CLASSIFICATIONS/KINDS OF EMPLOYEES

Our Labor Code and cases decided by the Supreme Court have
identified several kinds of employees, namely:

1. Regular
2. Project
3. Seasonal
4. Fixed-term
5. Casual
6. Probationary

The nature of one’s employment does not depend solely on the

will or word of the employer. Nor on the procedure for hiring and
the manner of designating the employee, but on the nature of
the activities to be performed by the employee, considering the
employees nature of business and the duration and scope of
work to be done. Abasolo, et al. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 118475,
November 29, 2000

 As to tenure: the manner which the office or position is held with respect
to time (Art. 295)
o Temporary – project employees, probationary employees,
seasonal employees, fixed-term employees
o Permanent – regular employees

 As to wage determination: the wage of a worker is determined by such

factors like time, work result, work volume, work hazard,
commission/percentage, or other quantifying considerations.
o Time based – the worker is paid based on the amount of time he
spent to do his work. (Article 83, 84 and 87)
o Non-time based- the worker is paid on the job he performed
regardless of the time he spent to do the same. Payment-by-
result (Article 82 and 101) which may be workers paid per piece
or workers paid per task
o As to components of the wage – the consideration here is the
coverage of the pay or wage like the daily paid and monthly paid.

 As to hierarchy in the organizational structure: level of the employee’s job

or position in an organization structure, a.k.a. rank
o Rank-and-file Employees
o Supervisory Employees
o Managerial Employees
 Field Personnel
A. Regular employee

 Article 295 of The Labor Code of the Philippines provides for the most
common kind of employee, the regular employee. The provisions of a
written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of
the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to
be “regular” where the employee has been engaged to perform
activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer.

o The law provides for two types of regular employees: (a) those
who are engaged to perform activities which are usually
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the
employer; and (b) those who have rendered at least one year of
service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the
activity in which they are employed.

University of Santo Tomas v. Samahang Mangagawa ng

UST, et al., G.R. No. 184262, April 24, 2017

 Standard in determining regular status

o Under the definition, the primary standard that determines

regular employment is the reasonable connection
between the particular activity performed by the
employee and the usual business or trade of the
employer; the emphasis is on the necessity or
desirability of the employee’s activity. Thus, when the
employee performs activities considered necessary and
desirable to the overall business scheme of the employer,
the law regards the employee as regular.

Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation v. Acibo,

G.R. No. 186439, 15 January 2019

o The primary standard, therefore, of determining regular

employment is the reasonable connection between the
particular activity performed by the employee in relation to
the usual trade or business of the employer.

The test is whether the former is usually necessary or

desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer.
The connection can be determined by considering the
nature of work performed and its relation to the
scheme of the particular business or trade in its
 entirety. Also, if the employee has been performing the
job for at least a year, even if the performance is not
continuous and merely intermittent, the law deems
repeated and continuing need for its performance as
sufficient evidence of the necessity if not indispensability
of that activity to the business. Hence, the employment is
considered regular, but only with respect to such activity
and while such activity exists.

ABS-CBN Corporation v. Nazareno, G.R. No. 164156,

September 26, 2006

o An employee is regarded a casual employee if he or she

was engaged to perform functions which are not necessary
and desirable to the usual business and trade of the
employer. Thus, when one is engaged to perform functions
which are necessary and desirable to the usual business
and trade of the employer, engagement for a year-long
duration is not a controlling consideration.

As it was with regard to the distinction between a regular

and casual employee, the purpose of this requirement is to
delineate whether or not the employer is in constant need
of the services of the specified employee.

Paragele vs. GMA Network, Inc., G.R. No. 235315, July

13, 2020

o If the particular job or undertaking is within the regular or

usual business of the employer company and it is not
identifiably distinct or separate from the other
undertakings of the company, there is clearly a constant
necessity for the performance of the task in question, and
therefore said job or undertaking should not be considered
a project.

Paragele vs. GMA Network, Inc., G.R. No. 235315, July

13, 2020

 Manner and mode of payment are not determinants of regular

status.

o "It should also be remembered that a regular status of

employment is not based on how the salary is paid to an
employee. An employee may be paid purely on commission
and still be considered a regular employee."
 AGG Trucking v. Yuag, G.R. No. 195033, October 12,
2011

 Regular employment may be attained in either way, to wit;

1. By nature of work

 the employment is deemed regular when the

employee has been engaged to perform activities
which are usually necessary or desirable in the
usual business or trade of the employer. (Paguio
vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 147816, 09 May 2003).

2. By period of service

 the employment is reckoned as regular when the

employee have rendered at least one (1) year of
service, whether such service is continuous or
broken, with respect to the activity in which he is
employed and his employment shall continue
while such activity exists. (Philippine Fruit vs.
NLRC, G.R. No. 122122, 20 July 1999).

3. By probationary employment

 The employment is considered regular when the

employee is allowed to work after a probationary
period.

4. If upon engagement, the employees employment

classification was not identified.

