23. G.R. No.

172223: February 6, 2012

CANADIAN OPPORTUNITIES UNLIMITED, INC., vs. BART Q. DALANGIN, JR.,
BRION, J.:

DOCTRINE: The essence of a probationary period of employment fundamentally lies in

the purpose or objective of both the employer and the employee during the period.
While the employer observes the fitness, propriety and efficiency of a probationer to
ascertain whether he is qualified for permanent employment, the latter seeks to prove to
the former that he has the qualifications to meet the reasonable standards for
permanent employment.

FACTS: Dalangin was hired by the company in October 2001, as Immigration and Legal
Manager, with a monthly salary of P15,000.00. He was placed on probation for six months. He
was to report directly to the Chief Operations Officer, Annie Llamanzares Abad. His tasks
involved principally the review of the clients applications for immigration to Canada to ensure
that they are in accordance with Canadian and Philippine laws.

Through a memorandum signed by Abad, the company terminated Dalangins employment,

declaring him "unfit" and "unqualified" to continue as Immigration and Legal Manager. The
following are the reasons for Dalangins termination: Obstinacy and utter disregard of company
policies, Lack of concern for the company's interest despite having just been employed in the
company, lack of enthusiasm toward work, and lack of interest in fostering relationship with his
co-employees.

Labor Arbiter Eduardo G. Magno declared Dalangins dismissal illegal. On appeal, the NLRC
reversed the LA decision. Dalangin moved for reconsideration, but the NLRC denied the motion,
prompting him to go to the CA on a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

In its decision, the CA reversed the NLRC ruling. As the labor arbiter did, the CA found that the
company failed to support, with substantial evidence, its claim that Dalangin failed to meet the
standards to qualify as a regular employee.

The CA denied the company's subsequent motion for reconsideration in its. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not Dalangin is a probationary employee

RULING: In International Catholic Migration Commission v. NLRC, the Court explained that a
probationary employee, as understood under Article 281 of the Labor Code, is one who is on trial
by an employer, during which, the latter determines whether or not he is qualified for permanent
employment. A probationary appointment gives the employer an opportunity to observe the
fitness of a probationer while at work, and to ascertain whether he would be a proper and
efficient employee.

Dalangin was barely a month on the job when the company terminated his employment. He was
found wanting in qualities that would make him a "proper and efficient" employee or, as the
company put it, he was unfit and unqualified to continue as its Immigration and Legal Manager.
The fact that Dalangin was separated from the service after only about four weeks does
not necessarily mean that his separation from the service is without basis. Contrary to
the CA’s conclusions, we find substantial evidence indicating that the company was
justified in terminating Dalangin’s employment, however brief it had been. Time and
again, we have emphasized that substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Dalangin overlooks
the fact, wittingly or unwittingly, that he offered glimpses of his own behavior and
actuations during his four-week stay with the company; he betrayed his negative
attitude and regard for the company, his co-employees and his work.

We, therefore, disagree with the CA that the company could not have fully determined
Dalangin’s performance barely one month into his employment. As we said in
International Catholic Migration Commission, the probationary term or period denotes
its purpose but not its length. To our mind, four weeks was enough for the company to
assess Dalangin’s fitness for the job and he was found wanting. In separating Dalangin
from the service before the situation got worse, we find the company not liable for illegal
dismissal.
24. G.R.No. 159343 September 28, 2007
PEDY CASERES and ANDITO PAEL, vs. UNIVERSAL ROBINA SUGAR MILLING
CORPORATION (URSUMCO) and/or RESIDENT MANAGER RENE CABATE,

DOCTRINE: The fact that petitioners were constantly re-hired does not ipso facto establish that
they became regular employees.

FACTS: Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation (respondent) is a corporation engaged in

the cane sugar milling business. Petitioners were employees. At the start of their respective
employments, they were made to sign a Contract of Employment for Specific Project or
Undertaking. Petitioners’ contracts were renewed from time to time, until May 1999 when they
were informed that their contracts will not be renewed anymore.
Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, regularization, incentive leave pay, 13th month
pay, damages and attorney’s fees.
LABOR ARBITER: They were not regular employees
NLRC and CA: affirmed

ISSUE: WON they are regular employees

RULING: They are NOT regular employees

ART. 280. Regular and Casual Employees. – The provision of 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, 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 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 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 URSUMCO’s 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 Caseres’s 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 respondent’s 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.
25. MOISES DE LEON V. NLRC AND LA TONDEÑA (G.R. NO. 70705)
DECEMBER 10, 2016

DOCTRINE: The primary standard, therefore, 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. The test is whether the former is usually necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer.

FACTS: Petitioner De Leon was employed by respondent company La Tondeña as maintenance

man whose work consisted mainly of painting company building and equipment, and other odd
jobs relating to maintenance. After having worked for respondent for more than a year, petitioner
requested that he be included in the payroll of regular employees, to which the former responded
by dismissing petitioner from his employment. Petitioner having been refused reinstatement filed
a complaint before the Labor Arbiter. Petitioner asserts that he is a regular employee performing
similar functions as of a regular maintenance and was rehired by respondent company’s labor
agency to perform the same tasks. Respondent company meanwhile claims petitioner was a
casual worker hired only to paint a certain building in the premises and that his work as painter
terminated upon completion of the job. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner but was
reversed on appeal by the NLRC tribunal.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner De Leon is a regular employee of respondent.

