qLaborstandardsLaborStan

dardsLaborStandardsLabor
Labor Standards
Employee Status
standardsLaborStandardsL
aborStandardsLaborstanda
rdsLaborStandardsLaborSt
andardsLaborstandardsLab
orStandardsLaborStandard
sLaborstandardsLaborStan
dardsLaborStandardsLabor
standardsLaborStandardsL
aborStandardsLaborstanda
rdsLaborStandardsLaborSt
Aimee Bernadette B. Quiones
Saturday 3-6PM
Labor Arbiter Natividad Roma

Name of the Parties

Case no.
Date

Petitioner:
KIMBERLY
INDEPENDENT
LABOR UNION FOR
SOLIDARITY,
ACTIVISM AND
NATIONALISMORGANIZED LABOR
ASSOCIATION IN
LINE INDUSTRIES
AND AGRICULTURE
(KILUSAN-OLALIA),
ROQUE JIMENEZ,
MARIO C.
RONGALEROS and
OTHERS
Respondent:
HON. FRANKLIN M.
DRILON, KIMBERLYCLARK
PHILIPPINES, INC.,
RODOLFO
POLOTAN, doing
business under the
firm name "Rank
Manpower Co." and
UNITED KIMBERLYCLARK EMPLOYEES

What is the
Business of the
Respondents
Company?

What is the nature

of work of the
workers/employee?

What type of
employee is the
petioner/respondent
? (Reason)

The CBA
between
Kimberly-Clark
Philippines, Inc.
and United
Kimberly-Clark
Employees
Union-Philippine
Transport and
General Workers'
Organization
(UKCEU-PTGWO)
expired June 30,
1986.

Within the 60-day

freedom period prior
to the expiration of
and during the
negotiations for the
renewal of the
aforementioned CBA,
some members of the
bargaining unit
formed another union
called "Kimberly
Independent Labor
Union for
Solidarity, Activism
and NationalismOrganized Labor
Association in Line
Industries
and Agriculture
(KILUSAN-OLALIA)

They are regular

employees.
The law thus provides
for 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 individual
petitioners herein who
have been adjudged to
be regular employees
fall under the second
category. These are
the mechanics,
electricians, machinists
machine shop helpers,

Ruling of the Supreme Court

To rule otherwise, and to instead

make their regularization
dependent on the happening of
some contingency or the
fulfilment of certain requirements,
is to impose a burden on the
employee which is not sanctioned
by law.
That the first stated position is the
situation contemplated and
sanctioned by law is further
enhanced by the absence of a
statutory limitation before regular
status can be acquired by a
casual employee. The law is
explicit. As long as the employee
has rendered at least one year of
service, he becomes a regular
employee with respect to the
activity in which he is employed.
The law does not provide the
qualification that the employee
must first be issued
a regular appointment or must
first be formally declared as such
before he can acquire a regular
status. Obviously, where the law
does not distinguish, no
distinction should be drawn.

warehouse helpers,
painters, carpenters,
pipefitters and
masons. It is not
disputed that these
workers have been in
the employ of
KIMBERLY for more
than one year at the
time of the filing of the
Petition for certification
election by KILUSANOLALIA.

UNION-PHILLIPPINE
TRANSPORT AND
GENERAL WORKERS
ORGANIZATION
(UKCEU-PTGWO)
Case No:
NS-5-164-86
Date:

Name of the Parties

Case no.
Date

What is the
Business of the
Respondents
Company?

Petitioner:
POSEIDON
FISHING/TERRY DE
JESUS

Petitioner
Poseidon Fishing
is
a
fishing
company
engaged in the
deep-sea fishing
industry.
Its
various vessels
catch fish in the
outlying islands
of
the
Philippines,
which are traded
and sold at the

Respondent:
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION and
JIMMY S. ESTOQUIA
Case No:
CA-G.R. SP No.
81140

On the basis of the foregoing

circumstances, and as a
consequence of their status as
regular employees, those workers
not perforce janitorial and yard
maintenance service were
performance entitled to the
payment of salary differential,
cost of living allowance, 13th
month pay, and such other
benefits extended to regular
employees under the CBA, from
the day immediately following
their first year of service in the
company.

What is the nature

of work of the
workers/employee?

What type of
employee is the
petioner/respondent
? (Reason)

Ruling of the Supreme Court

Private respondent
was employed by
Poseidon Fishing in
January 1988 as Chief
Mate. After five years,
he was promoted to
Boat Captain. In
1999, petitioners,
without reason,
demoted respondent
from Boat Captain to
Radio Operator of
petitioner Poseidon.