 Cases:

o ABS-CBN Corporation (ABS-CBN) is a company engaged in

the business of broadcasting television and radio programs
in the Philippines. Respondent Clara L. Magno (Magno) was
employed by ABS-CBN since 1992 and served as a
Production Assistant and eventually a Video Tape Recorder
(VTR) Playback Operator for its various programs.

Magno was placed under the Internal Job Market system

(pool of employees called “talents”) as a VTR Playback
Operator.
 The workers who were cameramen, light men, gaffers,
lighting directors, audio men, sound engineers, system
engineers, VTR men, video engineers, technical directors,
and drivers - all played an indispensable role in the
production and re-production of shows, as well as
post-production services. The workers even played a role in
ABS-CBN's business of obtaining commercial revenues. To
obtain profits through adve1tisements, ABS-CBN would
also produce and air shows that will attract the majority of
the viewing public. The necessary jobs required in the
production of such shows were performed by the workers
herein.

Guided by the foregoing, Magno is deemed a regular

employee of ABS-CBN. She was similarly situated with Del
Rosario who were placed under the IJM system and
continuously rehired for various programs. As a VTR
Playback Operator, she rendered services necessary and
desirable to the overall business and trade of ABS-CBN.

ABS-CBN Corporation v. Magno, G.R. No. 203876.

March 29, 2022

o Parenthetically, the main distinction between a talent and a

regular employee in the broadcast industry was explained
in the landmark case of Sonza v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting
Corp.

In Sonza, Jose Sonza (Sonza) was a talent who was

engaged on the basis of his expertise in his craft. His
possession of unique skills and celebrity status gave
him the distinct privilege to bargain with ABS-CBN's
officials on the terms of his agreement with the
latter. These negotiations resulted to a hefty talent
fee. Also, the payment of his salaries did not depend
on the amount of work he performed or the number
of times he reported for duty, but was based solely
on the terms of the agreement. More than this, ABS-
CBN was duty-bound to continue paying him his talent fees
during the lifetime of the agreement, regardless of any
business losses it may suffer, and even if it ceased airing
his programs.

More importantly, ABS-CBN was bereft of any power to

terminate or discipline Sonza, even if the means and
 methods of the performance of his work did not meet its
approval. Similarly, ABS-CBN did not control his work
schedule, or regulate the manner in which he "delivered his
lines, appeared on television, and sounded on radio, or had
any say over the contents of his script. The only instruction
given by ABS-CBN was a simple warning that Sonza should
refrain from criticizing ABS-CBN and its interests. In short,
Sonza enjoyed an untrammeled artistic creativity on the
contents and delivery of his lines and spiels.

In stark contrast, the workers here were hired through ABS-

CBN's Human Resources Department. Their engagement
did not involve a negotiation with ABS-CBN's high-
level officials. They did not possess any peculiar skills
or talents or a well-nigh celebrity status that would
have given them the power to negotiate the terms
of their employment. In fact, their only choice over their
engagement was limited to either accepting or rejecting
the standard terms of employment prepared by ABS-CBN.
In the same manner, they received a basic salary and were
granted benefits such as SSS, Medicare, and 13th month
pay benefits customarily given to regular employees.

Equally telling, the workers did not enjoy the same level of
impunity granted to Sonza. It bears stressing that an
independent contractor is endowed with a certain level of
skill and talent that is not available on-the-job. Obviously,
the workers do not hold this level of distinction.

Del Rosario v. ABS-CBN Corporation, G.R. NO.

202481, September 08, 2020

o Respondents were regular employees of Adstratworld as

their work was necessary and desirable in its advertising
business; that respondents were neither engaged as fixed
term employees nor as probationary employees because
Adstratworld employed them without the benefit of
a contract in January 2012; that the subsequent
"engagement" of respondents as probationary
employees on July 16, 2013 could not alter the fact
that they were already regular employees of the
company; and that even granting that their engagement
in January 2012 was merely probationary, respondents
should be deemed as regular employees on July 16, 2013
as they had been in the service of Adstratworld for more
than one year.
 Respondents submitted in evidence their payslips for July
1-15, 2013 or a period prior to the issuance of their
probationary contracts. The payslips and the content of the
probationary contracts quoted above support the assertion
of respondents that they were employed earlier than July
16, 2013, albeit without any written contract, and that they
were regular employees of petitioners.

Respondents performed tasks necessary and desirable in

the usual business of Adstratworld. As pointed out by the
CA, Adstratworld needs the expertise of marketing
personnel whose primary task is to conceptualize
advertising products and services to promote its
advertising business and products. For this reason,
respondents' work as events marketing and logistics
officers is vital in the advertising business of Adstratworld
making them its regular employees from the very
beginning of their employment.

Adstratworld Holdings, Inc. vs. Magallones, G.R. No.

233679, July 6, 2022

B. Casual employee

 Employees that are not regular, project, seasonal or fixed term, may be
deemed as a casual employee. (Art. 295, Labor Code)

 Note however, that the Labor Code provides that any employee who
has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is
continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with
respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment
shall continue while such activity exists.

