BETA ELECTRIC CORP. vs.

NLRC
182 SCRA 384
February 15, 1990

FACTS:
The petitioner hired the private respondent as clerk typist III effective December 15,
1986 until January 16, 1987 and was subsequently rehired on January 16, 1987 up to
February 15, 1987. On that said date, it gave her another extension up to March 15,
1987. On March 15, 1987, it gave her a further extension until April 30, 1987. On May 1,
1987, she was given until May 31, 1987. On June 1, 1987, she was given up to June 30,
1987. Her appointments were covered by corresponding written contracts.

On June 22, 1987, her services were terminated without notice or investigation. On the
same day, she went to the LA on a complaint for illegal dismissal. As the court has
indicated, both the labor arbiter and the respondent NLRC ruled for her.

The petitioner argues mainly that the private respondents appointment was temporary
and hence, she may be terminated at will.

ISSUE:
Whether or not private respondent is a temporary employee.

HELD:
NO. The private respondent was to all intents and purposes, and at the very least, a
probationary employee, who became regular upon the expiration of six months.

Under Art. 281 of the Labor Code, a probationary employee is considered a regular
employee if he has been allowed to work after the probationary period. The fact that
her employment has been a contract-to-contract basis cannot alter the character of
employment, because contracts cannot override the mandate of law. Hence, by
operation of law, she has become a regular employee.

In the case at bar, the private employee was employed from December 15, 1986 until
June 22, 1987 when she was ordered laid off. Her tenure having exceeded six months,
she attained regular employment.
 UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORP. vs. CATAPANG
473 SCRA 189
October 14, 2005

FACTS:
Petitioner Randy Gregorio is the manager of the petitioner companys duck farm in
Calauan, Laguna. The individual respondents were hired on various dates from 1991 to
1993 to work at its duck farm. They were hired under an employment contract, which
provided for a five-month period. After the expiration of the employment contracts, the
company would renew and re-employ them. This practice continued until 1996, when the
petitioners informed the respondents that they were no longer renewing their
employment contracts.

Respondents filed separate complaints for illegal dismissal, reinstatement, backwages,

damages and attorneys fees against the petitioners. The complaints were consolidated.

The LA was in favor of the respondents in that they were illegally dismissed. Petitioners
filed an Appeal Memorandum with the NLRC in that respondents are not regular
employees. Respondents then filed a Motion for Enforcement of Reinstatement Order
with the LA. The LA issued a Write of Execution enforcing the immediate reinstatement.
Petitioners manifested that they can reinstate only 17 out of the 30 employees in view of
the phase out of the companys Agricultural Section. Respondents urged the LA to order
their physical payroll reinstatement and to cite the petitioners in contempt.

Petitioners filed a Memorandum and Notice of Appeal with Prayer for the Issuance of a
TRO with the NLRC. The NLRC affirmed the decision of the LA. Petitioners then filed a
petition for certiorari with the CA and the CA denied the same.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondents are regular employees.

HELD:
YES. The primary standard of determining regular employment is the reasonable
connection between the particular activity performed by the employees in relation to the
usual trade or business of the employer.

Test in determining whether one is a regular employee: The primary standard 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.
Petitioners act of repeatedly hiring private respondents negates their contention that
private respondents were hired for a specific project or undertaking only.
 MARAGUINOT vs. NLRC
284 SCRA 539
January 22, 1998

FACTS:
Alejandro Maraguinot (Maraguinot) alleges that he was employed by Viva Films (Viva)
as part of the filming crew. He was later designated as Assistant Electrician and then
later promoted to Electrician.

Paulinmo Enero (Enero) likewise claims that Viva hired him as a member of the shooting
crew. Maraguinot and Eneros tasks consisted of loading, unloading and arranging
movie equipment in the shooting area.

They later asked the company that their salaries be adjusted in accordance with the
minimum wage law. In response, the company said that they would grant the adjustment
provided they signed a blank employment contract. When they refused, they were forced
to go on leave. Upon his return, the company refused to take Enero back. As regards
Maraguinot, he was dropped from the company payroll, but was later returned. When
again he refused to sign the blank contract, his services were terminated.

Maraguinot and Enero then sued for illegal dismissal.

VIVA CLAIMS that they contract persons called producers/assistant producers to

make movies and contend that Maraguinot and Enero are project employees of these
producers who act as independent contractors. Hence there is no employer-employee
relationship between them. In addition, Viva claims that Maraguinot was hired for the
movie Mahirap Maging Pogi, while Enero was hired for the movie Sigaw ng Puso.

LABOR ARBITER: ruled in favor of Maraguinot and Enero and held that they were
employees of Viva and as such were illegally dismissed by the latter.
NLRC: reversed the LA and ruled that the circumstances of the case showed that they
were only project employees of Viva.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Maraguinot and Enero are employees of VIVA.

HELD:
YES. They were regular employees.

While Maraguinot and Enero were possibly initially hired as project employees, they had
attained the status of regular employees.

