Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2.
FACTS:
Private respondent Grulla was engaged by Engineering Construction
and Industrial Development Company (ENDECO) through A.M. Oreta and Co.,
Inc., as a carpenter in its projects in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The contract of
employment, which was entered into June 11, 1980 was for a period of
twelve (12) months.
ISSUES:
HELD:
complainant the total amount of ONE HUNDRED NINETY FIVE THOUSAND SIX
HUNDRED TWENTY FOUR PESOS (P195,624.00) representing complainant's
separation pay and the ten (10%) percent attorney's fees within ten (10)
days from receipt of this Decision.
Aggrieved, petitioners Aurora Land Projects Corporation and Teresita T.
Quazon appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission. The
Commission affirmed, with modification, the Labor Arbiter's decision in a
Resolution promulgated on March 16, 1994, in the following manner:
WHEREFORE, in view of the above considerations, let the appealed decision
be as it is hereby AFFIRMED with (the) MODIFICATION that complainant must
be paid separation pay in the amount of P88,920.00 instead of P177,840.00.
The award of attorney's fees is hereby deleted. 5
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not private respondent Honorio Dagui was an employee of
petitioners; and (2) If he were, whether or not he was illegally dismissed.
RULING:
Petitioners insist that private respondent had never been their employee.
Since the establishment of Aurora Plaza, Dagui served therein only as a job
contractor..
Honorio Dagui earns a measly sum of P180.00 a day (latest salary) and there
was no proof adduced by the petitioners to show that Dagui was merely a
job contractor, and it is absurd to expect that private respondent, with such
humble resources, would have substantial capital or investment in the form
of tools, equipment, and machineries, with which to conduct the business of
supplying Aurora Plaza with manpower and services for the exclusive
purpose of maintaining the apartment houses owned by the petitioners.
The bare allegation of petitioners, without more, that private respondent
Dagui is a job contractor has been disbelieved by the Labor Arbiter and the
NLRC. Dagui, by the findings of both tribunals, was an employee of the
petitioners.
Dagui was not compensated in terms of profits for his labor or services like
an independent contractor. Rather, he was paid on a daily wage basis at the
rate of P180.00. Employees are those who are compensated for their labor or
services by wages rather than by profits.
There are two kinds of regular employees, namely: (1) those who are
engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the
usual business or trade of the employer; and (2) those who have rendered at
least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the
activity in which they are employed.
The jobs assigned to private respondent as maintenance man, carpenter,
plumber, electrician and mason were directly related to the business of
petitioners as lessors of residential and apartment buildings. Moreover, such
a continuing need for his services by herein petitioners is sufficient evidence
employee. They are separate and distinct from each other. In the event that
reinstatement is no longer possible, as in this case, separation pay is
awarded to the employee. The award of separation pay is in lieu of
reinstatement and not of backwages. In other words, an illegally dismissed
employee is entitled to (1) either reinstatement, if viable, or separation pay if
reinstatement is no longer viable, and (2) backwages. Payment of backwages
is specifically designed to restore an employee's income that was lost
because of his unjust dismissal. On the other hand, payment of separation
pay is intended to provide the employee money during the period in which
he will be looking for another employment.
The petition was partly GRANTED and the Resolution of National Labor
Relations Commission dated March 16, 1994 was MODIFIED, that the award
of separation pay against the petitioners shall be reckoned from the date
private respondent was re-employed by the petitioners in 1982, until June 8,
1991. In addition to separation pay, full backwages are likewise awarded to
private respondent, inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or their
monetary equivalent pursuant to Article 279 of the Labor Code, as amended
by Section 34 of Republic Act No. 6715, computed from the time he was
dismissed on June 8, 1991 up to the finality of this decision, without
deducting therefrom the earnings derived by private respondent elsewhere
during the period of his illegal dismissal.
159343
CASERES
September
and
ANDITO
28,
PAEL,
2007
Petitioners,
vs.
UNIVERSAL ROBINA SUGAR MILLING CORPORATION (URSUMCO)
and/or RESIDENT MANAGER RENE CABATE, Respondents.
which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such actually
exists.
The principal test for determining whether an employee is a project
employee or a regular employee is whether the employment has been fixed
for a specific project or undertaking, the completion or termination of which
has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee.
A true project employee should be assigned to a project which begins and
ends at determined or determinable times, and be informed thereof at the
time of hiring.
The very nature of the terms and conditions of complainants hiring reveals
that they were required to perform phases of special projects for a definite
period after, their services are available to other farm owners. This is so
because the planting of sugar does not entail a whole year operation, and
utility works are comparatively small during the off-milling season.
