ORDERED. In finding that petitioner is a regular employee, the

Executive Labor Arbiter said:

The records reveal that complainant has been hired and

employed by respondent PILMICO since September 1,
1989 to January 15, 1993, in a broken tenure but all in all
totalled to over a years service. Complainants period of
employment started on September 1, 1989 up to
January 31, 1990 or for a period of five (5) months. Then
G.R. No. 122327. August 19, 1998
on January 16, 1991, he was hired again up to June 15,
1991, or for a period covering another five (5) months.
ARTEMIO J. ROMARES, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL Then on August 16, 1992, he was hired again up to
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and PILMICO January 15, 1993 or for a period of another five (5)
FOODS CORPORATION, Respondents. months. Thus, from September 1, 1989 up to January
15, 1993, complainant has worked for fifteen (15)
DECISION months more or less and has been hired and terminated
three times. But in all his engagements by respondent,
MARTINEZ, J.: he was assigned at respondents
Maintenance/Projects/Engineering Department
This is a case of illegal dismissal. The decision of the performing maintenance work, particularly the painting of
Executive Labor Arbiter1 einstating petitioner was company buildings, maintenance chores, like cleaning
reversed by the National Labor Relations Commission. and sometimes operating company equipment and
Hence, this appeal. sometimes assisting the regulars in the
Maintenance/Engineering Department. The fact that
complainant was hired, terminated and rehired again for
The antecedent facts as summarized in the decision of
three times in a span of more than three (3) years and
the Executive Labor Arbiter are as follows:
performing the same functions, only bolstered our
findings that complainant is already considered a regular
Complainant in his Complaint and Position Paper alleged employee and therefore covered by security of tenure
that he was hired by respondent in its and cannot be removed except for lawful and valid cause
Maintenance/Projects/Engineering Department during as provided by law and after due process. There is no
the periods and at respective rates as follows: dispute that complainant, in the case at bar, has already
served respondent for more than six (6) months, the
1. Sept. 1, 1989 to Jan. 31, 1990 - P 89.00/day period allowable for probationary period and even more
than one year service which under the law shall be
2. Jan.16, 1991 to Jun. 15, 1991 - 103.00/day considered a regular employee. This finding and
conclusion finds application in the case of Kimberly
3. Aug. 16, 1992 to Jan. 15, 1993 - 103.00/day Independent Labor Union for Solidarity, Activism and
Nationalism - Olalia v. Hon. Franklin M. Drilon, G.R. No.
77629 and 78791, promulgated last May 9, 1990,
That having rendered a total service of more than one wherein the Honorable Supreme Court has classified the
(1) year and by operation of law, complainant has two kinds of regular employees as:
become a regular employee of respondent; That
complainant has performed tasks and functions which
were necessary and desirable in the operation of 1. those who are engaged to perform activities
respondents business which include painting, which are usually necessary or desirable in
maintenance, repair and other related jobs; That the usual business or trade of the employer;
complainant was never reprimanded nor subjected to and,
any disciplinary action during his engagement with the
respondent; That without any legal cause or justification 2. those who have rendered at least one (1)
and in the absence of any time to know of the charge or year of service whether continuous or
notice nor any opportunity to be heard, respondent broken with respect to the activity in which
terminated him; That his termination is violative to they are employed.
security of tenure clause provided by law; That
complainant be awarded damages and prays that he be While the actual regularization of the employees entails
reinstated to his former position, be awarded the mechanical act of issuing regular appointment
backwages, moral and exemplary damages and papers and compliance with such other operating
attorneys fees. procedures, as may be adopted by the employer, it is
more in keeping with the intent and spirit of the law to
Respondent on the other hand maintains that rule that the status of regular employment attaches to
complainant was a former contractual employee of the casual employee on the day immediately after the
respondent and as such his employment was covered by end of his first year of service.
contracts; That complainant was hired as mason in the
Maintenance/Project Department and that he was Applying the above classification in this particular case,
engaged only for a specific project under such there is no doubt that herein complainant falls within the
second classification and as such, he is a regular 26, supra),  hence, the applicable provision is paragraph
employee of respondent PILMICO. And being a regular 1 and not paragraph 2 of Article 280 of the Labor Code,
employee, he is vested with his constitutional right to due as amended (Vol. 2, p. 5, supra).
process before he can be terminated from his work and
only for valid and lawful cause as provided by law. xxx. With the given circumstances, we cannot agree with the
In the case of National Service Corporation v. NLRC, pronouncement of the Executive Labor Arbiter that it is
168 SCRA 122, the Court has laid down the guidelines the intent and spirit of the law that the status of regular
or requisites to be complied in order that termination of employment is attached to the worker on the day
employment can be legally effected, to wit: immediately after the end of his first year of service (Vol.
1, p. 50, supra).
These are:
What is apparently applicable in the case at bar is
1. the notice which apprises the employee of paragraph 1 of Article 280 of the Labor Code, as
the particular acts or omissions for which his amended. As clearly shown by evidence, complainants
dismissal is sought, and employment contracts (Vol. 1, pp.39-40, supra),  were for
fixed or temporary periods. Thus, when complainants
2. the subsequent notice which informs the employment with respondent was terminated (Vol. 1, p.
employee of the employers decision to 41, supra), such cannot be considered as illegal since
dismiss him. the termination was due to the expiration of the contract.

xxx WHEREFORE, the assailed decision is Vacated and Set

Aside. The complaint is hereby Dismissed for lack of
merit.
In the case at bar, respondent did not comply with the
above guidelines for the dismissal of herein complainant.
The procedure prescribed by law is mandatory. Unless SO ORDERED.6cräläwvirtualibräry
followed, the employees right to due process of law is
breached and vitiates managements decision to The motion for reconsideration having been denied,
terminate the employment. petitioner interposed this petition for certiorari and
prohibition.
This ELA having declared herein complainant as a
regular employee as above stated, then his separation or We find the petition meritorious.
termination from respondent company not being in
consonance with the guidelines enunciated by law, his Petitioner seeks to traverse the NLRC's ruling that the
termination is therefore illegal.3cräläwvirtualibräry applicable provision in the case at bar is paragraph 1 of
Article 280 of the Labor Code, as amended. In this
and thereafter disposed of the case as follows: regard, the NLRC concluded that since petitioner's
employment contracts were for fixed or temporary
WHEREFORE, in the light of the above-discussion, it is periods, as an exception to the general rule, he was
hereby declared and ordered that complainant validly terminated due to expiration of the contract of
ARTEMIO J. ROMARES is a regular employee of employment.
respondent PILMICO FOODS CORPORATION since
January 16, 1993 and his termination on the same date In determining the status of petitioner as a regular
is illegal as contrary to law and public policy and employee, reference is made to Article 280 of the Labor
therefore, he would be reinstated to his former position Code, as amended.7 Thus, the two kinds of regular
as if he was not terminated and to be entitled to all employees are (1) those who are engaged to perform
benefits, allowances accruing thereto and without loss of activities which are necessary or desirable in the usual
seniority rights. business or trade of the employer; and (2) those casual
employees who have rendered at least one year of
Likewise, respondent PILMICO in consonance with the service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to
above-discussion is hereby ordered to pay complainant the activity in which they are
the following, to wit: employed.8cräläwvirtualibräry

1. Backwages in the amount of P34,814.00; Construing the aforesaid provision, the phrase usually
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of
the employer should be emphasized as the criterion in
2. Attorneys fees representing 5% of the
the instant case. Facts show that petitioners work with
amount awarded for backwages, allowances
PILMICO as a mason was definitely necessary and
and other benefits.
desirable to its business. PILMICO cannot claim that
petitioners work as a mason was entirely foreign or
3. All other claims are hereby dismissed for irrelevant to its line of business in the production of flour,
lack of merit. yeast, feeds and other flour products.

SO ORDERED.4cräläwvirtualibräry The language of the law evidently manifests the intent to

safeguard the tenurial interest of the worker who may be
On appeal, the NLRC5 set aside the decision of the denied the rights and benefits due a regular employee by
Executive Labor Arbiter and ruled: virtue of lopsided agreements with the economically
powerful employer who can maneuver to keep an
Respondent argues that even if the employee was employee on a casual status for as long as
performing work which is related to the business or trade convenient.9 It is noteworthy that during each rehiring,
of the employer, the employee cannot be considered a the summation of which exceeded one (1) year,
regular employee if his employment is for a specific petitioner was assigned to PILMICOs
project or undertaking and for a fixed period (Vol. 1, p. Maintenance/Projects/Engineering Department
performing the same kind of maintenance work such as fixed-term employment. It ruled that the decisive
painting of company buildings, cleaning and operating determinant in term employment should not be the
company equipment, and assisting the other regular activities that the employee is called upon to perform but
employees in their maintenance works. Such a the day certain agreed upon by the parties for the
continuing need for the services of petitioner is sufficient commencement and termination of their employment
evidence of the necessity and indispensability of his relationship. But this Court went on to say that where
services to PILMICOs business or trade. 10 The fact that from the circumstances it is apparent that the periods
petitioner was employed with another company in the have been imposed to preclude acquisition of tenurial
interregnum from January to April, 1992 is of no security by the employee, they should be struck down or
moment. disregarded as contrary to public policy and morals.

To expound further, granting arguendo that petitioner The Brent ruling20 also laid down the criteria under which
was regarded as a temporary employee, he had been term employment cannot be said to be in circumvention
converted into a regular employee by virtue of the of the law on security of tenure:
proviso in the second paragraph of Article 280 for having
worked with PILMICO for more than one (1) year. We 1. The fixed period of employment was knowingly and
held in Baguio Country Club Corporation vs. voluntarily agreed upon by the parties without any force,
NLRC11 that: duress, or improper pressure being brought to bear upon
the employee and absent any other circumstances
x x x if the employee has been performing the job for at vitiating his consent; or
least one year, even if the performance is not continuous
or merely intermittent, the law deems the repeated and 2) It satisfactorily appears that the employer and the
continuing need for its performance as sufficient employee dealt with each other on more or less equal
evidence of the necessity if not indispensability of that terms with no moral dominance exercised by the former
activity to the business. Hence, the employment is also or the latter.
considered regular but only with respect to such activity
and while such activity exists. None of these requisites were complied with.

Succinctly put, in rehiring petitioner, employment WHEREFORE, prescinding from the foregoing
contracts12 ranging from two (2) to three (3) months with disquisition, the present petition is GRANTED. The
an express statement that his temporary job/service as challenged Resolution dated February 21, 1995 of the
mason shall be terminated at the end of the said period NLRC is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the Decision
or upon completion of the project was obtrusively a dated February 15, 1994 of the Executive Labor Arbiter
convenient subterfuge utilized to prevent his is hereby REINSTATED.
regularization. It was a clear circumvention of the
employees right to security of tenure and to other
benefits.13 It likewise evidenced bad faith on the part of SO ORDERED.
PILMICO.

The limited period specified in petitioners employment

contract having been imposed precisely to circumvent
the constitutional guarantee on security of tenure should,
therefore, be struck down or disregarded as contrary to
public policy or morals.14 To uphold the contractual
arrangement between PILMICO and petitioner would, in
effect, permit the former to avoid hiring permanent or
regular employees by simply hiring them on a temporary
or casual basis, thereby violating the employees security
of tenure in their jobs.15cräläwvirtualibräry

Article 280 was emplaced in our statute books to prevent

the circumvention of the employees right to be secure in
his tenure by indiscriminately and completely ruling out
all written and oral agreements inconsistent with the
concept of regular employment defined therein. 16 Where
an employee has been engaged to perform activities
which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business of the employer, such employee is deemed a
regular employee and is entitled to security of tenure
notwithstanding the contrary provisions of his contract of
employment.17cräläwvirtualibräry

We cannot subscribe to the erroneous ruling of the

NLRC that the applicable provision is paragraph 1 of
Article 280 of the Labor Code, as amended, which
makes petitioners employment contracts for fixed or
temporary periods. Stated otherwise, NLRC erred in
finding that the contract of employment of petitioner was
for a fixed or specified period.

At this juncture, the leading case of Brent School, Inc. vs

. Zamora18 proves instructive. As reaffirmed in
subsequent cases,19 this Court has upheld the legality of
 Arbiter's decision and ordered the immediate holding of
a certification election.

Meanwhile, the national president of petitioner union

sent a demand letter to respondent company seeking the
payment of wage differentials to some affected union
members. As said demand was unheeded, petitioner
union and the concerned workers filed a complaint for
payment of wage differentials and other benefits before
the Regional Office of the Department of Labor and
Employment.