 The following are the requirements:

1. The employee must perform work which are incidental to the

usual trade or business of the employer (in direct contrast to the
work of a regular employee); and

2. The casual employment period should not exceed twelve (12)

months.

 Casual Employees have security of tenure.

 During and within the casual employment period, they may only be
dismissed for just causes or authorized causes and after observance of
due process. However, they may be let go after the expiration of their
employment via advance notice prior to the last day, without need for
due process.

o It is clear from the foregoing provision that there are two

determinative factors for the existence of regular
employment:
1. the nature of the work performed by the employee;
and
2. the length of service rendered.

If it be found that an employee performs functions which

are usually necessary or desirable in the employer's usual
business or trade, or if a casual employee has rendered at
least one year of service, then the law considers that
employee as a regular employee even if the employment
agreement, whether written or oral, provides otherwise.
However, this general rule does not apply if the worker was
employed for a specific project or if the work or service
performed is seasonal in nature.

The rationale of this rule is that if a project has already

been completed, it would be unjust to require the employer
to maintain them in the payroll while they are doing
absolutely nothing except waiting until another project is
begun, if at all. In effect, these stand-by workers would be
enjoying the status of privileged retainers, collecting
payment for work not done, to be disbursed by the
employer from profits not earned. This is not fair by any
standard and can only lead to a coddling of labor at the
expense of management.

Toyo Seat Philippines Corporation v. Velasco, G.R. No.

240774, March 03, 2021

C. Project employee

 Concept

Project employees are those where the employment has been fixed for
a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of
which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the
employee.
 o Employers must not only prove that the duration and scope
of the employment were specified at the time the
employees were engaged but also the existence of the
project.

Minsola v. New City Builders, Inc. and Engr. Fajardo,

G.R. No. 207613, January 31, 2018

 Requirements of a valid project employment

1. the employee was hired under a contract specifying that the

employment will last only for a specific undertaking, the
termination of which is determined at the time of engagement;
2. there was indeed a project undertaken; and
3. the parties bargained on equal terms, with no vices of consent.

o The term "specific project or undertaking" under Article

280 of the Labor Code contemplates an activity which is
not commonly or habitually performed or such type of work
which is not done on a daily basis but only for a specific
duration of time or until completion; the services employed
are then necessary and desirable in the employer's usual
business only for the period of time it takes to complete
the project.

Pure Foods Corporation v. National Labor Relations

Commission, G.R. No. 122653, December 12, 1997

 Notice to the employee at the time of hiring.

o In order to ascertain whether respondents were project

employees, as claimed by the Company Respondent, it is
essential to determine whether notice was given to
them that they were being engaged just for a
specific project, which notice must be made at the
time of hiring.

ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION OF

ASIA [now FIRST BALFOUR INCORPORATED] vs.
SEGUNDINO PALLE, G.R. No. 201247, 13 July 2020

 Employer has the burden of proof that an employee was hired

for project employment.
o It is necessary to note that an employer has the burden to
prove that the employee is indeed a project employee.
 ECCA failed to present other evidence or other written
contracts to show that it informed respondents of the
duration and scope of their work. Settled is the rule that
"although the absence of a written contract does not by
itself grant regular status to the employees, it is evidence
that they were informed of the duration and scope of their
work and their status as project employees at the start of
their engagement.1âшphi1 When no other evidence is
offered, the absence of employment contracts raises a
serious question of whether the employees were
sufficiently apprised at the start of their employment of
their status as project employees.

ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION OF

ASIA [now FIRST BALFOUR INCORPORATED] vs.
SEGUNDINO PALLE, G.R. No 201247, 13 July 2020

 Two types of projects

1. Firstly, a project could refer to a particular job or undertaking

that is within the regular or usual business of the employer
company, but which is distinct and separate, and identifiable as
such, from the other undertakings of the company.

Such job or undertaking begins and ends at determined or

determinable times. The typical example of this first type of
project is a particular construction job or project of a construction
company. A construction company ordinarily carries out two or
more [distinct] identifiable construction projects: e.g., a twenty-
five-storey hotel in Makati; a residential condominium building in
Baguio City; and a domestic air terminal in Iloilo City. Employees
who are hired for the carrying out of one of these separate
projects, the scope and duration of which has been determined
and made known to the employees at the time of employment,
are properly treated as "project employees," and their services
may be lawfully terminated at completion of the project.

2. Secondly, a particular job or undertaking that is not within the

regular business of the corporation. Such a job or undertaking
must also be identifiably separate and distinct from the ordinary
or regular business operations of the employer. The job or
undertaking also begins and ends at determined or determinable
times.
 GMA Network, Inc. v. Pabriga, et al., G.R. No. 176419,
November 27, 2013

 Guides in determining status of employment in cases of rehiring of

employees in different project.