REGULAR
EMPLOYEE. Asserting
their right to terminate
the
contract
with
private respondent per
the "Kasunduan" with
him,
petitioners
pointed
to
the
provision
thereof
stating that he was
being employed only
on a por viaje basis
and
that
his
employment would be
terminated at the end

In the case under consideration,

the agreement has such an
objective - to frustrate the
security of tenure of private
respondent- and fittingly, must be
nullified. In this case, petitioners
intent to evade the application of
Article 280 of the Labor Code is
unmistakable. In a span of 12
years, private respondent worked
for petitioner company first as a
Chief Mate, then Boat Captain,
and later as Radio Operator. His
job was directly related to the
deep-sea fishing business of

Date:
February 20, 2006

Name of the Parties

Case no.
Date

Navotas
Fish
Port. One of its
boat crew was
private
respondent
Jimmy
S.
Estoquia.
Petitioner Terry
de Jesus is the
manager
of
petitioner
company.

of the trip for which he

was being hired.

What is the
Business of the
Petitioner/
Respondents
Company?

What is the nature

of work of the
workers/employee?

What type of
employee is the
petioner/respondent
? (Reason)

Business of trading

David Empeynado was

He is a regular

petitioner Poseidon. His work was,

therefore, necessary and
important to the business of his
employer. Such being the scenario
involved, private respondent is
considered a regular employee of
petitioner under Article 280 of the
Labor Code.
Furthermore, as petitioners
themselves admitted in their
petition before this Court, private
respondent was repeatedly hired
as part of the boats crew and he
acted in various capacities
onboard the vessel.
In fine, inasmuch as private
respondents functions as
described above are no doubt
"usually necessary or desirable in
the usual business or trade" of
petitioner fishing company and he
was hired continuously for 12
years for the same nature of
tasks, we are constrained to say
that he belongs to the ilk of
regular employee.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The primary standard, therefore,

Petitioner:
HIGHWAY COPRA
TRADERS and/or
GERSON DULANG
(owneroperator)/LUZVIMIN
DA DULANG
Respondent:
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION Cagayan de Oro,
and DAVID
EMPEYNADO
Case No:
G.R. No. 108889
Date:
July 30, 1998

copra and
charcoal.

employed as a general
utility man by petitioners
in their business of
trading copra and
charcoal with a daily
wage of P35.00. Private
respondents work
consisted of weighing
copra or charcoal,
bagging copra for
loading and ascertaining
the moisture content
thereof. He was likewise
a multi-purpose
handyman since he
worked as a driver of
petitioners trucks, a
mechanic and a
messenger to follow-up
petitioners contracts
with other companies, to
register their vehicles, to
pay their taxes, and to
collect and receive
payments in their behalf.

employee pursuant to
the first paragraph of
Article 280 of the
Labor Code

of determining a regular
employment is the reasonable
connection between the particular
activity performed by the
employee in relation to the usual
business or trade of the employer,
i.e. if the work is usually
necessary or desirable in the
usual business or trade of the
employer. The connection can be
determined by considering the
nature of the work performed and
its relation to the scheme of the
particular business or trade in its
entirety.
The factual milieu of this case
undisputably shows that private
respondent was a regular
employee of petitioners copra
business. Article 280 of the Labor
Code[5] describes a regular
employee as one who is either (1)
engaged to perform activities
which are necessary or desirable
in the usual business or trade of
the employer; and (2) those
casual employees who have
rendered at least one year of
service, whether continuous or
broken, with respect to the
activity in which he is employed.
Complainant David Empeynado a
regular employee and his
termination from the service held

as illegal

Name of the Parties

Case no.
Date

Petitioner:
ALU-TUCP,
Representing
Members: ALAN
BARINQUE, with 13
others, namely:
ENGR. ALAN G.
BARINQUE, ENGR.
DARRELL LEE
ELTAGONDE,
EDUARD H.
FOOKSON, JR.,
ROMEO R. SARONA,
RUSSELL GACUS,
JERRY BONTILAO,
EUSEBIO MARIN,
JR., LEONIDO
ECHAVEZ,
BONIFACIO MEJOS,
EDGAR S.
BONTUYAN, JOSE G.
GARGUENA, JR.,
OSIAS B.
DANDASAN, and
GERRY I. FETALVER
Respondent:

What is the
Business of the
Respondents
Company?

What is the nature

of work of the
workers/employee?