Shortly thereafter, respondent company terminated the

employment of aforementioned workers owing to the
completion of its projects or the expiration of workers'
contracts. Respondent company explained the
circumstances surrounding the separation of the workers
from the service as follows:

"(1) The Contract No. 2AIPD-C-10 Second Agusan

Irrigation Project of NIA wherein some of the herein
complainants were assigned was already 98%
completed when complaints were filed. With the near
completion of the contract, services of the following
complainants were no longer needed:

G.R. No.100518. January 24, 2000 (a) Gerundio Asejo

(b) Victorio Lunzaga
ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNIONS (ATU), RODOLFO (c) Ramon R. Tabada
MONTECLARO and EDGAR (d) Alfredo E. Julet (sic)
JUESAN, Petitioners, vs. HON. COMISSIONERS (e) Julito C. Macabodbod
OSCAR N. ABELLA, MUSIB N. BUAT, LEON
GONZAGA JR., ALGON ENGINEERING (2) In the case of Contract No. 2AIPD-C-II-second
CONSTRUCTION CORP., GONZALES and EDITHA Agusan Irrigation Project of NIA, the following
YAP, Respondents. complainants were terminated because of the 95%
completion of the phase of the project and expiration of
DECISION their contract of employment:

QUISUMBING, J.: (a) Remsy B. Asensi

(b) Rolando G. Olivar
This special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the (c) Edgar A. Juezan
Rules of Court assails the resolution of the National (d) Rodolfo G. Monteclaro
Labor Relations Commission promulgated on May 17, (e) Valeriano S. Meyas (sic)
1991, which modified the decision of the labor arbiter. (f) Jose F. Noval
(g) Pedro M. Roche
Respondent company is a domestic corporation
engaged in road construction projects of the (3) In Contract Package R11 1/209, Davao del Norte, the
government. From 1968 to 1989, it engaged the services contracts of employment of Armand T. Acero and
of the following workers to work on various projects on Felimon J. Dagbao (sic) Jr. expired.
different dates: Rodolfo Monteclaro (mechanic), Edgar
Juesan1 (painter), Victorio Lunzaga (tanker driver), (4) In the Widening and Improvement of Rafael Castillo
Alfredo Jalet (batteryman), Julito Macabodbod (trailer St., Davao City Project, where complainant Teodoro
helper), Ramon Tabada (carpenter), Remsy,2 Asensi Tabio was assigned, he was terminated because he
(machinist), Armand Acero (helper mechanic), Lordito went on absent without leave (AWOL) while Lordito
Tatad (painter helper), Rogelio Tantuan (painter), Tatad's contract of employment
Teodoro Tabio (checker), Gemudo3 Asejo (electrician), expired."5cräläwvirtualibräry
Roland Olivar (latheman), Valeriano Mijas 4 (driver), Jose
Noval (welder), Felimon Lagbao (mechanic), Pedro However, the affected workers claim that they were
Roche (head welder), and Justiniano Sollano dismissed because of their union activities. In view of the
(carpenter). Their contracts indicate the particular project alleged illegal dismissals and harassment by their
they are assigned, the duration of their employment and employer, the workers staged a strike on May 17, 1989.
their daily wage. Upon complaint of respondent company, Labor Arbiter
Newton Sancho declared said strike illegal and decreed
In February 1989, the above-named workers joined further that Victorio Lunzaga, Alfred Jalet, Julito
petitioner union as members. Accordingly, petitioner Macabodbod, Ramon Tabada and Remsy Asensi, who
union filed a petition for certification election with the had participated in the strike, were deemed to have lost
regional office of the labor department. Respondent their employment status.
company opposed the petition on the ground that the
workers were project employees and therefore not On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission
qualified to form part of the rank and file collective affirmed said decision. Petitioner union then elevated the
bargaining unit. Not for long, the Med-Arbiter dismissed matter to this Court by way of petition for certiorari which
the petition for certification election. On appeal, the was eventually dismissed.6cräläwvirtualibräry
Secretary of Labor and Employment reversed the Med-
Meanwhile, the aggrieved workers filed with the Regional December 14, 1987 to April 15, 1989
Arbitration Branch of the NLRC their individual 419 days x P64.00/day . = P26,816.00
complaints against private respondent company for
illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, underpayment of Less:
wages, 13th month pay, holiday pay and overtime pay. December 14, 1987 to April 15, 1989
They also sought reinstatement with back wages. The 419 days x P61.00/day . = P25,559.00
cases were consolidated and assigned to Labor Arbiter
Nicolas Sayon for arbitration. However, noting that a TOTAL.
similar case had been filed before the regional office of
the labor department, the labor arbiter refrained from
resolving the issue of underpayment of monetary SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE PAY:
benefits. He also found the charge of unfair labor
practice untenable. But, on the charge of illegal 1) RAMSI ASENSI
dismissal, he ruled on October 31, 1989, as follows:
5 days x P64.00 . . .= P320.00
"WHEREFORE in view of the foregoing, judgment is
hereby rendered declaring the dismissal of the following 2) VICTORIO LUNZAGA
complainants illegal; namely:
10 days x P64.00 . . = 640.00
1. Victorio C. Lunzaga 5 days x 53.00 . . .= 265.00 P905.00
2. Julito C. Macabodbod
3. Alfredo E. Jalet 3) JULIETO MACABODBOD
4. Gerundio F. Asejo
5. Ramon R. Tabada
10 days x P64.00 . . = P640.00
5 days x 53.00 . . .= .265.00..P905.00
"Respondent ALGON Engineering Construction
Corporation and Alex Gonzales and Edith Yap, are
4) GERONIMO ASEJO
hereby ordered to reinstate the above-named
complainants to their former positions without loss of
seniority rights plus six months backwages based on 10 days x P64.00 . . = 640.00
their latest salary rate at the time of their dismissal, 5 days x 53.00 . . .= .265.000..P905.00
which is P65.00 per day equivalent to monthly rate of
P1,700.83, a total ofP 10,204.99 per complainant or in 5) ALFREDO JALET
the total amount of P51,024.95.
10 days x P64.00 . . = 640.00
"The case of illegal dismissal filed by Armand Acero, 5 days x 53.00 . . .=. 265.00 P905.00
Lordito Tatad, Teodoro Tabio, Ramon Olivar, Valeriano
Miyas, Jose Noval, Felimon Lagbao, Pedro Roche, 6) VALERIANO MIJAS
Remsy Asensi, Rodolfo Monteclaro, Edgar Juesan and
Justiniano Sollano are hereby ordered dismissed for lack 10 days x P64.00 . . = 640.00
of merit. 5 days x 53.00 . . .= . 265.00 . P905.00

"SO ORDERED."7cräläwvirtualibräry 7) PEDRO ROCHE

Petitioners and private respondents separately appealed 5 days x P64.00 . . .= 320.00

the Labor Arbiters ruling to the National Labor Relations
Commission. Pending appeal, Edgar Juesan, Lordito
Tatad and Ramon Tabada filed their respective duly 8) RODOLFO MONTECLARO
sworn affidavits of desistance and motions to withdraw
their complaints and money claims against private 5 days x P64.00 . . .= 320.00
respondents. Said motions were seasonably granted.
13th MONTH PAY:
On May 17, 1991, the NLRC promulgated its resolution
modifying the decision of Labor Arbiter Nicolas Sayon. It 1) RAMSI ASENSI
held that the labor arbiter erred in not resolving the issue
of underpayment of wages because not all of the original 26 days x P64.00 x 10 mos. =
complainants filed the same money claims with the labor P16,640.00 x 1/12 . = P1,386.67
department.8 Thus, it awarded monetary benefits to
qualified workers. The NLRC disposed of the case as
2) VICTORIO LUNZAGA
follows:
26 days x P64.00 x 12 mos. =
"Accordingly, the appealed decision is hereby modified
P19,968.00 x 1/12 . = P1,664.00
as follows:
3) JULIETO MACABODBODd
"1. Respondent ALGON Engineering Construction
Corporation is hereby ordered to pay the complainants
hereinafter enumerated, the following sums: 26 days x P64.00 x 12 mos. =
P19,968.00 x 1/12 . = P1,664.00
WAGE DIFFERENTIALS:
4) GERONIMO ASEJO
1. VALERIANO MIJAS
26 days x P64.00 x 12 mos. =
P19,968.00 x 1/12 . = P1,664.00
5) ALFREDO JALET thereof.14 Moreover, even if procedural lapses were to be
set aside, we find no cogent reason sufficient to justify a
26 days x P64.00 x 12 mos. = departure from public respondent's decision, as
P19,968.00 x 1/12 . = P1,664.00 hereafter elucidated.

6) VALERIANO MIJAS In this recourse, petitioners impute the following errors

on the part of public respondent:
26 days x P64.00 x 12 mos. =
P19,968.00 x 1/12 . = P1,664.00 [I]

7) PEDRO ROCHE "THAT THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ERRED IN

HOLDING THAT THE DISMISSAL OF FIVE
COMPLAINANTS WERE JUSTIFIED IN VIEW OF THE
26 days x P64.00 x 12 mos. =
FACT THAT THEIR COMPLAINT HAVE BEEN
P19,968.00 x 1/12 . = P1,664.00
RENDERED MOOT AND ACADEMIC BY ITS
DECISION IN CASE NO. RAB-O5-00353-89.
8) RODOLFO MONTECLARO
[II]
26 days x P64.00 x 12 mos. =
P19,968.00 x 1/12 . = Pl,664.00
THAT HONORABLE COMMISSION AGAIN ERRED IN
DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT OF THE
9) JOSE NAVAL COMPLAINANTS MACABODBOD AND ASEJO FOR
LACK OF MERIT.
26 days x P64.00 x 3 mos. =
P4,992.00 x 1/12 . = P 416.00 [III]

"2. The complaints of Edgar Juezon (sic), Lordito Tadtad THE HONORABLE COMMISSION SERIOUSLY ERRED
and Ramon Tabada are hereby dismissed as prayed for IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE LABOR
by said complainants. ARBITER DISMISSING PETITIONER'S CHARGE OF
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE AGAINST THE
"3. The complainants for illegal dismissal filed by Victorio RESPONDENT CORPORATION.
Lunzaga (Lonzaga) and Alfredo Jalet (Jalit) are hereby
dismissed for having been rendered moot and academic [IV]
by Our decision in Case No. RAB-11-05-00352-89.
QUESTION OF LAW."15cräläwvirtualibräry
"4. The complaints of Macabodbod and Asejo for illegal
dismissal are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
In petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court, it may be noted that "want of jurisdiction" and
"5. The charge of unfair labor practice is hereby "grave abuse of discretion,"16 and not merely reversible
dismissed for lack of merit. error, are the proper grounds for review. The respondent
acts without jurisdiction if he does not have the legal
"SO ORDERED."9cräläwvirtualibräry authority to decide a case. There is excess of jurisdiction
if the respondent, having the power to determine the
As noted by the Solicitor General, private respondents case, oversteps his lawful authority. And there is grave
filed their motion for reconsideration, which was abuse of discretion where the respondent acts in a
denied.10 We find, however, that herein petitioners did capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner, in
not move for reconsideration, as the petition did not so effect equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. 17 Here, petitioners
indicate and none appears on the records before us. neither assail the jurisdiction of public respondent nor
attribute any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
Filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 without first labor tribunal. Necessarily, this petition must fail, for lack
moving for reconsideration of the assailed resolution of substantial requisites under Rule 65.
generally warrants the petition's outright dismissal. As
we consistently held in numerous cases, 11 a motion for Nevertheless, if only to cast aside all doubts for the
reconsideration by a concerned party is indispensable benefit of the concerned workers, we assayed into the
for it affords the NLRC an opportunity to rectify errors or merits of the case. As properly stated by the Solicitor
mistakes it might have committed before resort to the General, the point of inquiry here is whether petitioners
courts can be had. are regular or project employees of respondent
company.
It is settled that certiorari will lie only if there is no appeal
or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the The Labor Code defines regular, project and casual
ordinary course of law against acts of public employees as follows:
respondents.12 Here, the plain and adequate remedy
expressly provided by law was a motion for "ART 280. Regular and Casual Employment. - The
reconsideration of the impugned resolution, based on provisions of written agreement to the contrary
palpable or patent errors, to be made under oath and notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of
filed within ten (10) days from receipt of the questioned the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be
resolution of the NLRC, a procedure which is regular where the employee has been engaged to
jurisdictional.13 Further, it should be stressed that without perform activities which are usually necessary or
a motion for reconsideration seasonably filed within the desirable in the usual business or trade of the
ten-day reglementary period, the questioned order, employer, except where the employment has been fixed
resolution or decision of NLRC, becomes final and for a specific project or undertaking the completion or
executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt termination of which has been determined at the time of
the engagement of the employee or where the work or WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED, and
services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the the assailed RESOLUTION of respondent NLRC dated
employment is for the duration of the season. May 17, 1991, is AFFIRMED.

And employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not No pronouncement as to costs.

covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, That,
any employee who has rendered at least one year of SO ORDERED.
service, whether such service is continuous or broken,
shall be considered a regular employee with respect to
the activity in which he is employed and his employment
shall continue while such activity exists." (Italics
supplied.)