To obviate further confusion regarding the nature of employment

for workers in the construction industry, the following principles
were set by the Supreme Court for the guidance of workers,
employers, labor tribunals, the bench, bar, and public:

1. First, a worker is presumed a regular employee, unless the

employer establishes that (1) the employee was hired under a
contract specifying that the employment will last only for a
specific undertaking, the termination of which is determined
at the time of engagement; (2) there was indeed a project
undertaken; and (3) the parties bargained on equal terms,
with no vices of consent.

2. Second, if considered a regular employee at the outset,

security of tenure already attaches, and the subsequent
execution of project employment contracts cannot undermine
such security, but will simply be considered a continuation in
the regular engagement of such employee.

3. Third, even if initially engaged as a project employee, such

nature of employment may ripen into regular status if (1)
there is a continuous rehiring of project employees even after
cessation of a project; and (2) the tasks performed by the
alleged "project employee” are vital, necessary and
indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer.
Conversely, project-based employment will not ripen into
regularity if the construction worker was truly engaged as a
project-based employee, and between each successive
project, the employer made no manifestations of any intent to
treat the worker as a continuing resource for the main
business.

4. Fourth, regularized construction workers are subject to the "no

work, no pay" principle, such that the employer is not
obligated to pay them a salary when "on leave." In case of an
oversupply of regularized construction workers, then the
employer can exercise management prerogative to decide
whom to engage for the limited projects and whom to
consider as still "on leave."
 5. Finally, submission of termination reports to the DOLE Field
Office "may be considered" only as an indicator of project
employment; conversely, non-submission does not
automatically grant regular status. By themselves, such
circumstances do not determine the nature of employment.

Carpio v. Modair Manila Co. LTD, Inc., G.R. No. 239622,

June 21, 2021
Read also: Capitol Industrial Construction Groups v.
National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No.
105359, April 22, 1993
GMA Network, Inc. v. Pabriga, et al., G.R. No.
176419, November 27, 2013
Liganza v. RBL Shipyard Corp., G.R. NO. 159862 :
October 17, 2006
Samson v. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 121035, April 12, 2000
Maraguinot, Jr. v. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 120969, January 22, 1998
Filipinas Pre-Fabricated Building Systems v.
Puente, G.R. No. 153832, March 18, 2005
William Uy Construction Corp. v. Trinidad, G.R.
No. 183250, March 10, 2010
Cioco, Jr. v. C.E. Construction Corporation, G. R.
No. 156748, September 8, 2004

D. Seasonal employee

 Concept

Seasonal employees as those whose work or engagement is seasonal

in nature and the employment is only for the duration of the season.
(Art. 295, Labor Code)

o Seasonal employees employed for only one season

remain as seasonal employees. Those called to work
from time to time are considered as regular seasonal
employees. They do not perform work during the off-
season and are only temporarily laid off or on leave until
re-employed.

However, in cases where seasonal employees are made

to work during off-season such as for upkeep and
maintenance of the equipment for use during the
season, their repeated engagement may show the
necessity and desirability of their work to the company’s
 business and, therefore, they may be considered by the
courts as regular employees.

Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corp v. NAMA-

URSUMCO-NFL, G.R. No. 224558, Nov. 28, 2018
Abasolo, et al. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 118475,
November 29, 2000

E. Probationary employee

 Concept

A probationary employee is one who is placed on trial by an employer,

during which the employer determines whether such employee is fit for
regularization.

o During the period of probationary employment, the

objective of the employer is to observe the fitness of the
employee, while the purpose of the latter is to prove his
or her qualification for permanent employment.

Simon vs. Results Companies, G.R. No. 249351-52,

March 29, 2022

o Their employment, as a rule, shall not exceed six

months from the time they start work. A probationary
employment must be covered by a written agreement
and the reasonable standards to qualify as a regular
employee which must be made known to the employee
at the start of the employment.

o There is probationary employment where the employee

upon his engagement is made to undergo a trial period
during which the employer determines his fitness to
qualify for regular employment based on reasonable
standards made known to him at the time of
engagement. The probationary employment is intended
to afford the employer an opportunity to observe the
fitness of a probationary employee while at work, and to
ascertain whether he will become an efficient and
productive employee.

While the employer observes the fitness, propriety and

efficiency of a probationer to ascertain whether he is
qualified for permanent employment, the probationer,
on the other hand, seeks to prove to the employer that
 he has the qualifications to meet the reasonable
standards for permanent employment. Thus, the word
probationary, as used to describe the period of
employment, implies the purpose of the term or period,
not its length.

Tamson’s Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,

G.R. No. 192881, 16 November 2011

 Requirements for a valid probationary employment contract:

1. The probationary period should not exceed 180 calendar

days;

o 180 calendar days, not 6 calendar months

o Applying Article 13 of the Civil Code, the probationary

period of six (6) months consists of one hundred eighty
(180) days. This is in conformity with paragraph one,
Article 13 of the Civil Code, which provides that the
months which are not designated by their names shall
be understood as consisting of thirty (30) days each.
The number of months in the probationary period, six
(6), should then be multiplied by the number of days
within a month, thirty (30); hence, the period of one
hundred eighty (180) days.

Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Corporation v.

Chrysler Philippine Labor Union, G.R. No. 148738,
29 June 2004

o Exceptions to the 6 month-period

There are certain exceptions where the probationary

period may extend beyond six months: i) when the
parties agree otherwise in the employment contract,
and this is justified by the nature of the work (Buiser, et
al v Leogardo); ii) when a valid extension of the period is
made before the end of the six-month period (Mariwasa
Manufacturing, Inc. v Leogardo); and iii) for teachers in
private and public schools, where the probationary
period is three years (Mercado v. AMA Computer
College-Paranaque City).

Buiser, et al v Leogardo, G.R. No. L-63316 July 31,

1984
 Mariwasa Manufacturing, Inc. v Leogardo, G.R. No.
74246, January 26, 1989
Mercado v. AMA Computer College-Paranaque
City, G.R. No. 183572, April 13, 2010
Magis Young Achievers’ Learning Center v.
Manalo, G.R. No. 178835, 13 February 2009

o This upper limit on the term of probationary

employment, however, does not apply to all classes of
occupations.

The standards by which the service of the probationary

teacher may be adjudged satisfactory so that he may
acquire permanence in his employment or security of
tenure, are set by the school. The setting of those
standards, and the determination of whether or not they
have been met, have been held by this Court to be the
prerogative of the school, consistent with academic
freedom and constitutional autonomy by which
educational institutions have the right to choose who
should teach.

Nevertheless, the autonomy of institutions of higher

learning to set standards for their faculties must be
tempered with the protection of labor. In determining
who may teach, they cannot be arbitrary. One limitation
is that the period of probation cannot exceed, among
others, six consecutive regular semesters of satisfactory
service for those in the tertiary level, or nine
consecutive trimesters of satisfactory service for those
in the tertiary level where collegiate courses are offered
on a trimester basis. Sections 92 and 93 of the 1992
Manual of Regulations for Private Schools state:

SECTION 92. Probationary Period. — Subject in all

instances to compliance with Department and school
requirements, the probationary period for academic
personnel shall not be more than three (3)
consecutive years of satisfactory service for those in
the elementary and secondary levels, six (6)
consecutive regular semesters of satisfactory service
for those in the tertiary level, and nine (9)
consecutive trimesters of satisfactory service for
those in the tertiary level where collegiate courses
are offered on a trimester basis.
 Arcilla v. San Sebastian College-Recoletos, G.R. No.
235863, October 10, 2022

2. The standards/criteria for regular employment must be

made known to the employee on/before the time of
engagement.

o To accomplish these goals, it is essential in probationary

employment that the employer informs the employee of
the reasonable standards for his or her regularization at
the time of engagement. An employer is deemed to
have made known the regularization standards
when it has exerted reasonable efforts to apprise
the employee of what he or she is expected to do
or accomplish during the trial period of probation.
Otherwise, the probationary employee shall be
considered a regular employee.

Results initially denied that petitioner was its employee.

However, after petitioner presented her identification
card and payslips, Results took a different stance and
argued that petitioner was its former probationary
employee who either voluntarily resigned or abandoned
her job. Having admitted that petitioner was its
probationary employee, it was incumbent upon Results
to prove or at least allege that it communicated to
petitioner the standards under which she would qualify
as a regular employee. However, Results neither
presented any evidence such as policy handbook,
operations manual, performance appraisal document
nor at least alleged that it informed petitioner of the
criteria for regularization.

Simon vs. Results Companies, G.R. No. 249351-52,

March 29, 2022

Read also: Aliling v. Felicano, Wide World

Express Corporation, G.R. No. 185829,
25 April 2012
Hacienda Primera Development
Corporation v. Villegas, G.R. No.
186243, 11 April 2011

o Substantial Compliance
1. Keeping with these rules, an employer is deemed to have
made known the standards that would qualify a
probationary employee to be a regular employee when it
has exerted reasonable efforts to apprise the
employee of what he is expected to do or
accomplish during the trial period of probation. This
goes without saying that the employee is sufficiently made
aware of his probationary status as well as the length of
time of the probation.

Abbott Laboratories, Philippines v. Alacaraz, G.R. No.

192571, July 23, 2013

2. Petitioner points out that the CA erred in ruling that she

was properly apprised of the reasonable standards required
of her considering that KMBI's employment packet was
given to her only on June 2, 2016 instead of May 30, 2016,
the first day that she reported for work.
Ideally, employers should immediately inform probationary
employees of the standards for their regularization from
day one; however, strict compliance thereof is not
required.

In the case of Alcira v. National Labor Relations

Commission, the Court ruled that an employer would have
substantially complied with the rule on notification of
standards if it apprises its employee that they will be
subjected to a performance evaluation on a particular date.
At any rate, it is ludicrous to rule that petitioner was
deprived of due process considering that there is only a
three-day difference between May 30, 2016 and June 2,
2016.