What type of
employee is the
petioner/respondent
? (Reason)

Ruling of the Supreme Court

Producer of
billets, the raw
materials for
rebars and wire
rods, NSC was
the dominant
flat-rolled
producer in the
Philippines and
was the
countrys only
tinplate producer

National Steel
Corporation (NSC)
employed petitioners
in connection with its
Five Year Expansion
Program. It undertook
this program with the
end in view of
expanding the
volume and
increasing the kinds
of products that it
may offer for sale to
the public.

Petitioners were
properly characterized
as project
employees. A project
employee is assigned
to carry out a specific
project or undertaking
wherein the duration
and scope of such is
determined at the time
the employee was
engaged for that
project.

The case at bar falls on the

second type of project activity.
The carrying out of the Five Year
Expansion Program constitutes a
distinct undertaking identifiable
from the ordinary business and
activity of NSC. Each component
project, of course, begins and
ends at specified times which had
already been determined by the
time petitioners were engaged.
During the time petitioners
rendered services to NSC, their
work was limited to one or
another of the specific component
projects which made up the Five
Year Expansion Program. They
were not hired or assigned to any
other purpose.
The services of these project employees may be
lawfully terminated at the completion of the project.
It is dependent and coterminous with the completion
or termination of the specific undertaking or activity
for which the employee was hired which has been
pre-determined at the time of the engagement.
Furthermore, the length of service of a project
employee is not the controlling test of employment
of tenure. The simple fact that the employment of
petitioners as project employees had gone beyond
one year does not detract from or legally dissolve

NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION and
NATIONAL STEEL
CORPORATION
(NSC)

their status as project employees. Whichever type of

project employment is found in a particular case, a
common basic requisite is that the designation of
named employees as "project employees" and their
assignment to a specific project, are effected and
implemented in good faith, and not merely as a
means of evading otherwise applicable
requirements of labor laws.

Case No:
G.R. No. 109902
Date:
August 2, 1994

Name of the
Parties
Case no.
Date

Petitioner:
TOMAS LAO
CONSTRUCTION,
LVM
CONSTRUCTION
CORPORATION,
THOMAS and JAMES
DEVELOPERS
(PHIL.), INC.
Respondent:
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS

What is the
Business of
the
Respondents
Company?

What is the nature

of work of the
workers/employee?

What type of
employee is the
petioner/respondent
? (Reason)

Ruling of the Supreme Court

Tomas Lao
Corporation
(TLC), Thomas
and James
Developers (T&J)
and LVM
Construction
Corporation
(LVM),
altogether
informally
referred to as
the Lao Group
of Companies,

They were hired for

various periods as
construction workers in
different capacities
they described their
contractual terms as
follows: (a) Roberto
Labendia, general
construction foreman,
Narciso Adan, tireman,
(c) Florencio Gomez,
welder,(d) Ernesto
Bagatsolon
leadman/checker,(e)

REGULAR EMPLOYEES.

While it may be allowed that in

the instant case the workers
were initially hired for specific
projects or undertakings of the
company and hence can be
classified as project employees,
the repeated re-hiring and the
continuing need for their services
over a long span of time (the
shortest, at seven [7] years)
have undeniably made them
regular employees. Thus, we
held that where the employment
of project employees is extended

The principal test in

determining whether
particular employees are
project employees
distinguished from
regular employees is
whether the project
employees are assigned
to carry out specific
project or undertaking,
the duration (and scope)
of which are specified at

COMMISSION,
MARIO O.
LABENDIA, SR.,
ROBERTO
LABENDIA,
NARCISO ADAN,
FLORENCIO GOMEZ,
ERNESTO
BAGATSOLON,
SALVADOR BABON,
PATERNO BISNAR,
CIPRIANO
BERNALES, ANGEL
MABULAY, SR., LEO
SURIGAO, and
ROQUE MORILLO
Case No:
G.R. No. 116781

long after the supposed project

has been finished, the employees
are removed from the scope of
project employees and
considered regular employees.
the three (3)
entities
comprising a
business
conglomerate
exclusively
controlled and
managed by
members of the
Lao family.
TLC, T&J and
LVM are
engaged in the
construction of
public roads and
bridges.

Salvador Babon,
clerk/timekeeper/paym
aster, (f) Paterno
Bisnar, road grader
operator, (g) Cipriano
Bernales, instrument
man, (h) Angel
Mabulay, Sr., dump
truck driver (I) Leo
Surigao, payloader
operator (J) Mario
Labendia, Sr.
surveyor/foreman (k)
Roque Morillo,
company watchman,

the time the employees

are engaged for the
project. Project in the
realm of business and
industry refers to a
particular job or
undertaking that is within
the regular or usual
business of employer, but
which is distinct and
separate and identifiable
as such from the
undertakings of the
company. Such job or
undertaking begins and
ends at determined or
determinable times

Date:
September 5, 1997

Name of the Parties

Case no.
Date

Petitioner:
ABESCO

What is the
Business of the
Respondents
Company?