Thus, regular employees are those who have been

engaged to perform activities which are usually
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of
the employer even if the parties enter into an agreement
stating otherwise.18 In contrast, project employees are
those whose employment has been fixed for a specific
project or undertaking the completion or termination of
which has been determined at the time of the
engagement of the employee, or where the work or
services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the
employment is for the duration of the
season.19cräläwvirtualibräry

Furthermore, Policy Instruction No. 20, 20 which was in

force during the period of petitioners' employment,
stated:

"Project employees are those employed in connection

with a particular construction project. Non-project
(regular) employees are those employed by a
construction company without reference to any particular
project.

Project employees are not entitled to termination pay if

they are terminated as a result of the completion of the
project or any phase thereof in which they are employed,
regardless of the number of projects in which they have
been employed by a particular construction company.
Moreover, the company is not required to obtain
clearance from the Secretary of Labor in connection with
such termination. What is required of the company is
report to the nearest Public Employment Office for
statistical purposes."

In the case at bar, the contracts of employment of the

petitioners attest to the fact that they had been hired for
specific projects, and their employment was coterminous
with the completion of the project for which they had
been hired. Said contracts expressly provide that the
workers' tenure of employment would depend on the
duration of any phase of the project or the completion of
the awarded government construction projects in any of
their planned phases. Further, petitioners were informed
in advance that said project or undertaking for which
they were hired would end on a stated or determinable
date. Besides, public respondent noted that respondent
company regularly submitted reports of termination of
services of project workers to the regional office of the
labor department as required under Policy Instruction
No. 20. This compliance with the reportorial requirement
confirms that petitioners were project employees.

Considering that petitioners were project employees,

whose nature of employment they were fully informed
about, at the time of their engagement, related to a
specific project, work or undertaking, their employment
legally ended upon completion of said project. The
termination of their employment could not be regarded
as illegal dismissal.
 month salary shall be awarded as a form
of separation pay;

3. The claims for underpayment of

wages is hereby dismissed for lack of
merit.

SO ORDERED.1
G.R. No. 111651 March 15, 1996
On 8 March 1993, public respondent dismissed the
appeal of private respondent company for lack of merit
OSMALIK S. BUSTAMANTE, PAULINO A.
Private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration
BANTAYAN, FERNANDO L. BUSTAMANTE, MARIO
dated 1 April 1993. Acting on said motion, public
D. SUMONOD, and SABU J. LAMARAN, petitioners,
respondent issued a second resolution on 3 May 1993
vs.
affirming its earlier resolution on illegal dismissal but
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,
deleting the award of backwages on the ground that the
FIFTH DIVISION and EVERGREEN FARMS,
termination of petitioners' employments "was the result
INC., respondents.
of the latter's (private respondent) mistaken
interpretation of the law and that the same was therefore
PADILLA, J.:p not necessarily attended by bad faith, nor
arbitrariness, . . .".2
This petition for certiorari seeks to reverse the 3 May
1993 resolution of the National Labor Relations In their present petition, petitioners argue that the public
Commission (NLRC) which set aside its earlier resolution respondent gravely abused its discretion in rendering the
dated 8 March 1993 and deleted the award of second resolution which removed the award of
backwages in favor of petitioners. backwages in their favor.

The focal issue therefore in this case is whether or not We rule in favor of petitioners.
petitioners are entitled to backwages after a finding by
the NLRC itself that they had become regular employees
It is undisputed that petitioners were illegally dismissed
after serving for more than one (1) year of broken or
from employment. Article 280 of the Labor Code states:
non-continuous service as probationary employees.

Art. 280. Regular and Casual

The facts are not in dispute. Respondent company is
Employment. — The provisions of
engaged in the business of producing high grade
written agreement to the contrary
bananas in its plantation in Davao del Norte. Petitioners
notwithstanding and regardless of the
Paulino Bantayan, Fernando Bustamante, Mario
oral agreement of the parties, an
Sumonod and Osmalik Bustamante were employed as
employment shall be deemed to be
laborers and harvesters while petitioner Sabu Lamaran
regular where the employee has been
was employed as a laborer and sprayer in respondent
engaged to perform activities which are
company's plantation. All the petitioners signed contracts
usually necessary or desirable in the
of employment for a period of six (6) months from 2
usual business or trade of the employer,
January 1990 to 2 July 1990, but they had started
except where the employment has been
working sometime in September 1989. Previously, they
fired for a specific project or undertaking
were hired to do the same work for periods lasting a
the completion or termination of which
month or more, from 1985 to 1989. Before the contracts
has been determined at the time of the
of employment expired on 2 July 1990, petitioners'
engagement of the employee or where
employments were terminated on 25 June 1990 on the
the work or services to be performed is
ground of poor performance on account of age, as not
seasonal in nature and the employment
one of them was allegedly below forty (40) years old.
is for the duration of the season.
Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before
An employment shall be deemed to be
the Regional Arbitration Branch, Branch XI of the NLRC
casual if it is not covered by the
in Davao City. On 26 April 1991, the labor arbiter
preceding paragraph: Provided, that,
rendered judgment in favor of petitioners, thus —
any employee who has rendered at least
one year of service, whether such
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby service is continuous or broken, shall be
rendered: considered a regular employee with
respect to the activity in which he is
1. Declaring the dismissal of the employed and his employment shall
complainants as illegal; continue while such activity exists.

2. Ordering respondent Evergreen This provision draws a line between regular and casual
Farms, Inc. to immediately reinstate employment, a distinction however often abused by
complainants to their former position employers. The provision enumerates two (2) kinds of
with six (6) months backwages employees, the regular employees and the casual
computed as follows (26.17 x P79.00 employees. The regular employees consist of the
per day equals P2,067.43 x 6 months following:
equals P12,404.58 times 5 complainants
equals Sixty Two Thousand Four 1) those engaged to perform activities which are usually
Hundred Four & 58/100 (P62,404.58) necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of
PESOS. However, if reinstatement is no the employer; and
longer feasible an additional one (1)
2) those who have rendered at least one year of service their compensation was withheld from them up to the
whether such service is continuous or broken. time of their actual reinstatement.

The law distinguishes between the two (2) kinds of WHEREFORE, the Resolution of the National Labor
employees to protect the interests of labor. Thus, in the Relations Commission dated 3 May 1993 is modified in
case of Baguio Country Club Corporation vs. NLRC,3 the that its deletion of the award for backwages in favor of
Court declared: "Its language evidently manifests the petitioners, is SET ASIDE. The decision of the Labor
intent to safeguard the tenurial interest of the worker who Arbiter dated 26 April 1991 is AFFIRMED with the
may be denied the rights and benefits due a regular modification that backwages shall be paid to petitioners
employee by virtue of lopsided agreements with the from the time of their illegal dismissal on 25 June 1990
economically powerful employer who can maneuver to up to the date of their reinstatement. If reinstatement is
keep an employee on a casual status for as long as no longer feasible, a one-month salary shall be paid the
convenient . . . ". petitioners as ordered in the labor arbiter's decision; in
addition to the adjudged backwages.
In the case at bar, petitioners were employed at various
periods from 1985 to 1989 for the same kind of work SO ORDERED.
they were hired to perform in September 1989. Both the
labor arbiter and the respondent NLRC agree that
petitioners were employees engaged to perform
activities necessary in the usual business of the
employer. As laborers, harvesters or sprayers in an
agricultural establishment which produces high grade
bananas, petitioners' tasks are indispensable to the
year-round operations of respondent company. This
belies the theory of respondent company that the
employment of petitioners was terminated due to the
expiration of their probationary period in June 1990. If at
all significant, the contract for probationary employment
was utilized by respondent company as a chicanery to
deny petitioners their status as regular employees and to
evade paying them the benefits attached to such status.
Some of the petitioners were hired as far back as 1985,
although the hiring was not continuous. They were hired
and re-hired in a span of from two to four years to do the
same type of work which conclusively shows the
necessity of petitioners' service to the respondent
company's business. Petitioners have, therefore,
become regular employees after performing activities
which are necessary in the usual business of their
employer. But, even assuming that the activities of
petitioners in respondent company's plantation were not
necessary or desirable to its business, we affirm the
public respondent's finding that all of the complainants
(petitioners) have rendered non-continuous or broken
service for more than one (1) year and are consequently
considered regular employees.4

We do not sustain public respondent's theory that private

respondent should not be made to compensate
petitioners for backwages because its termination of their
employment was not made in bad faith. The act of hiring
and re-hiring the petitioners over a period of time without
considering them as regular employees evidences bad
faith on the part of private respondent. The public
respondent made a finding to this effect when it stated
that the subsequent rehiring of petitioners on a
probationary status "clearly appears to be a convenient
subterfuge on the part of management to prevent
complainants (petitioners) from becoming regular
employees."5

Reliance by public respondent on the case of Manila

Electric Company vs. NLRC6 is misplaced. In that case,
the Court ordered the reinstatement of an employee,
without backwages because, although there was a valid
cause for dismissal, the penalty was too severe for an
employee who had rendered service for an uninterrupted
period of twenty (20) years with two commendations for
honesty. In the case at bar, there is no valid cause for
dismissal. The employees (petitioners) have not
performed any act to warrant termination of their
employment. Consequently, petitioners are entitled to
their full backwages and other benefits from the time
 the latter on (sic) various capacities (although not all
departments are part and parcel of the hotels),
complainant never disputed the fact that her work with
the same were on a per function basis or on a "need
basis" - co-terminus with the function she was hired
for' .Considering that complainant job (sic) with the
respondent hotel was on a per function basis or on a
"need basis", complainant could not even be considered
as casual employee or provisional employee.
Respondent hotel consider (sic) complainant, at most, a
project employee which does not ripened (sic) into
regular employee (sic).7
G.R. NO. 149660 : January 20, 2009]
Private respondent appealed before the National Labor
MARANAW HOTELS AND RESORT Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC reversed the
CORP., Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, SHERYL ruling of the Labor Arbiter and held that: (1) MANRED is
OABEL AND MANILA RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT a labor-only contractor, and (2) private respondent was
CORP., Respondents. illegally dismissed.