It must be noted that there were intervals in petitioners respective
employment contracts, and that their work depended on the availability of
such contracts or projects. Consequently, the employment of URSUMCOs
work force was not permanent but co-terminous with the projects to which
the employees were assigned and from whose payrolls they were paid
The fact that petitioners were constantly re-hired does not ipso facto
establish that they became regular employees. Their respective contracts
with respondent show that there were intervals in their employment. In
petitioner Caseress case, while his employment lasted from August 1989 to
May 1999, the duration of his employment ranged from one day to several
months at a time, and such successive employments were not continuous.
With regard to petitioner Pael, his employment never lasted for more than a
month at a time. These support the conclusion that they were indeed project
employees, and since their work depended on the availability of such
contracts or projects, necessarily the employment of respondents work force
was not permanent but co-terminous with the projects to which they were
assigned and from whose payrolls they were paid.
Moreover, even if petitioners were repeatedly and successively re-hired, still
it did not qualify them as regular employees, as length of service is not the
controlling determinant of the employment tenure of a project employee, but
whether the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking,
its completion has been determined at the time of the engagement of the
employee. Further, the proviso in Article 280, stating that an employee who
has rendered service for at least one (1) year shall be considered a regular
employee, pertains to casual employees and not to project employees.
6. Cocomangas Hotel Beach Resort v Visca (Austria-Martinez, 2008)
Facts:
Visca et al (respondents) alleged that they were regular employees of
Cocomangas Hotel (petitioner) and tasked with the maintenance and repair
of resort facilities. They were informed by the Front Desk Officer that repair
has been suspended because it caused irritation to the resorts guests. As
instructed, Visca et al did not report for work. Later, they found out that the
suspension was due to budgetary constraints and that 4 new workers were
hired to do their job.
Complaints for illegal dismissal were filed. The LA found that Visca was
an independent contractor and the other respondents were hired by him.
Also, there was no illegal dismissal but only completion of projects because
they were project employees.
NLRC set aside the decision and held that they were regular
employees; hence, illegally dismissed. It took into account 1) quarterly SSS
reports, 2) that all were certified and commended by owner-manager for
satisfactory performance, 3) thwy were paid holiday and overtime pay, and
4) they were employed continuously for 12 years and paid daily wages.
On MR, NLRC reversed itself and held that Visca et al were project
employees.
CA reinstated the original NLRC decision and found that Visca et al
were regular employees because the Hotel failed to set specific periods when
April
18,
2012
ISSUE:
Whether
HELD:
Yes.
or
not
Jamin
CA
is
Decision
regular
employee
Affirmed.
Labor Law
HELD: The SC held that for respondents to be excluded from those classified
as regular employees, it is not enough that they perform work or services
that are seasonal in nature. They must have also been employed only for the
duration of one season. The evidence proves the existence of the first, but
not of the second, condition. The fact that respondents -- with the exception
of Luisa Rombo, Ramona Rombo, Bobong Abriga and Boboy Silva -repeatedly worked as sugarcane workers for petitioners for several years is
not denied by the latter. Evidently, petitioners employed respondents for
more than one season. Therefore, the general rule of regular employment is
applicable.
Petition is denied.
9. HANJIN v IBANEZ
FACTS:
-
Ibanez et al states that they have been employees of Hanjin and have
worked on the projects of Hanjin including the North Harbor project
(1992-1994), Manila International Port (1994-1996) and Batangas Port
(1996- 1998) and projects currently being completed including the La
Mesa Dam project
Hanjin claims that such employees cannot claim illegal dismissal for
the ff reasons:
o They are project employees whose employment is co-terminus
with the project (LRT project).
They stated that this was expressly written in their contract
but Hanjin produced such copies for the labor arbiter
o They have signed quitclaims which bars them from filing action
or claiming other receivables due to them because they have
already received it as per their quitclaim
Labor arbiter ruled in favour of Ibanez et al, ruling that there is an
illegal dismissal and that Hanjin is liable to pay backwages and
damages, stating that they are regular employees and not project
employees
NLRC reversed Labor Arbiters decision. CA reversed NLRC decision
stating that Hanjin is liable.
On NLRC, Hanjin changed its argument stting that they did not need
any further contract to state that their employees were project
employees given that the nature of the work is construction.
Hanjin also states that while there was no project-based contract, they
complied with all the requirements of law and DOLE for project-based
employees.
ISSUE:
WoN Ibanez et al are regular employees or project employees
WoN the quitclaim they signed bar them from any legal remedies or
collection of any other receivables from their previous employers
RULING:
-
10. NO DIGEST
FACTS:
Dequila filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Mariwasa and its VP for
Administration, Angel T. Dazo, and violation of Presidential Decrees Nos. 928
and 1389.