What is the nature

of work of the
workers/employee?

What type of
employee is the
petioner/respondent
? (Reason)

ABESCO
CONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPMENT

Respondents were
hired on different
dates from 1976 to

Respondents are
regular employees.
Duration as well as

While length of time may not be

a controlling test for project
employment, it can be a strong
factor in determining whether the
employee was hired for a specific
undertaking or in fact tasked to
perform functions which are vital,
necessary and indispensable to
the usual business or trade of the
employer. In the case at bar,
private respondents had already
gone through the status of
project employees. But their
employments became noncoterminous with specific
projects when they started to be
continuously re-hired due to the
demands of petitioners business
and were re-engaged for many
more projects without
interruption.
Ruling of the Supreme Court

The principal test for determining

whether employees are project
employees or regular

CONSTRUCTION
AND
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
and MR. OSCAR
BANZON,
General Manager
Respondent:
ALBERTO RAMIREZ,
BERNARDO
DIWA, MANUEL
LOYOLA,
REYNALDO P.
ACODESIN,
ALEXANDER
BAUTISTA,
EDGAR TAJONERA
and
GARY DISON
Case No:
G.R. No. 141168
Date:
April 10, 2006

CORPORATION is a
company engaged in a
construction business

1992 either as
laborers, road roller
operators, painters or
drivers

particular work/service
to be performed must
be defined in an
Employment
Agreement and is
made clear to the
employees at the time
of hiring.

employees is whether they are

assigned to carry out a specific
project or undertaking, the
duration and scope of which are
specified at the time they are
engaged for that project.[10] Such
duration, as well as the particular
work/service to be performed, is
defined in an employment
agreement and is made clear to
the employees at the time of
hiring.
Petitioners failed to comply with
this requirement. Petitioners
inconsistent and conflicting
position on their true relation with
the respondents made it all the
more evident that the latter were
indeed their regular employees.
Petitioner failed to adhere the
two-notice rule: (1) a notice
informing them of the particular
acts for which they are being
dismissed and; (2) a notice
advising them of the decision to
terminate the employment.
Respondents were never given
such notices. Petition is denied.

Name of the Parties

Case no.
Date

Petitioner:
BRENT SCHOOL,
INC., and REV.
GABRIEL DIMACHE
Respondent:
RONALDO ZAMORA,
the Presidential
Assistant for Legal
Affairs, Office of the
President, and
DOROTEO R.
ALEGRE,
Case No:
G.R. No. L-48494
Date:
February 5, 1990

What is the
Business of the
Respondents
Company?

What is the nature

of work of the
workers/employee?

What type of
employee is the
petioner/respondent
? (Reason)

Ruling of the Supreme Court

Brent
Schoolinternatio
nal school.

Private respondent
Doroteo R. Alegre was
engaged as athletic
director by petitioner
Brent School, Inc. at a
yearly compensation
of P20,000.00. The
contract fixed a
specific term for its
existence, five (5)
years, i.e., from July
18, 1971, the date of
execution of the
agreement, to July
17, 1976.

Probationary
employmee
Probationary
employment shall not
exceed six months
from the date the
employee started
working, unless it is
covered by an
apprenticeship
agreement stipulating
a longer period. The
services of an
employee who has
been engaged in a
probationary basis
may be terminated for
a just cause or when
he fails to qualify as a
regular employee in
accordance with
reasonable standards
made known by the
employer to the
employee at the time
of his engagement. An
employee who is
allowed to work after a
probationary period
shall be considered a
regular employee.

the Supreme Court laid out that

Article 280 of the Labor Code
appears to prevent circumvention
of the employees right to be
secure in his tenure, the clause in
said article indiscriminately and
completely ruling out all written or
oral agreements conflicting with
the concept of regular
employment as defined therein
should be construed to refer to
the substantive evil that the Code
itself has singled out: agreements
entered into precisely to
circumvent security of tenure. It
should have no application to
instances where a fixed period of
employment 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 or less equal terms with
no moral dominance whatever
being exercised by the former
over the latter.

Alegre's employment was

terminated upon the expiration of
his last contract with Brent School
on July 16, 1976 without the
necessity of any notice. In any
case, such clearance should
properly have been given, not
denied.