DECISION Of the first holding, the NLRC observed that under the
very terms of the service contract, MANRED shall
PUNO, C.J.: provide the petitioner not specific jobs or services but
personnel and that MANRED had insufficient
Before the Court is a Petition for Review capitalization and was not sufficiently equipped to
on Certiorari assailing a resolution issued by the Court of provide specific jobs.8 The NLRC likewise observed that
Appeals. The resolution denied the Petition for Review the activities performed by the private respondent were
filed by petitioner Maranaw Hotels and Resort Corp. directly related to and usually necessary or desirable in
the business of the petitioner.9
The present proceedings emanate from a complaint for
regularization, subsequently converted into one for illegal With respect to the termination of private respondent's
dismissal, filed before Labor Arbiter Madjayran H. Ajan employment, the NLRC held that it was not effected for a
by private respondent Sheryl Oabel. valid or just cause and was therefore illegal. The
dispositive portion of the ruling reads thus:
It appears that private respondent Oabel was initially
hired by petitioner as an extra beverage attendant on WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby
April 24, 1995. This lasted until February 7, REVERSED. xxxx Respondents Century Park Hotel and
1997.1 Respondent worked in Century Park Hotel, an Manila Resource Development Corporation are hereby
establishment owned by the petitioner. declared jointly and severally liable for the following
awards in favor of complainant: 1) her full backwages
On September 16, 1996,2 petitioner contracted with and benefits from August 1, 1998 up to the date of her
Manila Resource Development actual reinstatement; 2) her salary differentials, share in
Corporation.3 Subsequently, private respondent Oabel the service charges, service incentive leave pay and
was transferred to MANRED, with the latter deporting 13th month pay from July 20, 1995 to July 31, 1998.
itself as her employer.4 MANRED has intervened at all
stages of these proceedings and has consistently SO ORDERED.10
claimed to be the employer of private respondent Oabel.
For the duration of her employment, private respondent Petitioner subsequently appealed before the Court of
Oabel performed the following functions: Appeals. In a resolution, the appellate court dismissed
the petition on account of the failure of the petitioner to
append the board resolution authorizing the counsel for
Secretary, Public February 10, March 6, petitioner to file the petition before the Court of Appeals.
-
Relations Department: 1997 1997 The Court of Appeals held:
April 21,
Gift Shop Attendant: April 7, 1997 - After a careful perusal of the records of the case, We
1997
resolve to DISMISS the present petition on the ground of
April 22, May 20, non-compliance with the rule on certification against
Waitress: -
1997 1997 forum shopping taking into account that the aforesaid
certification was subscribed and verified by the
May 21, July 30, Personnel Director of petitioner corporation without
Shop Attendant: -
1997 19985 attaching thereto his authority to do so for and in behalf
of petitioner corporation per board resolution or special
On July 20, 1998, private respondent filed before the power of attorney executed by the latter.11
Labor Arbiter a petition for regularization of employment
against the petitioner. On August 1, 1998, however, Petitioner duly filed its motion for reconsideration which
private respondent Oabel was dismissed from was denied by the Court of Appeals in a resolution dated
employment.6 Respondent converted her petition for August 30, 2001.12
regularization into a complaint for illegal dismissal.
In the present Petition for Review, the petitioner invokes
Labor Arbiter Madjayran H. Ajan rendered a decision on substantial justice as justification for a reversal of the
July 13, 1999, dismissing the complaint against the resolution of the Court of Appeals. 13 Petitioner likewise
petitioner. The decision held: contends that the filing of a motion for reconsideration
with the certificate of non-forum shopping attached
While complainant alleged that she has been working constitutes substantial compliance with the
with the respondent hotel in different department (sic) of requirement.14
There is no merit to the petition. In this regard, it has not escaped the notice of the Court
that the operations of the hotel itself do not cease with
Well-settled is the rule that the certificate of non-forum the end of each event or function and that there is an
shopping is a mandatory requirement. Substantial ever present need for individuals to perform certain tasks
compliance applies only with respect to the contents of necessary in the petitioner's business. Thus, although
the certificate but not as to its presence in the pleading the tasks themselves may vary, the need for sufficient
wherein it is required. manpower to carry them out does not. In any event, as
borne out by the findings of the NLRC, the petitioner
Petitioner's contention that the filing of a motion for determines the nature of the tasks to be performed by
reconsideration with an appended certificate of non the private respondent, in the process exercising control.
forum-shopping suffices to cure the defect in the
pleading is absolutely specious. It negates the very This being so, the Court finds no difficulty in sustaining
purpose for which the certification against forum the finding of the NLRC that MANRED is a labor-only
shopping is required: to inform the Court of the pendency contractor.20 Concordantly, the real employer of private
of any other case which may present similar issues and respondent Oabel is the petitioner.
involve similar parties as the one before it. The
requirement applies to both natural and juridical persons. It appears further that private respondent has already
rendered more than one year of service to the petitioner,
Petitioner relies upon this Court's ruling in Digital for the period 1995-1998, for which she must already be
Microwave Corp. v. Court of Appeals15 to show that its considered a regular employee, pursuant to Article 280
Personnel Director has been duly authorized to sign of the Labor Code:
pleadings for and in behalf of the petitioner. Petitioner,
however, has taken the ruling in Digital Microwave out Art. 280. Regular and casual employment. The
of context. The portion of the ruling in Digital provisions of written agreement to the contrary
Microwave upon which petitioner relies was in response notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of
to the issue of impossibility of compliance by juridical the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be
persons with the requirements of Circular 28-91. 16 The regular where the employee has been engaged to
Court's identification of duly authorized officers or perform activities which are usually necessary or
directors as the proper signatories of a certificate of non desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer,
forum-shopping was in response to that issue. The ruling except where the employment has been fixed for a
does not, however, ipso facto clothe a corporate officer specific project or undertaking the completion or
or director with authority to execute a certificate of non- termination of which has been determined at the time of
forum shopping by virtue of the former's position alone. the engagement of the employee or where the work or
service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the
Any doubt on the matter has been resolved by the employment is for the duration of the season.
Court's ruling in BPI Leasing Corp. v. Court of
Appeals17 where this Court emphasized that the lawyer An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is
acting for the corporation must be specifically authorized not covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided,
to sign pleadings for the corporation. 18 Specific That any employee who has rendered at least one
authorization, the Court held, could only come in the year of service, whether such service is continuous
form of a board resolution issued by the Board of or broken, shall be considered a regular employee
Directors that specifically authorizes the counsel to with respect to the activity in which he is employed
institute the petition and execute the certification, to and his employment shall continue while such
make his actions binding on his principal, i.e., the activity exists. (Emphasis supplied)cralawlibrary
corporation.19
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the present petition is DENIED.
This Court has not wavered in stressing the need for The resolution of the Court of Appeals dated June 15,
strict adherence to procedural requirements. The rules of 2001 is affirmed.
procedure exist to ensure the orderly administration of
justice. They are not to be trifled with lightly. Costs against petitioner.

For this reason alone, the petition must already be SO ORDERED.

dismissed. However, even if this grave procedural
infirmity is set aside, the petition must still fail. In the
interest of averting further litigation arising from the
present controversy, and in light of the respective
positions asserted by the parties in the pleadings and
other memoranda filed before this Court, the Court now
proceeds to resolve the case on the merits.

Petitioner posits that it has entered into a service

agreement with intervenor MANRED. The latter, in turn,
maintains that private respondent Oabel is its employee
and subsequently holds itself out as the employer and
offers the reinstatement of private respondent.

Notably, private respondent's purported employment

with MANRED commenced only in 1996, way after she
was hired by the petitioner as extra beverage attendant
on April 24, 1995. There is thus much credence in the
private respondent's claim that the service agreement
executed between the petitioner and MANRED is a mere
ploy to circumvent the law on employment, in particular
that which pertains on regularization.
 Private respondent Aurora Cruz in her answer to
petitioners' complaint denied that said petitioners were
her regular employees and instead averred that she
engaged their services, through Spouses Fortunato
Mercado, Sr. and Rosa Mercado, their "mandarols", that
is, persons who take charge in supplying the number of
workers needed by owners of various farms, but only to
do a particular phase of agricultural work necessary in
rice production and/or sugar cane production, after which
they would be free to render services to other farm
owners who need their services.2

The other private respondents denied having any

G.R. No. 79869 September 5, 1991 relationship whatsoever with the petitioners and state
that they were merely registered owners of the land in
FORTUNATO MERCADO, SR., ROSA MERCADO, question included as corespondents in this case.3
FORTUNATO MERCADO, JR., ANTONIO MERCADO,
JOSE CABRAL, LUCIA MERCADO, ASUNCION The dispute in this case revolves around the issue of
GUEVARA, ANITA MERCADO, MARINA MERCADO, whether or not petitioners are regular and permanent
JULIANA CABRAL, GUADALUPE PAGUIO, BRIGIDA farm workers and therefore entitled to the benefits which
ALCANTARA, EMERLITA MERCADO, ROMEO they pray for. And corollary to this, whether or not said
GUEVARA, ROMEO MERCADO and LEON petitioners were illegally dismissed by private
SANTILLAN, petitioners, respondents.
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION Respondent Labor Arbiter Luciano P. Aquino ruled in
(NLRC), THIRD DIVISION; LABOR ARBITER favor of private respondents and held that petitioners
LUCIANO AQUINO, RAB-III; AURORA L. CRUZ; were not regular and permanent workers of the private
SPOUSES FRANCISCO DE BORJA and LETICIA DE respondents, for the nature of the terms and conditions
BORJA; and STO. NIÑO REALTY, of their hiring reveal that they were required to perform
INCORPORATED, respondents. phases of agricultural work for a definite period of time
after which their services would be available to any other
PADILLA, J.: farm owner.4 Respondent Labor Arbiter deemed
petitioners' contention of working twelve (12) hours a day
Assailed in this petition for certiorari is the decision * of the whole year round in the farm, an exaggeration, for
the respondent national Labor Relations Commission the reason that the planting of lice and sugar cane does
(NLRC) dated 8 August 1984 which affirmed the decision not entail a whole year as reported in the findings of the
of respondent Labor Arbiter Luciano P. Aquino with the Chief of the NLRC Special Task Force. 5 Even the sworn
slight modification of deleting the award of financial statement of one of the petitioners, Fortunato Mercado,
assistance to petitioners, and the resolution of the Jr., the son of spouses Fortunato Mercado, Sr. and Rosa
respondent NLRC dated 17 August 1987, denying Mercado, indubitably show that said petitioners were
petitioners' motion for reconsideration. hired only as casuals, on an "on and off" basis, thus, it
was within the prerogative of private respondent Aurora
Cruz either to take in the petitioners to do further work or
This petition originated from a complaint for illegal
not after any single phase of agricultural work had been
dismissal, underpayment of wages, non-payment of
completed by them.6
overtime pay, holiday pay, service incentive leave
benefits, emergency cost of living allowances and 13th
month pay, filed by above-named petitioners against Respondent Labor Arbiter was also of the opinion that
private respondents Aurora L. Cruz, Francisco Borja, the real cause which triggered the filing of the complaint
Leticia C. Borja and Sto. Niño Realty Incorporated, with by the petitioners who are related to one another, either
Regional Arbitration Branch No. III, National Labor by consanguinity or affinity, was the filing of a criminal
Relations Commission in San Fernando, Pampanga.1 complaint for theft against Reynaldo Mercado, son of
spouses Fortunate Mercado, Sr. and Rosa Mercado, for
they even asked the help of Jesus David, Zone
Petitioners alleged in their complaint that they were
Chairman of the locality to talk to private respondent,
agricultural workers utilized by private respondents in all
Aurora Cruz regarding said criminal case.7 In his
the agricultural phases of work on the 7 1/2 hectares of
affidavit, Jesus David stated under oath that petitioners
ace land and 10 hectares of sugar land owned by the
were never regularly employed by private respondent
latter; that Fortunato Mercado, Sr. and Leon Santillan
Aurora Cruz but were, on-and-off hired to work and
worked in the farm of private respondents since 1949,
render services when needed, thus adding further
Fortunato Mercado, Jr. and Antonio Mercado since 1972
support to the conclusion that petitioners were not
and the rest of the petitioners since 1960 up to April
regular and permanent employees of private respondent
1979, when they were all allegedly dismissed from their
Aurora Cruz.8
employment; and that, during the period of their
employment, petitioners received the following daily
wages: Respondent Labor Arbiter further held that only money
claims from years 1976-1977, 1977-1978 and 1978-1979
may be properly considered since all the other money
From 1962-1963 — P1.50
claims have prescribed for having accrued beyond the
1963-1965 — P2.00
three (3) year period prescribed by law. 9 On grounds of
1965-1967 — P3.00
equity, however, respondent Labor Arbiter awarded
1967-1970 — P4.00
petitioners financial assistance by private respondent
1970-1973 — P5.00
Aurora Cruz, in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos
1973-1975 — P5.00
(P10,000.00) to be equitably divided among an the
1975-1978 — P6.00
petitioners except petitioner Fortunato Mercado, Jr. who
1978-1979 — P7.00
had manifested his disinterest in the further prosecution Tested under the laws invoked, petitioners submit that it
of his complaint against private respondent.10 would be unjust, if not unlawful, to consider them as
casual workers since they have been doing all phases of
Both parties filed their appeal with the National Labor agricultural work for so many years, activities which are
Relations Commissions (NLRC). Petitioners questioned undeniably necessary, desirable and indispensable in
respondent Labor Arbiter's finding that they were not the rice and sugar cane production business of the
regular and permanent employees of private respondent private respondents.17
Aurora Cruz while private respondents questioned the
award of financial assistance granted by respondent In the Comment filed by private respondents, they
Labor Arbiter. submit that the decision of the Labor Arbiter, as aimed
by respondent NLRC, that petitioners were only hired as
The NLRC ruled in favor of private respondents affirming casuals, is based on solid evidence presented by the
the decision of the respondent Labor Arbiter, with the parties and also by the Chief of the Special Task Force
modification of the deletion of the award for financial of the NLRC Regional Office and, therefore, in
assistance to petitioners. The dispositive portion of the accordance with the rule on findings of fact of
decision of the NLRC reads: administrative agencies, the decision should be given
great weight.18 Furthermore, they contend that the
arguments used by petitioners in questioning the
WHEREFORE, the Decision of Labor Arbiter
decision of the Labor Arbiter were based on matters
Luciano P. Aquino dated March 3, 1983 is
which were not offered as evidence in the case heard
hereby modified in that the award of P10,000.00
before the regional office of the then Ministry of Labor
financial assistance should be deleted. The said
but rather in the case before the Social Security
Decision is affirmed in all other aspects.
Commission, also between the same parties.19
SO ORDERED.11
Public respondent NLRC filed a separate comment
prepared by the Solicitor General. It submits that it has
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the long been settled that findings of fact of administrative
Decision of the Third Division of the NLRC dated 8 agencies if supported by substantial evidence are
August 1984; however, the NLRC denied tills motion in a entitled to great weight.20 Moreover, it argues that
resolution dated 17 August 1987.12 petitioners cannot be deemed to be permanent and
regular employees since they fall under the exception
In the present Petition for certiorari, petitioners seek the stated in Article 280 of the Labor Code, which reads:
reversal of the above-mentioned rulings. Petitioners
contend that respondent Labor Arbiter and respondent The provisions of written agreements to the
NLRC erred when both ruled that petitioners are not contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the
regular and permanent employees of private oral agreements of the parties, an employment
respondents based on the terms and conditions of their shall be deemed to be regular where the
hiring, for said findings are contrary to the provisions of employee has been engaged to perform
Article 280 of the Labor Code.13 They submit that activities which are usually necessary or
petitioners' employment, even assuming said desirable in the usual business or trade of the
employment were seasonal, continued for so many employer, except where the employment has
years such that, by express provision of Article 280 of been fixed for a specific project or undertaking
the Labor Code as amended, petitioners have become the completion or termination of which has been
regular and permanent employees.14 determined at the time of the engagement of the
employee or where the work or services to be
Moreover, they argue that Policy Instruction No. 12 15 of performed is seasonal in nature and the
the Department of Labor and Employment clearly lends employment is for the duration of the
support to this contention, when it states: season.21 (emphasis supplied)