Further, the records show that KMBI exerted reasonable

efforts to apprise petitioner of the standards required of
her. Although she was not given a copy of KMBI's Personnel
Policy Manual, petitioner did not deny KMBI's claim that
this was discussed during the one-week Basic Operations
Training Program which she attended. Aside from an
Appointment Letter and Job Description, KMBI also
quantified petitioner's targets in the employment packet
given to her. Petitioner's argument that KMBI ought to
categorically state the consequences of her failure to meet
her targets deserves scant consideration as such failure
will result in her non-regularization as a matter of course.
 Cambil v. KMBI, G.R. No. 245938. April 05, 2022

o Exception

The exception to the foregoing is when the job is self-

descriptive in nature, for instance, in the case of maids, cooks,
drivers, or messengers. Also, in Aberdeen Court, Inc. v.
Agustin, it has been held that the rule on notifying a
probationary employee of the standards of regularization
should not be used to exculpate an employee who acts in a
manner contrary to basic knowledge and common sense in
regard to which there is no need to spell out a policy or
standard to be met. In the same light, an employee’s failure
to perform the duties and responsibilities which have been
clearly made known to him constitutes a justifiable basis for a
probationary employee’s non-regularization. Abbott
Laboratories, Philippines v. Alacaraz

o A punctilious examination of the records reveals that Abbott

had indeed complied with the above-stated requirements.
This conclusion is largely impelled by the fact that Abbott
clearly conveyed to Alcaraz her duties and responsibilities as
Regulatory Affairs Manager prior to, during the time of her
engagement, and the incipient stages of her employment. On
this score, the Court finds it apt to detail not only the
incidents which point out to the efforts made by Abbott but
also those circumstances which would show that Alcaraz was
well-apprised of her employer’s expectations that would, in
turn, determine her regularization.

Verily, basic knowledge and common-sense dictate that the

adequate performance of one’s duties is, by and of itself, an
inherent and implied standard for a probationary employee to
be regularized; such is a regularization standard which need
not be literally spelled out or mapped into technical indicators
in every case. In this regard, it must be observed that the
assessment of adequate duty performance is in the nature of
a management prerogative which when reasonably exercised
– as Abbott did in this case – should be respected. This is
especially true of a managerial employee like Alcaraz who was
tasked with the vital responsibility of handling the personnel
and important matters of her department. Abbott
Laboratories, Philippines v. Alacaraz

o Proof of communication of standards necessary

 In the case, Results initially denied that petitioner was its
employee. However, after petitioner presented her
identification card and payslips, Results took a different
stance and argued that petitioner was its former probationary
employee who either voluntarily resigned or abandoned her
job. Having admitted that petitioner was its probationary
employee, it was incumbent upon Results to prove or at least
allege that it communicated to petitioner the standards under
which she would qualify as a regular employee. However,
Results neither presented any evidence such as policy
handbook, operations manual, performance appraisal
document nor at least alleged that it informed petitioner of
the criteria for regularization. Indubitably, the ruling of the
NLRC that petitioner was a mere probationary employee was
not supported by substantial evidence.

Simon vs. Results Companies, G.R. No. 249351-52, March

29, 2022

o Proof of application required/Actual evaluation

necessary

Labor, for its part, is given the protection during the

probationary period of knowing the company standards the
new hires have to meet during the probationary period, and to
be judged on the basis of these standards, aside from the
usual standards applicable to employees after they achieve
permanent status. Under the terms of the Labor Code, these
standards should be made known to the (employees) on
probationary status at the start of their probationary period,
or xxx during which the probationary standards are to be
applied. Of critical importance in invoking a failure to meet
the probationary standards, is that the (employer) should
show – as a matter of due process – how these standards have
been applied.

Mercado v. AMA Computer College-Paranaque City, G.R.

No. 183572, April 13, 2010

There must be an actual evaluation of the performance of the

employee. Tamson’s Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals

 Probationary employees enjoy security of tenure

o It is settled that even if probationary employees do not enjoy
permanent status, they are accorded the constitutional
protection of security of tenure. This means they may only be
terminated for just cause or when they otherwise fail to
qualify as regular employees in accordance with reasonable
standards made known to them by the employer at the time
of their engagement.

Alcira v. NLRC, Middleby Philippines Corporation, G.R.

No. 149859, 09 June 2004

This constitutional protection, however, ends upon the

expiration of the period provided for in their probationary
contract of employment. Thereafter, the parties are free to
renew the contract or not.

Manlimos v. NLRC, Super Mahogany Plywood

Corporation, G.R. No. 113337, 02 March 1995

The termination of probationary employment must be for any

of the following grounds: (1) just and authorized causes, or (2)
failure to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with
reasonable standards made known by the employer to the
employee at the time of engagement.

If an employer opts to dismiss an employee on the ground of

failure to qualify, the law requires that the reasonable
standards for qualification must have been communicated to
the employee at the time of engagement. This is to apprise
them of what they need to accomplish and how they need to
perform their job, failing at which, they will not be regularized.