Name of the Parties

Case no.
Date

Petitioner:
PURE FOODS
CORPORATION
Respondent:
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION,
RODOLFO
CORDOVA, VIOLETA
CRUSIS, ET AL.
Case No:
RAB-11-08-5028491
Date:
December 12, 1997

What is the
Business of the
Respondents
Company?

What is the nature

of work of the
workers/employee?

What type of
employee is the
petitioner/responde
nt? (Reason)

Ruling of the Supreme Court

Company
dealing with the
exportation and
selling of tuna
fish, meats etc.

The private
respondents
(numbering 906)
were hired by
petitioner Pure Foods
Corporation to work
for a fixed period of
five months at its
tuna cannery plant in
Tambler, General
Santos City.

REGULAR EMPLOYEE
Contrary to petitioner's
submission, the private
respondents could not
be regarded as having
been hired for a
specific project or
undertaking. 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

ART. 280. Regular and Casual

Employment.-- The provisions of
written agreement to the contrary
notwithstanding and regardless of
the oral argument of the parties, an
employment shall be deemed to be
regular where the employee has
been engaged to perform activities
which are usually necessary or
desirable in the usual business or
trade of the employer, except
where the employment has been
fixed for a specific project or
undertaking the completion or
termination of which has been
determined at the time of the
engagement of the employee or
where the work or services to be
performed is seasonal in nature and

the private
respondents'
activities consisted in
the receiving,
skinning, loining,
packing, and casingup of tuna fish which

were then exported

by the petitioner

Name of the Parties

Case no.
Date

Petitioner:
PHILEX MINING
CORPORATION
Respondent:

a specific duration of
time or until
completion; the
services employed are
then necessary and
desirable in the
employers usual
business only for the
period of time it takes
to complete the
project.

the employment is for the duration

of the season.
An employment shall be deemed to
be casual if it is not covered by the
preceding paragraph; Provided,
That, any employee who has
rendered at least one year of
service, whether such service is
continuous or broken, shall be
considered a regular employee with
respect to the activity in which he is
employed and his employment shall
continue while such activity exists.
In the instant case, the private
respondents activities consisted in
the receiving, skinning, loining,
packing, and casing-up of tuna fish
which were then exported by the
petitioner. Indisputably, they were
performing activities which were
necessary and desirable in
petitioners business or trade.

What is the
Business of the
Respondents
Company?

What is the nature

of work of the
workers/employee?

What type of
employee is the
petioner/respondent
? (Reason)

Ruling of the Supreme Court

Philex Mining
Corporation and
its subsidiaries
are organized
into two main
business

Private respondents
Rosella Austria and
Lina Tamondong, both
licensed chemical
engineers, alleged
that they undertook

Regular Employees.
Private respondents
functions as described
above are no doubt
usually necessary or
desirable in the usual

Project employees are those

workers hired (1) for a specific
project or undertaking, and (2)
the completion or termination of
such project has been determined
at the time of the engagement of

NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION,
ROSELLA AUSTRIA,
LINA TAMONDONG,
CORNELIO BORJA,
JR. and GERALD
DELA CRUZ
Case No:
G.R. No. 125132
Date:
August 10, 1999

groupings: the
metals business
under Philex
Mining and the
energy and
hydrocarbon
business under
Philex Petroleum
Corporation

training at the
Assay/Metallurgical
Department of Philex
Mining Corporation
from October 1987 to
March 1988. After
completing their
training, both Austria
and Tamondong were
supposedly hired by
petitioner in June
1988 as Geochemical
Aides, performing the
regular duties of the
Atomic Absorption
Spectometer (AAS)
technicians. Private
respondents Cornelio
Borja, an Electrical
Technician graduate,
and Gerald dela Cruz,
a licensed Mechanical
Engineer, on the
other hand, claimed
that they were hired
by petitioner on
January 24 and 25,
1989, respectively.
Borja and dela Cruz
were assigned to
work in petitioners
Metallurgical
Department.

business or trade of
petitioner-mining
company.
Consequently, the
NLRC should not have
denied private
respondents claim to
rights and benefits
attached to such
status pursuant to
petitioners collective
bargaining agreement.

the employee.The principal test

for determining whether particular
employees as project
employees as distinguished from
regular employees, is whether
or not the project employees
were assigned to carry out a
specific project or undertaking,
the duration and scope of which
were specified at the time the
employees were engaged for that
project.In this case, petitioner has
not shown that private
respondents were informed that
they were to be assigned to a
specific project or undertaking.
Neither has it been established
that they were informed of the
duration and scope of such project
or undertaking at the time of their
engagement, that is, on June 1988
on the part of Austria and
Tamondong, and on January 1989
in the case of Borja and de la
Cruz. Private respondents were
informed thereof only much later
on April 1989.