PD 830 has defined the concept of regular and The Court resolved to give due course to the petition and
casual employment. What determines regularity required the parties to submit their respective
or casualness is not the employment contract, memoranda after which the case was deemed submitted
written or otherwise, but the nature of the job. If for decision.
the job is usually necessary or desirable to the
main business of the employer, then The petition is not impressed with merit.
employment is regular. If not, then the
employment is casual. Employment for a definite
The invariable rule set by the Court in reviewing
period which exceeds one (1) year shall be
administrative decisions of the Executive Branch of the
considered re for the duration of the definite
Government is that the findings of fact made therein are
period.
respected, so long as they are supported by substantial
evidence, even if not overwhelming or
This concept of re and casual employment is preponderant;22 that it is not for the reviewing court to
designed to put an end to casual employment in weigh the conflicting evidence, determine the credibility
regular jobs which has been abused by many of the witnesses or otherwise substitute its own judgment
employers to prevent so-called casuals from for that of the administrative agency on the sufficiency of
enjoying the benefits of regular employees or to the evidence;23 that the administrative decision in
prevent casuals from joining unions. matters within the executive's jurisdiction can only be set
aside upon proof of gross abuse of discretion, fraud, or
This new concept should be strictly enforced to error of law.24
give meaning to the constitutional guarantee of
employment tenure.16 The questioned decision of the Labor Arbiter reads:
 Focusing the spotlight of judicious scrutiny on employer, except where the employment has
the evidence on record and the arguments of been fixed for a specific project or undertaking
both parties, it is our well-discerned opinion that the completion or termination of which has been
the petitioners are not regular and permanent determined at the time of the engagement of the
workers of the respondents. The very nature of employee or where the work or services to be
the terms and conditions of their hiring reveal performed is seasonal in nature and the
that the petitioners were required to perform p of employment is for the duration of the season.
cultural work for a definite period, after which
their services are available to any farm owner. An employment shall be deemed to be casual if
We cannot share the arguments of the it is not covered by the preceding paragraph:
petitioners that they worked continuously the Provided, That, any employee who has rendered
whole year round for twelve hours a day. This, at least one year of service whether such service
we feel, is an exaggeration which does not is continuous or broken, shall be considered a
deserve any serious consideration inasmuch as regular employee with respect to the activity in
the plan of rice and sugar cane does not entail a which he is employed and his employment shall
whole year operation, the area in question being continue while such actually exists.
comparatively small. It is noteworthy that the
findings of the Chief of the Special Task Force of The first paragraph answers the question of who are
the Regional Office are similar to this. employees. It states that, regardless of any written or
oral agreement to the contrary, an employee is deemed
In fact, the sworn statement of one of the regular where he is engaged in necessary or desirable
petitioners Fortunato Mercado, Jr., the son of activities in the usual business or trade of the
spouses Fortunato Mercado, Sr. and Rosa employer, except for project employees.
Mercado, indubitably shows that said petitioners
were only hired as casuals, on-and-off basis. A project employee has been defined to be one whose
With this kind of relationship between the employment has been fixed for a specific project or
petitioners and the respondent Aurora Cruz, we undertaking, the completion or termination of which has
feel that there is no basis in law upon which the been determined at the time of the engagement of the
claims of the petitioners should be sustained, employee, or where the work or service to be performed
more specially their complaint for illegal is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the
dismissal. It is within the prerogative of duration of the season26 as in the present case.
respondent Aurora Cruz either to take in the
petitioners to do further work or not after any
single phase of agricultural work has been The second paragraph of Art. 280 demarcates as
completed by them. We are of the opinion that "casual" employees, all other employees who do not fan
the real cause which triggered the filing of this under the definition of the preceding paragraph. The
complaint by the petitioners who are related to proviso, in said second paragraph, deems as regular
one another, either by consanguinity or affinity employees those "casual" employees who have
was due to the filing of a criminal complaint by rendered at least one year of service regardless of the
the respondent Aurora Cruz against Reynaldo fact that such service may be continuous or broken.
Mercado, son of spouses Fortunato Mercado,
Sr. and Rosa Mercado. In April 1979, according Petitioners, in effect, contend that the proviso in the
to Jesus David, Zone Chairman of the locality second paragraph of Art. 280 is applicable to their case
where the petitioners and respondent reside, and that the Labor Arbiter should have considered them
petitioner Fortunato Mercado, Sr. asked for help regular by virtue of said proviso. The contention is
regarding the case of his son, Reynaldo, to talk without merit.
with respondent Aurora Cruz and the said Zone
Chairman also stated under oath that the The general rule is that the office of a proviso is to
petitioners were never regularly employed by qualify or modify only the phrase immediately preceding
respondent Aurora Cruz but were on-and-off it or restrain or limit the generality of the clause that it
hired to work to render services when needed.25 immediately follows.27 Thus, it has been held that a
proviso is to be construed with reference to the
A careful examination of the foregoing statements immediately preceding part of the provision to which it is
reveals that the findings of the Labor Arbiter in the case attached, and not to the statute itself or to other sections
are ably supported by evidence. There is, therefore, no thereof.28 The only exception to this rule is where the
circumstance that would warrant a reversal of the clear legislative intent is to restrain or qualify not only the
questioned decision of the Labor Arbiter as affirmed by phrase immediately preceding it (the proviso) but also
the National Labor Relations Commission. earlier provisions of the statute or even the statute itself
as a whole.29
The contention of petitioners that the second paragraph
of Article 280 of the Labor Code should have been Policy Instruction No. 12 of the Department of Labor and
applied in their case presents an opportunity to clarify Employment discloses that the concept of regular and
the afore-mentioned provision of law. casual employees was designed to put an end to casual
employment in regular jobs, which has been abused by
Article 280 of the Labor Code reads in full: many employers to prevent called casuals from enjoying
the benefits of regular employees or to prevent casuals
from joining unions. The same instructions show that the
Article 280. Regular and Casual Employment. — proviso in the second paragraph of Art. 280 was not
The provisions of written agreement to the designed to stifle small-scale businesses nor to oppress
contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the agricultural land owners to further the interests of
oral agreement of the parties, an employment laborers, whether agricultural or industrial. What it seeks
shall be deemed to be regular where the to eliminate are abuses of employers against their
employee has been engaged to perform employees and not, as petitioners would have us
activities which are usually necessary or believe, to prevent small-scale businesses from
desirable in the usual business or trade of the
engaging in legitimate methods to realize profit. Hence, there was no hearing before respondent Leogardo. it
the proviso is applicable only to the employees who are cannot be denied that petitioner had the opportunity to
deemed "casuals" but not to the "project" employees nor present its own case and submit evidence in support
the regular employees treated in paragraph one of Art. thereof when petitioner appealed to the Secretary of
280. Labor, and later to the Office of the President. Thus, on
two occasion, petitioner was allowed to present and
Clearly, therefore, petitioners being project employees, intelligibly argue the merits of its case.
or, to use the correct term, seasonal employees, their
employment legally ends upon completion of the project
or the season. The termination of their employment
cannot and should not constitute an illegal dismissal. 30 DECISION