However, there are exceptions to the rule requiring the

communication of reasonable standards to a probationary
employee: first, in occupations that are self-descriptive in
nature, such as maids, cooks, drivers, and messengers; and
second, the Court has ruled that standard of basic knowledge
and
common sense need not be spelled out to the employee, and
the rule on communication should not be used to exculpate
employees who act in a manner contrary to either. 61 In these
cases, the Court ruled that there was no need to explicitly
communicate the reasonable standards that the employees
failed to meet.
 C.P. Reyes Hospital v. Barbosa, G.R. No. 228357, April 16,
2024 citing:

1. Moral v. Momentum Properties Management

Corporation, 848 Phil. 621, 636 (2019) [Per J. Carpio,
Second Division],
2. Aberdeen Court, Inc. v. Agustin, Jr., 495 Phil. 706,
716-717 (2005)

 Backwages of illegally dismissed probationary employees

o In the face of this jurisprudential conflict, the Court deems

it necessary to state explicitly that illegally dismissed
probationary employees, like regular employees, are
entitled to backwages up to their actual reinstatement. in
case reinstatement is proven to be infeasible due to
strained relations between the employer and the employee
and other analogous causes, backwages shall be computed
from the time compensation was withheld up to the finality
of the Decision.

C.P. Reyes Hospital v. Barbosa, G.R. No. 228357,

April 16, 2024

 On the Job Training

The employee was placed by the employer on probation twice, first

during her on-the-job training for three weeks, and next during another
period of six months, ostensibly in accordance with Article 281. Her
probation clearly exceeded the period of six months prescribed by this
article.

Probation is the period during which the employer may determine if the
employee is qualified for possible inclusion in the regular force. In the
case at bar, the period was for three weeks, during the employee’s on-
the-job training. When her services were continued after this training,
the petitioners in effect recognized that she had passed probation and
was qualified to be a regular employee.

The employee was certainly under observation during her three-week

on-the-job training. If her services proved unsatisfactory then, she
could have been dropped as early as during that period. But she was
not. On the contrary, her services were continued, presumably because
they were acceptable, although she was formally placed this time on
probation.
 Holiday Inn Manila v NLRC, G.R. No. 109114, September 14, 1993
Oyster Plaza Hotel, et al v Melivo, G.R. No. 217455, October 05,
2016

F. Fixed-term employee

 The Labor Code does not mention another employment arrangement –

contractual or fixed term employment (or employment for a term) –
which, if not for the fixed term, should fall under the category of
regular employment in view of the nature of the employee’s
engagement, which is to perform an activity usually necessary or
desirable in the employer’s business. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court
ruled in a case that such a contract, which specifies that employment
will last only for a definite period, is not per se illegal or against public
policy.

Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation v. Acibo, G.R. No.

186439, 15 January 2019

 Fixed-term employment is not the same as project employment as the

latter requires a project. On the other hand, the duration of a fixed-
term employment is agreed upon by the parties.

 In Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora, the Court, for the first time, recognized
and resolved the anomaly created by a narrow and literal
interpretation of Article 280 of the Labor Code that appears to restrict
the employee’s right to freely stipulate with his employer on the
duration of his engagement. In this case, the Court upheld the validity
of the fixed-term employment agreed upon by the employer, Brent
School, Inc., and the employee, Dorotio Alegre, declaring that the
restrictive clause in Article 280 "should be construed to refer to the
substantive evil that the Code itself singled out: agreements entered
into precisely to circumvent security of tenure. It should have no
application to instances where the fixed period of employment was
agreed upon knowingly and voluntarily by the parties absent any
circumstances vitiating the employee’s consent, or where the facts
satisfactorily show that the employer and the employee dealt with
each other on more or less equal terms. The indispensability or
desirability of the activity performed by the employee will not preclude
the parties from entering into an otherwise valid fixed term
employment agreement; a definite period of employment does not
essentially contradict the nature of the employees’ duties as necessary
and desirable to the usual business or trade of the employer.
 Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation v. Acibo, G.R. No.
186439, 15 January 2019

 There is, on the other hand, the Civil Code, which has always
recognized, and continues to recognize, the validity and propriety of
contracts and obligations with a fixed or definite period, and imposes
no restraints on the freedom of the parties to fix the duration of a
contract, whatever its object, be it specie, goods or services, except
the general admonition against stipulations contrary to law, morals,
good customs, public order or public policy. 26 Under the Civil Code,
therefore, and as a general proposition, fixed-term employment
contracts are not limited, as they are under the present Labor Code, to
those by nature seasonal or for specific projects with pre-determined
dates of completion; they also include those to which the parties by
free choice have assigned a specific date of termination.

Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora, G.R. No. L-48494 February 5, 1990

 The duration of a fixed-term employment agreed upon by the parties

may be any day certain, which is understood to be "that which must
necessarily come although it may not be known when." The decisive
determinant in fixed-term employment is not the activity that the
employee is called upon to perform but the day certain agreed upon by
the parties for the commencement and termination of the employment
relationship.