Name of the Parties

Case no.
Date

Petitioner:
PHILIPPINE FRUIT &
VEGETABLE
INDUSTRIES, INC.
and its President
and General
Manager, MR.
PEDRO CASTILLO
Respondent:
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION, and
Philippine Fruit and
Vegetable Workers
Union-Tupas Local
Chapter
Case No:
G.R. No. 122122
Date:
July 20, 1999

What is the
Business of the
Respondents
Company?

What is the nature

of work of the
workers/employee?

What type of
employee is the
petioner/respondent
? (Reason)

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The respondent
company which
is engaged in the
manufacture and
processing of
fruit and
vegetable purees
for export.

Complainants as
seeders, operators,
sorters, slicers,
janitors, drivers, truck
helpers, mechanics
and office personnel

The SC held that

private
respondents
are regular employees
because they have
been
engaged
to
perform
activities
which
are
usually
necessary or desirable
in the usual business
or
trade
of
the
employer, under the
1st par of Article 280.

In the case at bar, the work of

complainants as seeders,
operators, sorters, slicers,
janitors, drivers, truck helpers,
mechanics and office personnel is
without doubt necessary in the
usual business of a food
processing company like
petitioner PFVII.
It should be noted that
complainants' employment has
not been fixed for a specific
project or undertaking the
completion or termination of
which has been determined at the
time of their appointment or
hiring. Neither is their
employment seasonal in nature.
While it may be true that some
phases of petitioner company's
processing operations is
dependent on the supply of fruits
for a particular season, the other
equally important aspects of its
business, such as manufacturing
and marketing are not seasonal.
The fact is that large-scale food
processing companies such as
petitioner company continue to
operate and do business
throughout the year even if the

availability of fruits and

vegetables is seasonal.
Having determined that private
respondents are regular
employees under the first
paragraph, we need not dwell on
the question of whether or not
they had rendered one year of
service.

Name of the Parties

Case no.
Date

Petitioner:
Edwin Abasolo
Respondent:
NLRC
Case No:
G.R. No. 118475.
Date:
November 29, 2000

What is the
Business of the
Respondents
Company?

What is the nature

of work of the
workers/employee?

What type of
employee is the
petioner/respondent
? (Reason)

Ruling of the Supreme Court

Private respondent
La Union Tobacco
Redrying
Corporation
(LUTORCO), which
is owned by private
respondent See Lin
Chan, is engaged
in the business of
buying, selling,
redrying and
processing of
tobacco leaves and
its by-products.

Petitioners have been

under the employ of
LUTORCO for several
years until their
employment with
LUTORCO was
abruptly interrupted
sometime in March
1993 when Compania
General de Tabaccos
de Filipinas (also
known as
TABACALERA) took
over LUTORCOs
tobacco operations.
New signboards were
posted indicating a
change of ownership
and petitioners were

REGULAR EMPLOYEE
he nature of ones
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 employers nature
of business and the
duration and scope of
work to be done

In the case at bar, while it may

appear that the work of
petitioners is seasonal, inasmuch
as petitioners have served the
company for many years, some
for over 20 years, performing
services necessary and
indispensable to LUTORCOs
business, serve as badges of
regular employment.[27]
Moreover, the fact that petitioners
do not work continuously for one
whole year but only for the
duration of the tobacco season
does not detract from considering
them in regular employment since
in a litany of cases[28] this Court
has already settled that seasonal
workers who are called to work

then asked by
LUTORCO to file their
respective
applications for
employment with
TABACALERA.
Petitioners were
caught unaware of
the sudden change of
ownership and its
effect on the status of
their employment,
though it was alleged
that TABACALERA
would assume and
respect the seniority
rights of the
petitioners.

Name of the Parties

Case no.
Date

Petitioner:
FORTUNATO
MERCADO, SR.,
ROSA MERCADO,
FORTUNATO
MERCADO, JR.,
ANTONIO
MERCADO, JOSE
CABRAL, LUCIA
MERCADO,

What is the
Business of the
Respondents
Company?

from time to time and are

temporarily laid off during offseason are not separated from
service in said period, but are
merely considered on leave until
re-employed.
Private respondent La Union Tobacco
Redrying Corporation is ORDERED:
(a) to pay petitioners separation pay
equivalent to one (1) month, or onehalf (1/2) month pay for each year that
they rendered service, whichever is
higher, provided that they rendered
service for at least six (6) months in a
given year, and; (b) to pay ten percent
(10%) of the total amount due to
petitioners, as and for attorneys fees.