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The decision

of the National Labor Relations Commission affirming MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
that of the Labor Arbiter, under review, is AFFIRMED.
No pronouncement as to costs.
This is a Petition for Certiorari with Preliminary Injunction
seeking to annul: 1) the Order of public respondent
SO ORDERED.
Vicente Leogardo, Jr., then Assistant Secretary of Labor,
dated December 24, 1976, in Case No. R04-12-11832-
G.R. No. L-54136. December 21, 1983.] 76-LS entitled "Rufino Cadatal, Jr. and Antonio Delgra,
Complainants, v. Philippine Jai-Alai and Amusement
PHILIPPINE JAI-ALAI & AMUSEMENT Corporation, Respondent," directing the reinstatement of
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. HON. JACOBO C. said complainants with full backwages from the time of
CLAVE, in his capacity as Presidential Executive their dismissal up to their actual reinstatement and
Assistant, HON. AMADO G. INCIONG, in his capacity without loss of seniority rights; 2) the Order of public
as Deputy Minister of Labor, HON. VICENTE respondent Amado G. Inciong, then Deputy Minister of
LEOGARDO, JR., in his capacity a Assistant Minister Labor, dated July 13, 1977, affirming the said Decision;
of Labor, RUFINO CADATAL, JR. and ANTONIO 3) the Decision of respondent Jacobo C. Clave as
DELGRA, Respondents. Presidential Executive Assistant, dated January 25,
1979, also affirming the appealed Order; and 4) the
Abad, Bonifacio, Legayada & Associates denials on March 19, 1979 and June 5, 1980 by said
for Petitioner. Office of petitioner’s Motions for Reconsideration.
The Solicitor General for public respondents. From the record, the facts relative to this case may be
stated as follows: Petitioner is a corporation operating a
Dante P. Mercado for Private Respondents. jai-alai fronton for sport and amusement. It has its own
maintenance group for the upkeep of its premises. For
the renovation of it main building, which work is not
SYLLABUS included in maintenance, it hired private respondents,
Cadatal, Jr., a plumber, and Delgra, a mason, together
with 30 other workers on February 2, 1976 for a period of
1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATIONS; LABOR one month, to continue even after that period should
CODE; EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP; their services be needed further in the renovation work.
WORKERS HIRED FOR A SPECIFIC PROJECT; NOT This renovation was completed by the end of October
CONSIDERED REGULAR, EMPLOYEES; CASE AT 1976. However, management decided to construct an
BAR. — Private respondents were hired for a specific Annex to the Building, and private respondents were
project — to renovate the main building, where major assigned to work on a fire escape. On November 27,
repairs such as painting the main building, repair of the 1976, private respondents received notice of termination
roof, cleaning of clogged water pipes and drains, and effective November 29, 1976, but since minor repairs
other necessary repairs were required. It was made were still needed, they worked up to December 11, 1976
known, and so understood at the start of the hiring, that and were fully paid for their labor up to that date.
their service would last until the completion of the
renovation. The casual or limited character of private On December 13, 1976, petitioner filed with the former
respondents’ employment, therefore, is evident. They Department of Labor a report of termination of the
were engaged for a specific project or undertaking and services of private respondents and 30 others, due to
fall within the exception provided for in Article 281 of the completion of the project. The report listed them as
Labor Code. "casual emergency workers."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; NOT ENTITLED TO A letter-complaint, dated December 13, 1976, was filed
REINSTATEMENT WITH BACKWAGES. — Not being by private respondents with Regional Office No. 4 of the
regular employees, it cannot be justifiably said that then Department of Labor, alleging termination without
petitioner had dismissed them without just cause. They cause. On December 21, 1976, petitioner was
are not entitled to reinstatement with full backwages. summoned to appear before the Hearing Officer without
being informed of the subject matter of the investigation.
3. REMEDIAL LAW; PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS; At the next hearing on December 23, 1976, petitioner
OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT AND ARGUE MERITS was formally furnished copy of the letter-complaint.
OF THE CASE; AFFORDED IN THE CASE AT BAR. — Petitioner was given time to file an Answer on or before
It is claimed by petitioner that it we denied due process December 27, 1976, which it did. But before the Answer
of law, since the case below could not be the subject of a could be filed, a summary Order was issued by
summary judgment as questions of fact and law are respondent Leogardo, Jr., dated December 24, 1976, for
involved, and that even before the petitioner could file its reinstatement with full backwages, stating that the nature
Answer, a summary judgment was rendered by of the jobs performed by private respondents was
respondent Leogardo. The comment of the Solicitor necessary and desirable in the usual business or trade
General on this point is that even granting arguendo that
of petitioner; that they are regular employees pursuant to 1976, almost 11 months, but less than a year. In its
Article 170 (now Article 281) of the Labor Code; and that Report to the Department of Labor, petitioner gave the
their termination was without just cause.chanrobles law reason for termination as "due to termination of project."
library : red 3 It was only private respondents Cadatal, Jr. and
Delgra, out of the 32 hired for the renovation, who
The Order of December 24, 1976 was, on appeal, questioned their termination, the 30 other workers having
affirmed by respondent Inciong in an Order dated July acquiesced to their termination. Private respondents
13, 1977. This Order was in turn appealed to the Office merely alleged in their letter-complaint that "kami’y inalis
of the President. The appeal was dismissed for lack of sa trabaho ng walang dahilan." 4 There could be no
merit by respondent Clave on January 25, 1979, other reason, however, than that the termination of
reiterating that the nature of private respondents’ private respondents was because their services were no
employment as maintenance helpers was necessary longer needed and they had nothing more to do since
and/or desirable to petitioner’s business and that the the project for which they were hired had been
dismissal was in violation of Article 281 of the Labor completed. The fact was not that private respondents
Code. Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was were hired as maintenance helpers, because petitioner
denied on March 19, 1979. On April 26, 1980, an Alias corporation had a regular maintenance force. 5 Private
Writ of Execution was issued to collect from petitioner respondents, as well as the other 30 workers, were
corporation the total amount of P26,260.00, representing needed as additional hands for the renovation work and
private respondents’ full backwages. And, on June 5, not for ordinary upkeep and maintenance. The erection
1980, a second Motion for Reconsideration, dated April of the fire escape and other small jobs after the
24, 1980, was denied by respondent Clave, since only renovation cannot be deemed maintenance but more of
one such Motion is allowed and the grounds invoked casual work.
were substantially the same as those previously raised.
The casual or limited character of private respondents’
This Petition for Certiorari with Preliminary Injunction employment, therefore, is evident. They were engaged
was filed on June 27, 1980. A temporary restraining for a specific project or undertaking and fall within the
order was issued by this Court on July 7, 1980, enjoining exception provided for in Article 231 of the Labor Code,
the respondents from implementing the Order, dated supra. Not being regular employees. it cannot be
December 24, 1976, as well as subsequent Orders. On justifiably said that petitioner had dismissed them without
November 12, 1980, we gave due course to the Petition just cause. They are not entitled to reinstatement with full
and required the submittal of simultaneous memoranda, backwages.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red
which has been complied with by petitioner but not by
private respondents. Lastly, although no longer necessary to the resolution of
the petition, it is claimed by petitioner that it was denied
Pivotal to the resolution of this controversy is the issue of due process of law, since the case below could not be
whether or not private respondents are regular the subject of a summary judgment as questions of fact
employees entitled to security of tenure. They maintain and law are involved, and that even before the petitioner
that they are, while petitioner contends that they are could file its Answer, a summary judgment was rendered
merely casual emergency workers employed for a by respondent Leogardo.
particular job.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
The comment of the Solicitor General on this point is
The pertinent provision of the Labor Code, as amended, hereunder quoted.
reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Besides, even granting arguendo that there was no
"ART. 281. Regular and Casual Employment. — The hearing before respondent Leogardo, it cannot be denied
provisions of written agreement to the contrary that petitioner had the opportunity to present its own
notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreements of case end submit evidence in support thereof. From the
the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be decision of respondent Leogardo, petitioner filed a 10-
regular where the employee has been engaged to page appeal to the Secretary of Labor, attaching thereto
perform activities which are usually necessary or as Annex ‘B’ its Reply/Opposition to the complaint. From
desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, respondent Inciong’s decision, petitioner filed a 7-page
except where the employment has been fixed for a appeal with the Office of the President. Thus, on two
specific project or undertaking, the completion or occasions, petitioner was allowed to present and
termination of which has been determined at the time of intelligibly argue the merits of its case. As held in
the engagement of the employee or where the work or Maglasang v. Ople (63 SCRA 508):chanrob1es virtual
services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the 1aw library
employment is for the duration of the season.
‘It is thus apparent that even granting the absence of any
An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not hearing at the stage of mediation and fact-finding,
covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, That, petitioner was afforded the occasion to explain matters
any employee who has rendered at least one year of fully and present its side of the controversy twice, the
service, whether such service is continuous or broken, first time in his appeal with respondent Commission and
shall be considered a regular employee with respect to thereafter in the review conducted by respondent
the activity in which he is employed and his employment Secretary of Labor. It would follow that the objections
shall continue while such actually exists."cralaw premised on lack of respect for the due process
virtua1aw library guarantee lack support in the record (citing Demaronsing
v. Tandayag, 58 SCRA 484; De Borja v. Flores, 62 Phil.
Private respondents were hired for a specific project — 106; Batangas Laguna Tayabas Co. v. Cadiao, 22 SCRA
to renovate the main building, where major repairs such 987)’." 6
as painting the main building, repair of the roof, cleaning
of clogged water pipes and drains, and other necessary But here, the judgment below is being reversed because
repairs were required. 1 It was made known, and so public respondents had overlooked certain facts of
understood at the start of the hiring, that their services significance, notably, private respondents’ employment
would last until the completion of the renovation. 2 They for a specific project and other small jobs like the
rendered service from February 2 to December 11, erection of the fire escape which cannot be deemed as
maintenance, the existence of a regular maintenance
force in petitioner corporation, their services for less than On the other hand, while petitioner admitted that it
one year, and the circumstance that their thirty other co- repeatedly hired Pontesor, et al. in different capacities
workers accepted their termination without question, all throughout the aforesaid years, it nevertheless
of which are sufficient to alter the questioned Order. maintained that they were merely hired on a per-project
basis, as evidenced by numerous Contractual Employee
WHEREFORE, the Order of public respondent Vicente Appointments (CEAs)9 signed by them. In this regard,
Leogardo, Jr., dated December 24, 1976, and the Orders petitioner pointed out that each of the CEAs that
of the other public respondents dated July 13, 1977, Pontesor, et al. signed defined the nature and term of
January 25, 1979, March 19, 1979, and June 5, 1980, the project to
are hereby reversed and set aside. The Complaint for
illegal dismissal against petitioner in Case No. RO4-12- which they are assigned, and that each contract was
11832-76 LS (Regional Office No. IV, Department of renewable in the event the project remained unfinished
Labor) is dismissed, and the Temporary Restraining upon the expiration of the specified term. In accordance
Order heretofore issued is hereby made permanent. with the express provisions of said CEAs, Pontesor, et
al.'s project employment were automatically terminated:
No costs. (a) upon the expiration of the specific term specified in
the CEA; (b) when the project is completed ahead of
SO ORDERED. such expiration; or (c) in cases when their employment
was extended due to the non-completion of the specific
project for which they were hired, upon the completion of
the said project. As such, the termination of Pontesor, et
al.'s employment with petitioner was validly made due to
the completion of the specific projects for which they
were hired.10
G.R. No. 184262**, April 24, 2017
The LA Ruling
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
(UST), Petitioner, v. SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA NG In a Decision11 dated October 23, 2002, the LA ruled in
UST, FERNANDO PONTESOR,* RODRIGO CLACER, Pontesor, et al.'s favor and, accordingly, ordered
SANTIAGO BUISA, JR., AND JIMMY petitioner to reinstate them to their former jobs with full
NAZARETH, Respondents. backwages and without loss of seniority rights.12 The LA
found that Pontesor, et al. should be deemed as
DECISION petitioner's regular employees, considering that: (a) they
have rendered at least one (1) year of service to
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: petitioner as its employees; (b) the activities for which
they were hired for are vital or inherently indispensable
to the maintenance of the buildings or classrooms where
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the
petitioner's classes were held; and (c) their CEAs were
Decision2 dated June 12, 2008 and the
contrived to preclude them from obtaining security of
Resolution3 dated August 22, 2008 of the Court of
tenure. In this light and in the absence of any valid cause
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 85464, which reversed
for termination, the LA concluded that Pontesor, et
and set aside the Resolutions dated March 26,
al. were illegally dismissed by petitioner.13
20044 and May 25, 20045 of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) in NLRC NCR CASE NO. 00-08-
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed14 to the NLRC.
08586-99 (NLRC CA No. 035509-03) and, accordingly,
reinstated the Decision6 dated October 23, 2002 of the
The NLRC Ruling
Labor Arbiter (LA) in NLRC-NCR-0-08-08586-99
declaring respondents Fernando Pontesor (Pontesor),
In a Resolution15 dated March 26, 2004, the NLRC
Rodrigo Clacer (Clacer), Santiago Buisa, Jr. (Buisa), and
vacated the LA ruling and, consequently, entered a new
Jimmy Nazareth (Nazareth; Pontesor, et al., collectively)
one dismissing respondents' complaint for lack of
as regular employees of petitioner University of Santo
merit.16 Contrary to the LA's findings, the NLRC found
Tomas (petitioner) and, thus, were illegally dismissed by
that Pontesor, et al. cannot be considered regular
the latter.
employees as they knowingly and voluntarily entered
into fixed term contracts of employment with petitioner.
The Facts
As such, they could not have been illegally dismissed
upon the expiration of their respective last valid and
The instant case stemmed from a complaint 7 for
binding fixed term employment contracts with petitioner.
regularization and illegal dismissal filed by respondents
This notwithstanding, the NLRC rejected petitioner's
Samahang Manggagawa ng UST and Pontesor, et
contention that Pontesor, et al. should be deemed
al. (respondents) against petitioner before the NLRC.
project employees, ratiocinating that their work were not
Respondents alleged that on various periods spanning
usually necessary and desirable to petitioner's main
the years 1990-1999, petitioner repeatedly hired
business or trade, which is to provide elementary,
Pontesor, et al. to perform various maintenance duties
secondary, tertiary, and post-graduate education. As
within its campus, i.e., as laborer, mason, tinsmith,
such, the NLRC classified Pontesor, et al. as mere fixed
painter, electrician, welder, carpenter. Essentially,
term casual employees.17
respondents insisted that in view of Pontesor, et al.'s
performance of such maintenance tasks throughout the
Respondents moved for reconsideration, 18 which was,
years, they should be deemed regular employees of
however, denied in a Resolution 19 dated May 25, 2004.
petitioner. Respondents further argued that for as long
Dissatisfied, they filed a petition 20 for certiorari before the
as petitioner continues to operate and exist as an
CA.
educational institution, with rooms, buildings, and
facilities to maintain, the latter could not dispense with
The CA Ruling
Pontesor, et al.'s services which are necessary and
desirable to the business of petitioner.8
In a Decision21 dated June 12, 2008, the CA reversed
and set aside the NLRC ruling and, accordingly, regular where the employee has been engaged to
reinstated that of the LA.22 It held that Pontesor, et perform activities which are usually necessary or
al. cannot be considered as merely fixed term or project desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer,
employees, considering that: (a) they performed work except where the employment has been fixed for a
that is necessary and desirable to petitioner's business, specific project or undertaking the completion or
as evidenced by their repeated rehiring and petitioner's termination of which has been determined at the time of
continuous need for their services; and (b) the specific the engagement of the employee or where the work or
undertaking or project for which they were employed services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the
were not clear as the project description set forth in their employment is for the duration of the season.
respective CEAs were either too general or too broad.
Thus, the CA classified Pontesor, et al. as regular An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not
employees, who are entitled to security of tenure and covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, That any
cannot be terminated without any just or authorized employee who has rendered at least one year of service,
cause.23 whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be
considered a regular employee with respect to the
Undaunted, petitioner moved for reconsideration, 24 but activity in which he is employed and his employment
the same was denied in a Resolution 25 dated August 22, shall continue while such activity exists.
2008; hence, this petition. Under the foregoing provision, the law provides for two
(2) types of regular employees, namely: (a) those who
The Issue Before the Court are engaged to perform activities which are usually
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of
The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the the employer (first category); and (b) those who have
CA correctly ruled that Pontesor, et al. are regular rendered at least one year of service, whether
employees and, consequently, were illegally dismissed continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in which
by petitioner. they are employed (second category). 31 In Universal
Robina Corporation v. Catapang,32 citing Abasolo v.
The Court's Ruling NLRC,33 the Court laid down the test in determining
whether one is a regular employee, to
The petition is without merit. wit:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The primary standard, therefore, of determining regular
"Preliminarily, the Court stresses the distinct approach in employment is the reasonable connection between the
reviewing a CA's ruling in a labor case. In a Rule 45 particular activity performed by the employee in relation
review, the Court examines the correctness of the CA's to the usual trade or business of the employer. The test
Decision in contrast with the review of jurisdictional is whether the former is usually necessary or desirable in
errors under Rule 65. Furthermore, Rule 45 limits the the usual business or trade of the employer. The
review to questions of law. In ruling for legal correctness, connection can be determined by considering the nature
the Court views the CA Decision in the same context that of work performed and its relation to the scheme of the
the petition for certiorari was presented to the CA. particular business or trade in its entirety. Also, if the
Hence, the Court has to examine the CA's Decision from emplovee has been performing the iob for at least a
the prism of whether the CA correctly determined the year, even if the performance is not continuous and
presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the merely intermittent, the law deems repeated and
NLRC decision."26 continuing need for its performance as sufficient
evidence of the necessitv if not indispensability of
Case law states that grave abuse of discretion connotes that activity to the business. Hence, the employment
a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, done in is considered regular, but only with respect to such
a despotic manner by reason of passion or personal activity and while such activity exists. 34 (Emphasis
hostility, the character of which being so patent and and underscoring supplied.
gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a
virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at In Kimberly Independent Labor Union for Solidarity,
all in contemplation of law.27 Activism, and Nationalism - Organized Labor Ass'n. in
Line Industries and Agrigulture (KJLUSAN-OLALIA) v.
"In labor cases, grave abuse of discretion may be Drilon (Kimberly),35 the company was engaged in the
ascribed to the NLRC when its findings and conclusions manufacture of paper products, while the questioned
are not supported by substantial evidence, which refers employees occupied the positions of mechanics,
to that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable electricians, machinists, machine shop helpers,
mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. warehouse helpers, painters, carpenters, pipefitters and
Thus, if the NLRC's ruling has basis in the evidence and masons. In that case, the Court held that since they have
the applicable law and jurisprudence, then no grave worked for the company for more than one (1) year, they
abuse of discretion exists and the CA should so declare should belong to the second category of regular
and, accordingly, dismiss the petition."28 employees by operation of law.