A project employee or a member of a work pool may acquire the status of a

regular employee when the ff. concur:
There is a continuous rehiring of project employees even after cessation of the
project.
The tasks performed are vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business
or trade of the employer.
The length of time during which the employee was continuously rehired is not controlling,
but merely serves as a badge of regular employment.

In this case, Enero was employed for 2 years and engaged in at least 18 projects; while
Maragunot was employed for 3 years and worked on at least 23 projects.

Citing Lao vs. NLRC, the could held that a work pool may exist although the workers in
the pool do not receive salaries and are free to seek other employment during temporary
breaks in the business, provided that the workers shall be available when called to report
for a project. Although primarily applicable to regular seasonal workers, this setup can
likewise be applied to project workers in so far as the effect of temporary cessation of
work is concerned.

Once a project or work pool employee has been (a) continuously, as opposed to
intermittently, rehired by the same employer for the same tasks or nature of tasks;
(b) these tasks are vital, necessary, and indispensable to the usual business or
trade of the employer, then the employee must be deemed a regular employee,
pursuant to Article 280 of the Labor Code and jurisprudence.

As Maraguinot and Enero have already gained the status of regular employees, their
dismissal was unwarranted since the cause invoked for their dismissal (completion of the
project) is not one of the valid causes for termination under Article 282 of the Labor
Code.
 ABESCO CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. vs. RAMIREZ
487 SCRA 9
April 10, 2006

FACTS:
Petitioner company was engaged in a construction business where respondents were
hired on different dates from 1976 to 1992 either as laborers, road roller operators,
painters or drivers.

In 1997, respondents filed two separate complaints for illegal dismissal against the
company and its General Manager, Oscar Banzon, before the Labor Arbiter. Petitioners
allegedly dismissed them without a valid reason and without due process of law. The
complaints also included claims for non-payment of the 13th month pay, five days
service incentive leave pay, premium pay for holidays and rest days, and moral and
exemplary damages. The LA later on ordered the consolidation of the two complaints.

The LA declared that respondents were regular employees because they belonged to a
work pool from which the company drew workers for assignment to different projects, at
its discretion. The NLRC affirmed the decision of the LA. Petitioners filed a motion for
reconsideration but the same was denied by the CA.

Petitioners denied liability to respondents and countered that respondents were project
employees since their services were necessary only when the company had projects to
be completed. Petitioners argued that, being project employees, respondents
employment was coterminous with the project to which they were assigned. They were
not regular employees who enjoyed security of tenure and entitlement to separation pay
upon termination from work.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondents were project employees or regular employees.

HELD:
The Supreme Court held that respondents were regular employees.

The principal test for determining whether employees are project employees or regular
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. Such duration, as well as the particular work or service to be performed, is
defined in an employment agreement and is made clear to the employees at the time of
hiring.

In this case, petitioners did not have that kind of agreement with respondents. Neither
did they inform respondents of the nature of the latters work at the time of hiring. Hence,
for failure of petitioners to substantiate their claim that respondents were project
employees, we are constrained to declare them as regular employees.

Petition is denied.
 ALU-TUCP vs. NLRC
234 SCRA 678
August 2, 1994

FACTS:
Petitioners as employees of private respondent National Steel Corp. (NSC), filed
separate complaints for unfair labor practice, regularization and monetization benefits
with the NLRC, Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch XII, Iligan City. The complaints were
consolidated and after hearing, the LA declared petitioners regular project employees
who shall continue their employment as such for as long as such project activity exists,
but entitled to the salary of a regular employee pursuant to the provisions in the
collective bargaining agreement. It also ordered payment of salary differentials.

The NLRC in its questioned resolutions modified the LAs decision. It affirmed the LAs
holding that petitioners were project employees since they were hired to perform work in
a specific undertaking the Five Years Expansion Program, the completion of which had
been determined at the time of their engagement and which operation was not directly
related to the business of steel manufacturing. The NLRC, however, set aside the award
to petitioners of the same benefits enjoyed by regular employees for lack of legal and
factual basis.

The law on the matter is Art. 280 of the Labor Code, where the petitioners argue that
they are regular employees of NSC because:
1. Their jobs are necessary, desirable and work-related to private respondents
main business, steel-making;
2. They have rendered service for 6 or more years to private respondent NSC.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners are considered permanent employees or project
employees.

HELD:
NO, they are not permanent employees. Petition for Certiorari dismissed for lack of
merit. NLRC Resolutions affirmed.

However, contrary to petitioners apprehensions, 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.

On the claim that petitioners service to NSC of more than 6 years should qualify them
as regular employees, the SC believed this claim is without legal basis. The simple fact
that the employment of petitioners as project employees had gone beyond 1 year, does
not detract from, or legally dissolve, their status as project employees. The second
paragraph of Art. 280 of the Labor Code, providing that an employee who has served for
at least 1 year, shall be considered a regular employee, relates to casual employees, not
to project employees.