MINISTER OF LABOR: Deputy Minister Vicente Leogardo, Jr. held that Dequila
was already a regular employee at the time of his dismissal, thus, he was
illegally dismissed. (Initial order: Reinstatement with full backwages. Later
amended to direct payment of Dequilas backwages from the date of his
dismissal to December 20, 1982 only.)
The SC in its decision in Buiser vs. Leogardo, Jr. (1984) said that Generally,
the probationary period of employment is limited to six (6) months. The
exception to this general rule is when the parties to an employment contract
may agree otherwise, such as when the same is established by company
policy or when the same is required by the nature of work to be performed
by the employee. In the latter case, there is recognition of the exercise of
managerial prerogatives in requiring a longer period of probationary
employment, such as in the present case where the probationary period was
set for eighteen (18) months, i.e. from May, 1980 to October, 1981 inclusive,
especially where the employee must learn a particular kind of work such as
In this case, the extension given to Dequila could not have been prearranged to avoid the legal consequences of a probationary period
satisfactorily completed. In fact, it was ex gratia, an act of liberality on the
part of his employer affording him a second chance to make good after
having initially failed to prove his worth as an employee. Such an act cannot
now unjustly be turned against said employers account to compel it to keep
on its payroll one who could not perform according to its work standards.
Facts
Douglas Millares was employed by ESSO International through its local
manning agency, Trans-Global, in 1968 as a machinist. In 1975, he was
promoted as Chief Engineer which position he occupied until he opted to
retire in 1989.
In 1989, petitioner Millares filed a leave of absence and applied for optional
retirement plan under the Consecutive Enlistment Incentive Plan (CEIP)
considering that he had already rendered more than twenty years of
continuous service.
Esso International denied Millares request for optional retirement on the
following grounds, to wit: (1) he was employed on a contractual basis; (2) his
contract of enlistment (COE) did not provide for retirement before the age of
sixty years; and (3) he did not comply with the requirement for claiming
benefits under the CEIP, i.e., to submit a written advice to the company of his
intention to terminate his employment within thirty days from his last
disembarkation date.
Subsequently, after failing to return to work after the expiration of his leave
of absence, Millares was dropped from the roster of crew members effective
September 1, 1989.
On the other hand, petitioner Lagda was employed by Esso International as
wiper/oiler in 1969. He was promoted as Chief Engineer in 1980, a position
he continued to occupy until his last COE expired in 1989.
In 1989, Lagda likewise filed a leave of absence and applied to avail of the
optional early retirement plan in view of his twenty years continuous service
in the company.
Trans-global similarly denied Lagdas request for availment of the optional
early retirement scheme on the same grounds upon which Millares request
was denied.
Unable to return for contractual sea service after his leave of absence expire,
Lagda was also dropped from the roster of crew members effective
September 1, 1989.
Millares and Lagda filed a complaint-affidavit for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of employee benefits against private respondents Esso
International and Trans-Global before the POEA.
The POEA rendered a decision dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. On
appeal, NLRC affirmed the decision of the POEA dismissing the complaint.
NLRC rationcinated that Millares and Lagda, as seamen and overseas
contract workers are not covered by the term regular employment as
defined under Article 280 of the Labor Code. The POEA, which is tasked with
protecting the rights of the Filipino workers for overseas employment to fair
and equitable recruitment and employment practices and to ensure their
welfare, prescribes a standard employment contract for seamen on board
ocean-going vessels for a fixed period but in no case to exceed twelve
months.
Issue
Whether or not seafarers are considered regular employees under Article 280
of the Labor Code.
Ruling
It is for the mutual interest of both the seafarer and the employer why the
employment status must be contractual only or for a certain period of time.
Quoting Brent School Inc. v. Zamora, 1990, and Pablo Coyoca v. NLRC, 1995,
the Supreme Court ruled that seafarers are considered contractual
employees. They can not be considered as regular employees under Article
280 of the Labor Code. Their employment is governed by the contracts they
sign everytime they are rehired and their employment is terminated when
the contract expires. Their employment is contractually fixed for a certain
period of time. They fall under the exception of Article 280 whose
employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the
completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of
engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed
is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.
As ruled in Brent case, there are certain forms of employment which also
require the performance of usual and desirable functions and which exceed
one year but do not necessarily attain regular employment status under
Article 280. Overseas workers including seafarers fall under this type of
employment which are governed by the mutual agreements of the parties.