Guided by the foregoing considerations, the Court finds In the case at bar, a review of Pontesor, et al.'s
that the CA correctly ascribed grave abuse of discretion respective CEAs36 reveal that petitioner repeatedly
on the part of the NLRC, as its finding that Pontesor, et rehired them for various positions in the nature of
al. are not regular employees of petitioner patently maintenance workers, such as laborer, mason, painter,
deviates from the evidence on record as well as settled tinsmith, electrician, carpenter, and welder, for various
legal principles of labor law. periods spanning the years 1990-1999. Akin to the
situation of the employees in Kimberly, Pontesor, et al.'s
Article 29529 of the Labor Code,30 as amended, nature of work are not necessary and desirable to
distinguishes project employment from regular petitioner's usual business as an educational institution;
employment as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary hence, removing them from the ambit of the first
Art. 295 [280]. Regular and casual employment. - The category of regular employees under Article 295 of the
provisions of written agreement to the contrary Labor Code. Nonetheless, it is clear that their respective
notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of cumulative periods of employment as per their
the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be respective CEAs each exceed one (1) year. Thus,
Pontesor, et al. fall under the second category of regular or less equal terms with no moral dominance whatever
employees under Article 295 of the Labor Code. being exercised by the former over the
Accordingly, they should be deemed as regular latter."43 However, if it is apparent from the
employees but only with respect to the activities for circumstances of the case "that periods have been
which they were hired and for as long as such activities imposed to preclude acquisition of tenurial security by
exist. the employee," such project or fixed term contracts are
disregarded for being contrary to public policy, 44 as in
In this relation, the Court clarifies that Pontesor, et this case.
al. were not project employees of petitioner, who were
validly terminated upon the completion of their respective In view of the foregoing, Pontesor, et al. should, as
projects/undertakings. In Gadia v. Sykes Asia, Inc.,37 the discussed earlier, be considered regularized casual
Court discussed the requisites for a valid project employees who enjoy, inter alia, security of tenure.
employment, to wit:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary Accordingly, they cannot be terminated from
A project employee is assigned to a project which begins employment without any just and/or authorized cause,
and ends at determined or determinable times. Unlike which unfortunately, petitioner was guilty of doing in this
regular employees who may only be dismissed for just case. Hence, Pontesor, et al. must be reinstated to their
and/or authorized causes under the Labor Code, the former or equivalent positions, with full backwages and
services of employees who are hired as "project[-based] without loss of seniority rights. As pointed out by the LA,
employees" may be lawfully terminated at the completion the NLRC Computation & Examination Unit should be
of the project. directed to compute the monetary awards that petitioner
should be ordered to pay Pontesor, et al. as a
According to jurisprudence, the principal test for consequence of this ruling.
determining whether particular employees are properly
characterized as "project[-based] employees" as WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision
distinguished from "regular employees," is whether or dated June 12, 2008 and the Resolution dated August
not the employees were assigned to carry out a 22, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
"specific project or undertaking," the duration (and 85464 are hereby AFFIRMED.
scope) of which were specified at the time they were
engaged for that project. The project could either be SO ORDERED.
(1) a particular job or undertaking that is within the
regular or usual business of the employer company,
but which is distinct and separate, and identifiable
as such, from the other undertakings of the
company; or (2) a particular job or undertaking that
is not within the regular business of the
corporation. In order to safeguard the rights of workers
against the arbitrary use of the word "project" to prevent
employees from attaining a regular status, employers
claiming that their workers are project[-based]
employees should not only prove that the duration
and scope of the employment was specified at the
time they were engaged, but also, that there was
indeed a project.38 (Emphases and underscoring
supplied)
As aptly held by the CA, Pontesor, et al. could not be
considered as project employees because the specific
undertakings or projects for which they were employed
were not clearly delineated. This is evidenced by the
vagueness of the project descriptions set forth in their
respective CEAs,39 which states that they were tasked
"to assist" in various carpentry, electrical, and masonry
work. In fact, when the aforesaid CEAs are pieced
together, it appears that during the years 1990 to 1999,
Pontesor, et al. were each engaged to perform all-
around maintenance services throughout the various
facilities/installations in petitioner's campus. Thus, it
seems that petitioner, through the CEAs, merely
attempted to compartmentalize Pontesor, et al.'s various
tasks into purported "projects" so as to make it appear
that they were hired on a per-project basis. Verily, the
Court cannot countenance this practice as to do so
would effectively permit petitioners to avoid hiring
permanent or regular employees by simply hiring them
on a temporary or casual basis, thereby violating the
employees' security of tenure relative to their jobs. 40

Lest it be misunderstood, there are instances when the

validity of project41 or fixed term42 employments were
upheld on the ground that it was "agreed upon knowingly
and voluntarily by the parties, without any force, duress
or improper pressure being brought to bear upon the
employee and absent any other circumstances vitiating
his consent, or where it satisfactorily appears that the
employer and employee dealt with each other on more
 decision modified the decision of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC Case No. V-
000099-98.

Hacienda Bino is a 236-hectare sugar plantation located

at Barangay Orong, Kabankalan City, Negros
Occidental, and represented in this case by Hortencia L.
Starke, owner and operator of the said hacienda.

The 76 individual respondents were part of the workforce

of Hacienda Bino consisting of 220 workers, performing
various works, such as cultivation, planting of cane
points, fertilization, watering, weeding, harvesting, and
loading of harvested sugarcanes to cargo trucks.2

On July 18, 1996, during the off-milling season,

petitioner Starke issued an Order or Notice which stated,
thus:

To all Hacienda Employees:

Please bear in mind that all those who signed in favor of

CARP are expressing their desire to get out of
employment on their own volition.

Wherefore, beginning today, July 18, only those who did

not sign for CARP will be given employment by Hda.
Bino.

(Sgd.) Hortencia Starke3

G.R. NO. 150478. April 15, 2005
The respondents regarded such notice as a termination
HACIENDA BINO/HORTENCIA STARKE,
of their employment. As a consequence, they filed a
INC./HORTENCIA L.
complaint for illegal dismissal, wage differentials, 13th
STARKE, Petitioners, v. CANDIDO CUENCA,
month pay, holiday pay and premium pay for holiday,
FRANCISCO ACULIT, ANGELINA ALMONIA,
service incentive leave pay, and moral and exemplary
DONALD ALPUERTO, NIDA BANGALISAN, ROGELIO
damages with the NLRC, Regional Arbitration Branch
CHAVEZ, ELMO DULINGGIS, MERCEDES
No. VI, Bacolod City, on September 17, 1996.4
EMPERADO, TORIBIO EMPERADO, JULIANA
ENCARNADO, REYNALDO ENCARNADO, GENE
FERNANDO, JOVEN FERNANDO, HERNANI In their Joint Sworn Statement, the respondents as
FERNANDO, TERESITA FERNANDO, BONIFACIO complainants alleged inter alia that they are regular and
GADON, JOSE GALLADA, RAMONITO KILAYKO, permanent workers of the hacienda and that they were
ROLANDO KILAYKO, ALFREDO LASTIMOSO, ANTONIO dismissed without just and lawful cause. They further
LOMBO, ELIAS LOMBO, EMMA LOMBO, LAURENCIA alleged that they were dismissed because they applied
LOMBO, LUCIA LOMBO, JOEL MALACAPAY, ADELA as beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian
MOJELLO, ERNESTO MOJELLO, FRUCTOSO MOJELLO, Reform Program (CARP) over the land owned by
JESSICA MOJELLO, JOSE MOJELLO, MARITESS petitioner Starke.5
MOJELLO, MERLITA MOJELLO, ROMEO MOJELLO,
RONALDO MOJELLO, VALERIANA MOJELLO, JAIME
NEMENZO, RODOLFO NAPABLE, SEGUNDIA OCDEN, For her part, petitioner Starke recounted that the
JARDIOLINA PABALINAS, LAURO PABALINAS, NOLI company's Board of Directors petitioned the
PABALINAS, RUBEN PABALINAS, ZALDY PABALINAS, Sangguniang Bayan of Kabankalan for authority to re-
ALFREDO PANOLINO, JOAQUIN PEDUHAN, JOHN classify, from agricultural to industrial, commercial and
PEDUHAN, REYNALDO PEDUHAN, ROGELIO PEDUHAN, residential, the whole of Hacienda Bino, except the
JOSEPHINE PEDUHAN, ANTONIO PORRAS, JR., LORNA portion earmarked for the CARP. She asserted that half
PORRAS, JIMMY REYES, ALICIA ROBERTO, MARCOS of the workers supported the re-classification but the
ROBERTO, JR., MARIA SANGGA, RODRIGO SANGGA, others, which included the herein respondents, opted to
ARGENE SERON, SAMUEL SERON, SR., ANGELINO
SENELONG, ARMANDO SENELONG, DIOLITO
become beneficiaries of the land under the CARP.
SENELONG, REYNALDO SENELONG, VICENTE Petitioner Starke alleged that in July 1996, there was
SENELONG, FEDERICO STA. ANA, ROGELIO SUASIM, little work in the plantation as it was off-season; and so,
EDNA TADLAS, ARTURO TITONG, JR., JOSE TITONG, JR., on account of the seasonal nature of the work, she
NANCY VINGNO, ALMA YANSON, JIMMY YANSON, issued the order giving preference to those who
MYRNA VILLANUEVA BELENARIO, SALVADOR supported the re-classification. She pointed out that
MALACAPAY, and RAMELO TIONGCO, Respondents. when the milling season began in October 1996, the
work was plentiful again and she issued notices to all
DECISION workers, including the respondents, informing them of
the availability of work. However, the respondents
CALLEJO, SR., J.: refused to report back to work. With respect to the
respondents' money claims, petitioner Starke submitted
Before us is a Petition for Review of the Decision 1 of the payrolls evidencing payment thereof.
Court of Appeals (CA), dated July 31, 2001, and the
Resolution dated September 24, 2001 denying the On October 6, 1997, Labor Arbiter Ray Allan T. Drilon
petitioners' motion for reconsideration. The assailed rendered a Decision,6 finding that petitioner Starke's
notice dated July 18, 1996 was tantamount to a AS TO THE AWARD OF BACKWAGES AND HOLIDAY
termination of the respondents' services, and holding PAY WITHOUT ANY BASIS.10
that the petitioner company was guilty of illegal
dismissal. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: On July 31, 2001, the CA rendered a Decision, 11 the
dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is
hereby rendered declaring the dismissal of the WHEREFORE, the decision of the National Labor
complainants illegal and ordering respondent Hortencia Relations Commission is hereby MODIFIED by deleting
L. Starke, Inc. represented by Hortencia L. Starke, as the award for holiday pay and premium pay for holidays.
President, to: The rest of the Decision is hereby AFFIRMED.