What is the nature

of work of the
workers/employee?

What type of
employee is the
petioner/respondent
? (Reason)

The nature of the

terms and conditions
of their hiring reveal
that they were
required to perform
phases of agricultural
work for a definite
period of time after
which their services
would be available to

SEASONAL EMPLOYEE
The first paragraph
answers the question
of who are employees.
It states that,
regardless of any
written or oral
agreement to the
contrary, an employee

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The general rule is that the office

of a proviso is to qualify or modify
only the phrase immediately
preceding it or restrain or limit the
generality of the clause that it
immediately follows. Thus, it has
been held that a proviso is to be
construed with reference to the
immediately preceding part of the
provision to which it is attached,

ASUNCION
GUEVARA, ANITA
MERCADO, MARINA
MERCADO, JULIANA
CABRAL,
GUADALUPE
PAGUIO, BRIGIDA
ALCANTARA,
EMERLITA
MERCADO, ROMEO
GUEVARA, ROMEO
MERCADO and
LEON SANTILLAN
Respondent:
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION
(NLRC), THIRD
DIVISION; LABOR
ARBITER LUCIANO
AQUINO, RAB-III;
AURORA L. CRUZ;
SPOUSES
FRANCISCO DE
BORJA and LETICIA
DE BORJA; and STO.
NIO REALTY,
INCORPORATED

is deemed regular
where he is engaged in
necessary or desirable
activities in the usual
business or trade of
the employer, except
for project employees.

any other farm owner.

Case No:
G.R. No. 79869
Date:
September 5, 1991
Name of the Parties

What is the Business

A project employee
has been defined to be
one whose
employment has been
fixed for a specific
project or undertaking,
the completion or
termination of which
has been determined
at the time of the
engagement of the
employee, or where
the work or service to
be performed is
seasonal in nature and
the employment is for
the duration of the
season as in the
present case.

What is the nature of

and not to the statute itself or to

other sections thereof. The only
exception to this rule is where the
clear legislative intent is to
restrain or qualify not only the
phrase immediately preceding it
(the proviso) but also earlier
provisions of the statute or even
the statute itself as a whole.
The second paragraph of Art. 280
demarcates as "casual"
employees, all other employees
who do not fan under the
definition of the preceding
paragraph. The proviso, in said
second paragraph, deems as
regular employees those "casual"
employees who have rendered at
least one year of service
regardless of the fact that such
service may be continuous or
broken.
Petitioners, in effect, contend that
the proviso in the second
paragraph of Art. 280 is applicable
to their case and that the Labor
Arbiter should have considered
them regular by virtue of said
proviso. The contention is without
merit.

What type of

Ruling of the

Case no.
Date

Petitioner:
INTERNATIONAL
CATHOLIC
MIGRATION
COMMISSION,
Respondent:
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION and
BERNADETTE
GALANG
Case No:
NLRC NCR-8-378683
Date:
January 30, 1989

of the Respondents
Company?
Petitioner
International
Catholic
Migration
Commission
(ICMC), a nonprofit
organization
dedicated to
refugee service
at the Philippine
Refugee
Processing
Center in
Morong, Bataan

work of the
workers/employee?

Probationary
cultural
orientation
teacher with a
monthly salary of
P2,000.00

employee is the
Supreme Court
petioner/respondent
? (Reason)
PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE Being in the nature of a "trial
There is no dispute that
period" the essence of a
private respondent was
probationary period of
terminated during her
employment fundamentally lies in
probationary
the purpose or objective sought to
period of employment for
be attained by both the employer
failure to qualify as a
and the employee during said
regular member of
period. The length of time is
petitioner's teaching staff
immaterial in determining the
in accordance
correlative rights of both in
with its reasonable
dealing with each other during
standards
said period. While the employer,
as stated earlier, observes the
A probationary employee,
fitness, propriety and efficiency of
as understood under
a probationer to ascertain
Article 282 (now Article
whether he is qualified for
281) of the Labor Code, is
permanent employment, the
one
probationer, on the other, seeks
who is on trial by an
to prove to the employer, that he
employer during which the has the qualifications to meet the
employer determines
reasonable standards for
whether or not he is
permanent employment.
qualified for permanent
It is well settled that the employer
employment. A
has the right or is at liberty to
probationary appointment
choose who will be hired and who
is made to afford the
will be denied employment. In
employer an opportunity
that sense, it is within the
to observe the fitness of a
exercise of the right to select his
probationer while at work,
employees that theemployer may
and to ascertain whether
set or fix a probationary period
he will become a proper
within which the latter may test
and efficient employee.
and observe the conduct of the
The word "probationary",
former before hiring him

permanently.
as used to describe the
period of employment,
implies the purpose of the
term or period, but not its
length.