RULING: YES.

The primary standard, therefore, 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. The test is whether the former is usually necessary or desirable
in the usual business or trade of the employer.

It is not tenable to argue that the painting and maintenance work of petitioner are not necessary
in respondent’s business of manufacturing liquors and wines, just as it cannot be said that only
those who are directly involved in the process of producing wines and liquors may be considered
as necessary employees. Otherwise, there would have been no need for the regular Maintenance
Section of respondent company’s Engineering Department, manned by regular employees whom
petitioner often worked with.

The law demands that the nature and entirety of the activities performed by the employee be
considered. In the case of petitioner, the painting and maintenance work given him manifest a
treatment consistent with a maintenance man and not just a painter, for if his job was truly only
to paint a building there would have been no basis for giving him other work assignments in
between painting activities.

Furthermore, the petitioner performed his work of painting and maintenance activities during his
employment in respondent’s business which lasted for more than one year. Certainly, by this fact
alone he is entitled by law to be considered a regular employee. And considering further that
weeks after his dismissal, petitioner was rehired by the company through a labor agency and was
returned to his post in the Maintenance Section and made to perform the same activities that he
used to do, it cannot be denied that as activities as a regular painter and maintenance man still
exist.
26. KIMBERLY INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION vs DRILON
185 SCRA 190
May 9, 1990

DOCTRINE: Those who have rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or
broken are deemed regular with respect to the activity in which they are employed. While the
actual regularization of these employees entails the mechanical act of issuing regular
appointment paper and compliance with such other operating procedures as may be adopted by
the employer, it is more in keeping with the intent and spirit of the law to rule that the status of
regular employment attaches to the casual worker on the day immediately after the end of his
first yr of service.

FACTS: Kimberly-Clark Philippines, Inc. (KIMBERLY) executed a three-year collective

bargaining agreement (CBA) with United Kimberly-Clark Employees Union-Philippine
Transport and General Workers' Organization(UKCEUPTGWO) which expired on 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
Nationalism-Organized Labor Association in Line Industries and Agriculture (KILUSAN-
OLALIA)- April 21, 1986, KILUSAN-OLALIA filed a petition for certification election.
KIMBERLY and UKCEU-PTGWO did not object to the holding of a certification election but
objected to the inclusion of the so-called contractual workers whose employment with
KIMBERLY was coursed through an independent contractor, Rank Manpower Company
(RANK ,for short), as among the qualified voters.- On June 2, 1986, Med-Arbiter Bonifacio I.
Marasigan, who was handling the certification election case issued an order declaring the
following as eligible to vote in the certification election, thus:1) regular rank-and-file
laborers/employees of the respondent company; 2) casuals who have worked at least six (6)
months; 3)Contractual employees who are allegedly in the employ of an independent contractor
and who have also worked for at least six (6)months- During the pre-election conference,
64casual workers were challenged by KIMBERLY and UKCEU-PTGWO on the ground that
theyare not employees of KIMBERLY but of RANK. It was agreed by all the parties that the
64voters shall be allowed to cast their votes but that their ballots shall be segregated and subject
to challenge proceedings. - After the elections, UKCEU-PTGWO won over KILUSAN-OLALIA
by 20 votes. This count considered the votes of the 64 employees as separate.- In a case
regarding the status of the 64employees in relation to the certification election, it was held by
med-arbiter Sanchez that:“…2)The other casual employees not performing janitorial and yard
maintenance services were deemed labor-only contractuals and since labor-only contracting is
prohibited, such employees were held to have attained the status of regular employees, the
regularization being effective as of the date of the decision;3. UKCEU-PTGWO, having
garnered more votes than KILUSAN-OLALIA, was certified as the exclusive bargaining
representative of KlMBERLY's employees;…”- Since the members were only considered
regular at the time of the decision, their votes were not re-considered as regards the election.-
winning union and company executed a CBA- KIMBERLY-OLALIA filed for a TRO on the
CBAand included the question of the status of the64 members in question.

ISSUE: WON the 64 employees were regular employees at the time of the certification election
RULING: YES- Article 280 of the LC provides for two kinds of regular employees: (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 (bylaw) fall under
the second category. These are the mechanics, electricians, machinists, machine shop helpers,
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 KILUSAN-OLALIA.- While the actual regularization
of these employees entails the mechanical act of issuing regular appointment papers and
compliance with such other operating procedures as may be adopted by the employer, it is more
in keeping with the intent and spirit of the law to rule that the status of regular employment
attaches to the casual worker on the day immediately after the end of his first year of service-
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.- 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 the benefits extended to
regular employees under the CBA, from the day immediately following their first year of service
in the company.-These regular employees are likewise entitled to vote in the certification
election held in July 1, 1986. Consequently, the votes cast by those employees not performing
janitorial and yard maintenance service, which forms part of the 64 challenged votes, should be
opened, counted and considered for the purpose of determining the certified bargaining
representative.