To prevent circumvention of the rights of the employee to

security of tenure, a fixed term employment must meet the
following criteria:

 The fixed period of employment was knowingly and

voluntarily agreed upon by the parties without any
force, duress, or improper pressure being brought to
bear upon the employee and absent any other
circumstances vitiating his consent; or

 It satisfactorily appears that the employer and the

employee dealt with each other on more or less equal
terms with no moral dominance exercised by the
former or the latter.

These indications, which must be read together, make the Brent

doctrine applicable only in a few special cases wherein the employer
and employee are on more or less in equal footing in entering into the
contract. The reason for this is evident: when a prospective employee,
on account of special skills or market forces, is in a position to make
 demands upon the prospective employer, such prospective employee
needs less protection than the ordinary worker. Lesser limitations on
the parties’ freedom of contract are thus required for the protection of
the employee

GMA Network, Inc. v. Pabriga, et al., G.R. No. 176419, November

27, 2013

G. Workers paid by result

1. Workers paid per piece (piece-rate workers)

The worker is paid based on the units produced.

2. Workers paid by task

The worker is paid in lumpsum for a work done and not
based on the units produced. Alaso known as (pakyaw)

H. Rank-and-file, Supervisory and Managerial Employees (Article

255)

1. Rank-and-file Employees - refers to an employee

whose functions are neither managerial nor supervisory
in nature.

2. Supervisory Employees - refers to an employee who, in

the interest of the employer, effectively recommends
managerial actions and the exercise of such authority is
not merely routinary or clerical but requires the use of
independent judgment.

3. Managerial Employees - refers to an employee who is

vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and
execute management policies or to hire, transfer,
suspend, layoff, recall, discharge, assign or discipline
employees. (DO 40-03)

There are non-regular employees deemed regular by law or whose status has
been altered by operation of law due to their non-regular employment
contract being non-compliant with labor laws and regulations. These are
some of the examples:

1. Probationary employees who have not been informed of the

standards/criteria for regular employment on/before the first day of
work;
 Tamson’s Enterprise, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 192881, November 16,
2011

2. Probationary employees who are required or allowed to continue

work after the probationary period;
3. Casual employees whose employment exceeded 12 months – they
are regular insofar as the position they hold;
4. Project employees who have been hired for a project which turns
out to be non-existing;
5. Project employees who have been continuously rehired even after
the cessation of a project and the task performed are vital,
necessary, and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the
employer;
6. Seasonal employees who are required or allowed to continue to
work after the season;
7. Fixed-term employees whose consent was vitiated into employment
or where it satisfactorily appears that the employer and employee
did not deal with each other on more or less equal terms; and
8. Learners who have rendered at least two months of service but has
been dismissed without just cause.

Corporate Mergers, Consolidations and Acquisitions

 The absorbing corporation automatically assumes the employment

contracts of the absorbed corporation, such that the absorbed
corporation’s employees become part of the manpower complement of
the surviving corporation.

The merger of Unocal Corporation with Blue Merger and Chevron does
not result in an implied termination of the employment of petitioner's
members. Assuming respondent is a party to the merger, its
employment contracts are deemed to subsist and continue by "the
combined operation of the Corporation Code and the Labor Code under
the backdrop of the labor and social justice provisions of the
Constitution."

Petitioner insists that this is contrary to its freedom to contract,

considering its members did not enter into employment contracts with
the surviving corporation. However, petitioner is not precluded from
leaving the surviving corporation. Although the absorbed employees
are retained as employees of the merged corporation, the employer
retains the right to terminate their employment for a just or authorized
cause. Likewise, the employees are not precluded from severing their
employment through resignation or retirement. The freedom to
 contract and the prohibition against involuntary servitude is still, thus,
preserved in this sense.[84] This is the manner by which the consent of
the employees is considered by the law.

Hence, assuming respondent is a party to the merger, the merger still

does not operate to effect a termination of the employment of
respondent's employees. Should they be unhappy with the surviving
corporation, the employees may retire or resign from employment.

Philippine Geothermal Inc. Employees Union v. Unocal

Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 190187, 28 September 2016

 Taking a second look on this point, we have come to agree with Justice
Brion’s view that it is more in keeping with the dictates of social justice
and the State policy of according full protection to labor to deem
employment contracts as automatically assumed by the surviving
corporation in a merger, even in the absence of an express stipulation
in the articles of merger or the merger plan.

Bank of the Philippine Islands v. BPI Employees Union-Davao

Chapter-Federation of Unions in BPI Unibank, G.R. No. 164301,
October 19, 2011

 Besides, there is no law requiring that the purchaser of an entire

company should absorb the employees of the selling company. The
most that the purchasing company can do, for reasons of public policy
and social justice, is to give preference to the qualified separated
employees of the selling company, who in its judgment are necessary
in the continued operation of the business establishment.

Abasolo, et al. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 118475. November 29, 2000