And as stated in the Coyoca case, Filipino seamen are governed by the Rules
and Regulations of the POEA. The Standard Employment Contract governing
the employment of All Filipino seamen on Board Ocean-Going Vessels of the
POEA, particularly in Part I, Sec. C specifically provides that the contract of
seamen shall be for a fixed period. And in no case should the contract of
seamen be longer than 12 months.
Moreover, the Court held that it is an accepted maritime industry practice
that employment of seafarers are for a fixed period only. Constrained by the
nature of their employment which is quite peculiar and unique in itself, it is
for the mutual interest of both the seafarer and the employer why the
employment status must be contractual only or for a certain period of time.
Seafarers spend most of their time at sea and understandably, they can not
stay for a long and an indefinite period of time at sea. Limited access to
shore society during the employment will have an adverse impact on the
seafarer. The national, cultural and lingual diversity among the crew during
the COE is a reality that necessitates the limitation of its period.
01 August 2012
FACTS:
Carvajal was employed as a trainee-teller by Luzon Development Bank
(Bank) under a six-month probationary employment contract. Ramirez is the
President and CEO of the Bank. A month into her employment, she was send
a Memorandum directing her to explain in writing why she should not be
subjected to disciplinary action for her eight tardiness on November 2003. A
second Memorandum was sent to her on January for her again chronic
tardiness on December 2003. She submitted her written explanations for
both events and manifested her acceptance of the consequences of her
actions. She was terminated for three days effective 21 January 2004.
However, on 22 January, her termination was lifted but at the same time, her
services were terminated. In the respondents position paper to the LA, they
explained that the reasons for her absence are chronic tardiness,
absenteeism and failure to perform satisfactorily as a probationary
employee.
LA Decision: The petitioner was illegally dismissed because she was not
afforded the notice in writing informing her of what the Bank would like to
bring out to her for the latter to answer in writing.
CA Decision: The CA found that the petitioner was not entitled to backwages
because she was rightfully dismissed for failure to meet the employment
standards.
ISSUE:
Whether the petitioner can be considered a regular employee at the time of
her dismissal.
HELD:
No. Carvajals appointment letter reads that Possible extension of this
contract will depend on the job requirements of the Bank and your overall
performance. Performance review will be conducted before possible renewal
can take effect. Therefore, petitioner knew, at the time of her engagement,
that she must comply with the standards set forth by respondent and
perform satisfactorily in order to attain regular status. Even the NLRC upheld
the petitoners probationary status, stating that reinstatement is not
synonymous to regularization.
having agreed to a fixed term. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the
NLRC.
Issue: WON the petitioners were regular employees of GMC when their employment
was terminated?
Held: No. The petitioners were employees with a fixed period, and, as such, were
not regular employees.
There are two separate instances whereby it can be determined that an
employment is regular: (1) if the particular activity performed by the employee is
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the 15 employer; and (2) if
the employee has been performing the job for at least a year. In the case of St.
Theresas School of Novaliches Foundation vs NLRC, it was held that Article 280 of
the Labor Code does not proscribe or prohibit an employment contract with a fixed
period. It does not necessarily follow that where the duties of the employee consist
of activities usually necessary or desirable in the usual business of the employer,
the parties are forbidden from agreeing on a period of time for the performance of
such activities. Records reveal that the stipulations in the employment contracts
were knowingly and voluntarily agreed to by the petitioners without force, duress or
improper pressure, or any circumstances that vitiated their consent. While the
petitioners employment as chicken dressers is necessary and desirable in the usual
business of the respondent, they were employed on a mere temporary basis, since
their employment was limited to a fixed period. As such, they cannot be said to be
regular employees, but are merely contractual employees. Consequently, there
was no illegal dismissal when their services were terminated. Lack of notice of
termination is of no consequence, because the it was specified in the contract when
it shall expire.
15. NO DIGEST
16. PINES CITY EDUCAT IONAL CENT ER VS NLRC [GR. NO. 96779,
NOVEMBER 10, 1993
Facts:
Private respondents were all employed as teachers on probationary basis by
petitioner Pines City Educational Center, represented in this proceedings by
its President, Eugenio Baltao. With the exception of Jane Bentrez who was
hired as a grade school teacher, the remaining private respondents were
hired as college instructors. All the private respondents, except Pic art and
Chan, signed contracts of employment with petitioner for a fixed duration.