1. Reinstate the complainants to their former position SO ORDERED.12

without loss of seniority rights immediately upon receipt
of this decision; The CA ruled that the concept of stare decisis is not
relevant to the present case. It held that the ruling
2. PAY the backwages and wage differentials of the in Mercado, Sr. v. NLRC13 does not operate to abandon
complainants, to wit: the settled doctrine that sugar workers are considered
regular and permanent farm workers of a sugar
in the total amount of Four Hundred Ninety-Five plantation owner, considering that there are facts
Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty-Two and 72/100 peculiar in that case which are not present in the case at
(P495,852.72) Pesos; andcralawlibrary bar. In the Mercado case, the farm laborers worked only
for a definite period for a farm owner since the area of
3. TO PAY the complainants attorney's fee in the amount the land was comparatively small, after which they offer
of Forty-Nine Thousand Five Hundred Eighty-Five and their services to other farm owners. In this case, the area
27/100 (P49,585.27) Pesos. of the hacienda, which is 236 hectares, simply does not
allow for the respondents to work for a definite period
only.
Respondents are further directed to deposit to this Office
the total judgment award of FIVE HUNDRED FORTY-
FIVE THOUSAND AND FOUR HUNDRED THIRTY- The CA also held that the petitioners' reliance
SEVEN AND 99/100 (P545,437.99) PESOS within ten on Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co. Inc. v. NLRC14 was
(10) days from receipt of this decision. misplaced, as it in fact, bolstered the respondents'
posture that they are regular employees. In that case,
the Court held that a sugar worker may be considered as
All other claims are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
in regular employment even during those years when he
is merely a seasonal worker where the issues concern
SO ORDERED.7 the determination of an employer-employee relationship
and security of tenure.
Both the petitioners and the respondents appealed the
case to the NLRC. On July 24, 1998, the NLRC affirmed Further, the CA held that the respondents' appeal to the
with modification the decision of the Labor Arbiter. The NLRC was not perfected since they failed to accompany
dispositive part of its decision reads: their notice of appeal with a memorandum of appeal, or
to timely file a memorandum of appeal. Thus, as to them,
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the the decision of the Labor Arbiter became final and
Labor Arbiter is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS. executory. The NLRC, therefore, gravely abused its
Respondent is further ordered to pay the complainants discretion when it modified the decision of the Labor
listed in the Holiday Pay Payroll the amounts due them. Arbiter and awarded to the respondents holiday pay and
premium for holiday pay. Finally, the CA affirmed the
SO ORDERED.8 award of backwages, finding no circumstance that would
warrant a reversal of the findings of the Labor Arbiter
A motion for reconsideration of the said decision was and NLRC on this point.15
denied by the NLRC.9 Dissatisfied, the respondents
appealed the case to the CA where the following issues On September 24, 2001, the CA denied the motion for
were raised: reconsideration filed by the petitioners due to their failure
to indicate the date of the receipt of the decision to
A. THE HONORABLE COMMISSION GRAVELY determine the timeliness of the motion.16
ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND POWER BY
VIOLATING THE DOCTRINE OF "STARE Hence, this Petition for Review .
DECISIS" LAID DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT
AND THE APPLICABLE LAWS AS TO THE STATUS The petitioners submit the following issues:
OF THE SUGAR WORKERS.
A. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF
B. THE HONORABLE COMMISSION COMMITTED APPEALS GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND
SERIOUS ERRORS BY ADMITTING THE MOTION TO POWER BY VIOLATING THE DOCTRINE OF
DISMISS AND/OR ANSWER TO PETITIONERS' "STARE DECISIS" LAID DOWN BY THE SUPREME
APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED MARCH 26, 1998 COURT AND THE APPLICABLE LAWS AS TO THE
FILED BY COUNSEL FOR THE HEREIN STATUS OF THE SUGAR WORKERS.
RESPONDENTS INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT IT WAS
FILED WAY BEYOND THE REGLEMENTARY PERIOD. B. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN DISMISSING THE
C. THE HONORABLE COMMISSION COMMITTED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FOR FAILURE TO
GRAVE ERROR IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE STATE THE DATE OF THE RECEIPT OF THE
SWEEPING ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINANTS
DECISION IN THE MOTION FOR Under the doctrine of stare decisis, when a court has laid
RECONSIDERATION.17 down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of
facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all
Petitioner Starke contends that the established doctrine future cases in which the facts are substantially the
that seasonal employees are regular employees had same.22 Where the facts are essentially different,
been overturned and abandoned by Mercado, Sr. v. however, stare decisis does not apply, for a perfectly
NLRC.18 She stresses that in that case, the Court held sound principle as applied to one set of facts might be
that petitioners therein who were sugar workers, are entirely inappropriate when a factual variance is
seasonal employees and their employment legally ends introduced.23
upon completion of the project or the season. Petitioner
Starke argues that the CA violated the doctrine of stare The CA correctly found that the facts involved in this
decisis in not applying the said ruling. She asserts that case are different from the Mercado case; therefore, the
the respondents, who are also sugar workers, are ruling in that case cannot be applied to the case at bar,
seasonal employees; hence, their employment can be thus:
terminated at the end of the season and such
termination cannot be considered an illegal dismissal. We do not find the concept of stare decisis relevant in
Petitioner Starke maintains that the determination of the case at bench. For although in the Mercado case,
whether the workers are regular or seasonal employees the Supreme Court held the petitioners who were sugar
is not dependent on the number of hectares operated workers not to be regular but seasonal workers,
upon by them, or the number of workers, or the nevertheless, the same does not operate to abandon the
capitalization involved, but rather, in the nature of the settled doctrine of the High Court that sugar workers are
work. She asserts that the respondents also made their considered regular and permanent farm workers of a
services available to the neighboring haciendas. To sugar plantation owner, the reason being that there are
buttress her contention that the respondents are facts present that are peculiar to the Mercado case. The
seasonal employees, petitioner Starke cites Rep. Act disparity in facts between the Mercado case and the
6982, An Act Strengthening the Social Amelioration instant case is best exemplified by the fact that the
Program in the Sugar Industry, Providing the Mechanics former decision ruled on the status of employment of
for its Implementation, and for other Purposes, which farm laborers, who, as found by the labor arbiter, work
recognizes the seasonal nature of the work in the sugar only for a definite period for a farm worker, after which
industry.19 they offer their services to other farm owners,
considering the area in question being comparatively
Petitioner Starke also takes exception to the denial of small, comprising of seventeen and a half (17') hectares
her motion for reconsideration due to failure to state the of land, such that the planting of rice and sugar cane
date of the receipt of the decision. She asserts that a thereon could not possibly entail a whole year operation.
denial of a motion for reconsideration due to such cause The herein case presents a different factual condition as
is merely directory and not mandatory on the part of the the enormity of the size of the sugar hacienda of
CA. Considering that the amount involved in this case petitioner, with an area of two hundred thirty-six (236)
and the fact that the motion was filed within the hectares, simply do not allow for private respondents to
reglementary period, the CA should have considered the render work only for a definite period.
motion for reconsideration despite such procedural
lapse.20 Indeed, in a number of cases, the Court has recognized
the peculiar facts attendant in the Mercado case.
On the other hand, the respondents aver that the In Abasolo v. NLRC,24 and earlier, in Philippine Tobacco
petitioners erroneously invoke the doctrine of stare Flue-Curing & Redrying Corporation v. NLRC,25 the
decisis since the factual backdrop of this case and Court made the following observations:
the Mercado case is not similar. The respondents posit
that the Mercado case ruled on the status of 'In Mercado, although respondent constantly availed
employment of farm laborers who work only for a definite herself of the petitioners' services from year to year, it
period of time for a farm owner, after which they offer was clear from the facts therein that they were not in her
their services to other farm owners. Contrarily, the regular employ. Petitioners therein performed different
respondents contend that they do not work for a definite phases of agricultural work in a given year. However,
period but throughout the whole year, and do not make during that period, they were free to work for other farm
their services available to other farm owners. Moreover, owners, and in fact they did. In other words, they worked
the land involved in the Mercado case is comparatively for respondent, but were nevertheless free to contract
smaller than the sugar land involved in this case. The their services with other farm owners. The Court was
respondents insist that the vastness of the land involved thus emphatic when it ruled that petitioners were mere
in this case requires the workers to work on a year-round project employees, who could be hired by other farm
basis, and not on an "on-and-off" basis like the farm owners'.26
workers in the Mercado case.
Recently, the Court reiterated the same observations
Finally, the respondents maintain that the requirement in Hacienda Fatima v. National Federation of Sugarcane
that the date of receipt of the decision should be Workers-Food and General Trade27 and added that the
indicated in the motion for reconsideration is mandatory petitioners in the Mercado case were "not hired regularly
and jurisdictional and, if not complied with, the court and repeatedly for the same phase/s of agricultural work,
must deny the motion outright.21 but on and off for any single phase thereof."

The petition is without merit. In this case, there is no evidence on record that the
same particulars are present. The petitioners did not
On the substantial issue of whether the respondents are present any evidence that the respondents were
regular or seasonal employees, the petitioners contend required to perform certain phases of agricultural work
that the CA violated the doctrine of stare decisis by not for a definite period of time. Although the petitioners
applying the ruling in the Mercado case that sugar assert that the respondents made their services
workers are seasonal employees. We hold otherwise.
available to the neighboring haciendas, the records do re-employed, or when their services are needed, and
not, however, support such assertion. they are not strictly speaking separated from the service
but are merely considered as on leave of absence
The primary standard for determining regular without pay until they are re-employed, it is held that
employment is the reasonable connection between the their employment relationship is never severed but only
particular activity performed by the employee in relation suspended, and as such, they can be considered as in
to the usual trade or business of the employer. 28 There is the regular employment of the hotel.
no doubt that the respondents were performing work
necessary and desirable in the usual trade or business 2. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS;
of an employer. Hence, they can properly be classified JURISDICTION; INCLUDES REGULAR SEASONAL
as regular employees. EMPLOYEES. — Where the management objected to
the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations over
some employees who were not actually in the service at
For respondents to be excluded from those classified as
the time the instant petition was filed, but it appears that
regular employees, it is not enough that they perform
they were subsequently re-employed even while the
work or services that are seasonal in nature. They must
present incident was pending consideration by the trial
have been employed only for the duration of one
court, it is held that the trial court acted correctly when it
season.29 While the records sufficiently show that the
assumed jurisdiction over their claim.
respondents' work in the hacienda was seasonal in
nature, there was, however, no proof that they were
hired for the duration of one season only. In fact, the
payrolls,30 submitted in evidence by the petitioners, show DECISION
that they availed the services of the respondents since
1991. Absent any proof to the contrary, the general rule
of regular employment should, therefore, stand. It bears
stressing that the employer has the burden of proving BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
the lawfulness of his employee's dismissal. 31

The Pines Hotel Employees Association filed on

On the procedural issue, petitioner Starke avers that the
February 24, 1960 before the Court of Industrial
CA should not have denied outright her motion for
Relations a petition praying, among other things, that its
reconsideration, considering its timely filing and the huge
employees who were working at the Pines Hotel be paid
amount involved. This contention is already moot.
additional compensation for overtime service rendered
Petitioner Starke has already aired in this petition the
due to the exigencies of the business, as well as
arguments in her motion for reconsideration of the CA
additional compensation for Sunday, legal holiday and
decision, which have been adequately addressed by this
night time work.
Court. Assuming arguendo that the CA indeed failed to
consider the motion for reconsideration, petitioner Starke
The Manila Hotel filed its answer denying the material
was not left without any other recourse.32
averments of the petition and alleging, among others,
that if overtime service was rendered the same was not
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is authorized but was rendered voluntarily, for the
DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated employees were interested in the "tips" offered by the
July 31, 2001, and its Resolution dated September 24, patrons of the hotel.
2001 are hereby AFFIRMED.
Presiding Judge Jose S. Bautista, to whom the petition
SO ORDERED. was assigned, after trial, rendered judgment stating that
the employees were entitled to the additional
compensation demanded, including that for overtime
G.R. No. L-18873. September 30, 1963.] work, because an employee who renders overtime
service is entitled to compensation even if he rendered it
MANILA HOTEL COMPANY, Petitioner, v. COURT OF without prior authority. A motion for reconsideration was
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL., Respondents. filed on the ground that the order was contrary to law
and the evidence, but the same was denied by the
Government Corporate Counsel Simeon M. industrial court en banc.
Gopengco and Trial Attorney Jose S. Gomez
for Petitioner. In compliance with the order of the court, the Examining
Division of the Court of Industrial Relations submitted a
Gregorio E. Fajardo and Jesus Jaranillo for report in which it stated that the amount due the
respondent Union. employees as additional compensation for overtime and
night services rendered from January to December 31,
Mariano B. Tuazon for respondent Court. 1958 was P32,950.69. The management filed its
objection to the report on the ground that it included 22
names of employees who were not employees of the
SYLLABUS Pines Hotel at the time the petition was filed so that
insofar as said employees are concerned the petition
merely involves a money claim which comes under the
1. EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE; SEASONAL jurisdiction of the regular courts. The trial judge,
EMPLOYEE WHEN CONSIDERED IN REGULAR however, overruled this objection holding that, while the
EMPLOYMENT. — Where it appears that the questioned 22 employees were actually not in the service at the time
employees were never separated from the service but of the filing of the petition, they were however
their status is that of regular seasonal employees who subsequently employed even during the pendency of the
are called to work from time to time, mostly during incident, and so their claim comes within the jurisdiction
summer season, and the nature of their relationship with of the Court of Industrial Relations. Hence the present
the hotel is such that during off season they are petition for review.
temporarily laid off but during summer season they are
There is no merit in this appeal it appearing that while it
is true that the 22 employees whose claim is objected to
were not actually in their service at the time the instant
petition was filed, they were however subsequently re-
employed even while the present incident was pending
consideration by the trial court. Moreover, it appears that
the questioned employees were never separated from
the service. Their status is that of regular seasonal
employees who are called to work from time to time,
mostly during summer season. The nature of their
relationship with the hotel is such that during off season
they are temporarily laid off but during summer season
they are re-employed, or when their services may be
needed. They are not strictly speaking separated from
the services but are merely considered as on leave of
absence without pay until they are re- employed. Their
employment relationship is never severed but only
suspended. As such, these employees can be
considered as in the regular employment of the hotel.

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is affirmed. No

costs.