Name of the Parties

Case no.
Date

Petitioner:
ESPERANZA C.
ESCORPIZO, and
UNIVERSITY OF
BAGUIO FACULTY
EDUCATION
WORKERS UNION
Respondent:
UNIVERSITY OF
BAGUIO and
VIRGILIO C.
BAUTISTA and
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION

Probationary employment shall

not exceed six months from
the date the employee started
working, unless it is covered by an
apprenticeship agreement
stipulating a longer period.

What is the
Business of the
Respondents
Company?

What is the nature

of work of the
workers/employee?

What type of
employee is the
petioner/respondent
? (Reason)

Ruling of the Supreme Court

University of
Baguio is a nonprofit
educational
institution

Petitioner Esperanza
Escorpizo was initially
hired by respondent
university on June 13,
1989 as a high school
classroom teacher.

Probationary Employee
A probationary
employee is one who,
for a given period of
time, is being observed
and evaluated to
determine whether or
not he is qualified for
permanent
employment. A
probationary
appointment affords
the employer an
opportunity to observe
the skill, competence
and attitude of a
probationer.

the rules of the university clearly

states that the first two years at
the University is probationary in
nature and the following
conditions must concur in order
that a probationary teacher may
be extended a regular
appointment; (1) the faculty
member must satisfactorily
complete the probationary period
of four semesters or two years,
within which his performance shall
be observed and evaluated for the
purpose of determining his
competency and fitness to be
extended permanent status; and
(2) the faculty member must pass
the PBET or an equivalent civil

service examination. Escorpizo

failed to meet the 2nd
requirement to be a regular
employee which is to pass the
PBET.
- Though the CBA does not
mention that passing the PBET is
a prerequisite for attaining
permanent status as a teacher.
Nevertheless, the aforecited CBA
provision must be read in
conjunction with statutory and
administrative regulations
governing faculty qualifications.It
is settled that an existing law
enters into and forms part of a
valid contract without the need
for the parties expressly making
reference to it. Further, while
contracting parties may establish
such stipulations, clauses, terms
and conditions as they may see
fit, such right to contract is
subject to limitation that the
agreement must not be contrary
to law or public policy.

Case No:
RAB - CAR - 070217-92
Date:
April 30, 1999

Name of the Parties

Case no.
Date

What is the
Business of the
Respondents
Company?

What is the nature

of work of the
workers/employee?

What type of
employee is the
petioner/respondent
? (Reason)

Family of food

Respondent Middleby

Probationary Employee

Ruling of the Supreme Court

In all cases of probationary

Petitioner:
RADIN C. ALCIRA
Respondent:
NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION,
MIDDLEBY
PHILIPPINES
CORPORATION/FRA
NK THOMAS,
XAVIER G. PEA
and TRIFONA F.
MAMARADLO
Case No:
G.R. No. 149859
Date:
June 9, 2004

service and food

preparation
equipment
brands

Philippines
Corporation hired
petitioner as
engineering support
services supervisor
on a probationary
basis for six months.

Section 6 (d) of Rule 1

of the Implementing
Rules of Book VI of the
Labor Code
(Department Order No.
10, Series of 1997)
provides that: In all
cases of probationary
employment, the
employer shall make
known to the
employee the
standards under which
he will qualify as a
regular employee at
the time of his
engagement.

employment, the employer shall

make known to the employee the
standards under which he will
qualify as a regular employee at
the time of his engagement.
Where no standards are made
known to the employee at that
time, he shall be deemed a
regular employee. We hold that
respondent Middle by
substantially notified petitioner of
the standards to qualify as a
regular employee when it
apprised him, at the start of his
employment, that it would
evaluate his supervisory skills
after five months. Conversely, an
employer is deemed to
substantially comply with the rule
on notification of standards if he
apprises the employee that he will
be subjected to a performance
evaluation on a particular date
after his hiring.
In the instant case, petitioner
cannot successfully say that he
was never informed by private
respondent of the standards that
he must satisfy in order to be
converted into regular status. It is
only but natural that the
evaluation should be made vis-vis the performance standards for
the job.