On March 31, 1989, due to the expiration of private respondents'contracts
other privileges and their backwages paid in full inclusive ofallowances, and
to their otherbenefits or their monetary equivalent pursuant to Article 279
ofthe Labor Code, as amended by Section 34 ofRepublic ActNo. 67 15,
subject to deduction ofincomeearned elsewhere during the period
ofdismissal, ifany, to be computed from the time they were dismissed up to
the time oftheir actual reinstatement. the rest ofthe Labor Arbiter's decision
dat ed February 28, 1990, as affirmed by the NLRCis set aside. The
temporary restraining order issued on March 11,1991 is made permanent.
foreign clients and the bulk of the work was data processing, which involved
data encoding, which half of its employees did. Due to the wide range of
services, Innodata was constrained to hire new employees for a fixed period
not more than one year like the petitioners whose contracts of employment
were for a limited period only. Moreover, they claimed that the petitioners
were estopped since they entered into the contracts knowingly and
voluntarily. The Labor Arbiter held that as formatters, petitioners occupied
jobs that were necessary, desirable and indispensable to the data processing
and encoding business and should be considered regular employees who
were entitled to security of tenure. NLRC, on appeal, reversed finding that
petitioners were not regular employees but fixed-term employees as
stipulated in their contracts. CA affirmed the NLRC ruling. Issue: Whether or
not petitioners were illegally dismissed - YES Held/Ratio: This issue is
ultimately dependent on the question of whether petitioners were hired by
Innodata under valid fixed-term employment contracts. The Court found that
there were no valid fixed-term employment contracts, and petitioners were
regular employees of Innodata who could not dismiss them except for just or
authorized cause. The employment status of a person is defined and
prescribed by law and not by what the parties say it should be. Based on Art.
280, the following employees are accorded regular status: (1) those who are
engaged to perform activities which are necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer, regardless of the length of their
employment; and (2) those who were initially hired as casual employees, but
have rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken,
with respect to the activity in which they are employed. Petitioners belong to
the first type. The applicable test to determine whether an employment
ntracts themselves state that the petitioners were employed on February 17,
1999. However, respondents asserted before the Labor Arbiter that the
contracts were effective only on September 6, 1999. While they submitted
employment contracts with September 6, 1999 as beginning of date of
effectivity, in one of them, the original date, February 16, 1999,w as merely
crossed out and replaced with September 6. The alterations were very
obvious and have not initialed by the petitioners to indicate their assent to
the same. If the contracts were truly fixed-term contracts, then a change in
the term or period agreed upon is material and would already constitute a
novation of the original contract. Innodata further contends that petitioners
were project employees whose employment ceased at the end of the specific
project or undertaking. This is devoid of merit. In Philex Mining Corp v. NLRC,
project employees are those hired: (1) for a specific project or undertaking,
andwherein (2) the completion or termination of such project has been
FACTS:
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint on the ground that the
private respondents were mere contractual workers, and not regular
employees; hence, they could not avail of the law on security of
tenure. The private respondents appealed from the decision to the NLRC
which affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision. On private respondents
motion for reconsideration, the NLRC rendered another decision on
30 January 1995 vacating and setting aside its earlier decision and
held that the private respondents and their co-complainants were
Ruling:
The five-month period specified in private respondents employment
contract is invalid. In
the leading case of Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora, although the Court has
upheld the legality of fixed-term employment, the Court also held that
where from the circumstances it is apparent that the periods have
been imposed to preclude acquisition of tenurial security by the
employee, they should be struck down or disregarded as contrary to
public policy and morals.
Brent also laid down the criteria under which term employment
cannot be said to be in circumvention of the law on security of
tenure: 1) The fixed period of employment was knowingly and
None of these criteria had been met in the present case. It could
not be supposed that private respondents and all other so-called casual
workers of [the petitioner] KNOWINGLY and VOLUNTARILY agreed to the 5month employment contract.
The petitioner does not deny or rebut private respondents' averments (1)
that the main bulk of its workforce consisted of its so-called casual
employees; (2) that as of July 1991, casual workers numbered 1,835; and
regular employees, 263; (3) that the company hired casual every month
for the duration of five months, after which their services were terminated
and they were replaced by other casual employees on the same fivemonth duration; and (4) that these casual employees were actually doing
work that were necessary and desirable in petitioners usual business.
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. 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. 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.
The NLRC was correct in finding that the private respondents were
regular employees and that they were illegally dismissed from their
jobs. Under Article 279 of the Labor Code and the recent jurisprudence, the
legal consequence of illegal dismissal is reinstatement without loss
of seniority rights and other privileges, with full back wages
computed from the time of dismissal up to the time of actual
reinstatement, without deducting the earnings derived elsewhere
pending the resolution of the case.
However, since reinstatement is no longer possible because the
petitioner's tuna cannery plant had, admittedly, been closed in November
1994, the proper award is separation pay equivalent to one 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.