Norman S.

Lo 2nd Year - Block B

Case Digest – Labor Law

I. Classes of Employees

Magis Young Achiever’s Learning Center vs. Manalo

Facts

Issue

Whether the respondent Manalo is a permanent employee

Ratio
 The Peninsula Manila v. Alipio

Petitioners: The Peninsula Manila, Rolf Pfisterer (General Manager) & Benilda Quevedo-Santos (HR Manager)
Respondent: Elaine Alipio

Facts
 The Peninsula Manila (Manila Pen) operates a clinic 24 hours a day and employs 3 regular nurses who work 8
hours each day on 3 separate shifts. It also engages the services of reliever nurses who substitute for the regular
nurses who are either off-duty or absent.
 Alipio was hired as a reliever nurse. However, she had been performing the usual tasks and functions of a
regular nurse since the start of her employment on Dec. 11, 1993. Hence, after about 4 years, she inquired why
she was not receiving her 13th month pay.
 In 1998, Alipio was informed by a fellow nurse that she can only report for work after meeting up with the HR
Manager Quevedo- Santos. When asked regarding her payslip vouchers, she told her that she made copies of
them because Manila Pen does not give her copies. This response peeved Santos for she was allegedly not
entitled to get copies of her payslip vouchers. Santos thereafter directed Alipio not to report for work anymore, as
a consequence of which the latter filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
 Labor Arbiter: Dismissed the complaint for lack of merit but directed Manila Pen to pay separation pay for
having served as a reliever nurse for a long time.
 NLRC: Affirmed with the modification of deleting the award of separation pay.
 CA: Reversed. Ordered to:
o reinstate Alipio as regular staff nurse without loss of seniority rights;
o pay her full backwages and all the benefits under the Labor Code from December 12, 1994 up to the time of
her actual reinstatement
o moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award

Issue

Whether the respondent is a regular employee

Ratio
 Under Art. 280 of LC, an employment is deemed regular when the activities performed by the employee are
usually necessary or desirable in the usual business of the employer. However, any employee who has rendered
at least 1 year of service, even though intermittent, is deemed regular with respect to the activity performed and
while such activity actually exists.
o In the case at bar, Alipio's services were engaged by the hotel intermittently from 1993 up to 1998. Her
services as a reliever nurse were undoubtedly necessary and desirable in the hotel's business of providing
comfortable accommodation to its guests. In any case, since she had rendered more than 1 year of
intermittent service, she had become a regular employee as early as December 12, 1994. Lastly, per the
hotel's own Certification dated April 22, 1997, she was already a "regular staff nurse" until her dismissal.
 Pier 8 Arrastre and Stevedoring Services Inc. vs. Boclot

Facts:

Petitioner Pier 8 Arrastre and Stevedoring Services, Inc. (PASSI) is a domestic corporation engaged
in the business of providing Arrastre and stevedoring servicesat Pier 8 in the Manila North Harbor.
PASSI has been rendering Arrastre and stevedoring services at the port area since 1974 and employs
stevedores who assist in the loading and unloading of cargoes to and from the vessels. Boclot was
hired by PASSI to perform the functions of a stevedore. Later on, Boclot filed Complaint with the Labor Arbiter
claiming regularization; payment of service incentive leave and 13th month pays; moral, exemplary and actual
damages; and attorney’s fees. He alleged that he was hired by PASSI in October 1999 and was issued
company ID No. 304, a PPA Pass and SSS documents. In fact, respondent contended that he became a
regular employee by April 2000, since it was his sixth continuous month in service in PASSI’s regular course of
business. He argued on the basis of Articles 280 and 281 of the Labor Code. He maintains that under
paragraph 2 of Article 280, he should be deemed a regular employee having rendered at least one year of
service with the company.

ISSUE

Whether or not he has attained regular status

DECISION

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. 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.

Article II of its CBA. Under a union-shop agreement, although nonmembers may be hired, an
employee is required to become a union member after a certain period, in order to retain employment. This
requirement applies to present and future employees. The same article of the CBA stipulates that employment
in PASSI cannot be obtained without prior membership in the union.
 ABS-CBN vs Nazareno

Facts:

Petitioner and the ABS-CBN Rank-and-File Employees executed a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)
to be effective during the period from Dec 11, 1996 to Dec 11, 1999. However, since petitioner refused
to recognize PAs as part of the bargaining unit, respondents were not included to the CBA. Due to a
memorandum assigning PA’s to non-drama programs, and that the DYAB studio operations would be
handled by the studio technician. There was a revision of the schedule and assignments and that
respondent Gerzon was assigned as the full-time PA of the TV News Department reporting directly to
Leo Lastimosa. On Oct 12, 2000, respondents filed a Complaint for Recognition of Regular Employment
Status, Underpayment of Overtime Pay, Holiday Pay, Premium Pay, Service Incentive Pay, Sick Leave
Pay, and 13th Month Pay with Damages against the petitioner before the NLRC.

Issue:
WON the respondents are regular employees?

Held:
Respondents are considered regular employees of ABS-CBN and are entitled to the benefits
granted to all regular employees.
There are two kinds of regular employees under the law: (1) those 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 activities in which they are employed.
 D.M. CONSUNJI, INC. and/or DAVID M. CONSUNJI, Petitioners, v.
ESTELITO L. JAMIN, Respondent.

FACTS:

Jamin filed a complaintfor illegal dismissal, with several money claims (including
attorneys fees), against DMCI and its President/General Manager, David M.
Consunji. Jamin alleged that DMCI terminated his employment without a just
and authorized cause at a time when he was already 55 years old and had no
independent source of livelihood. He claimed that he rendered service to DMCI
continuously for almost 31 years.

DMCI denied liability. It argued that it hired Jamin on a project-to-project basis,

from the start of his engagement in 1968 until the completion of its SM Manila
project on March 20, 1999 where Jamin last worked. With the completion of the
project, it terminated Jamins employment.

The LA dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed
the decision of the LA. On further appeal, the CA reversed the NLRC decision and
ruled that Jamin was a regular employee. Hence, DMCI seeks a reversal of the CA
rulings on the ground that the appellate court committed a grave error in
annulling the decisions of the labor arbiter and the NLRC.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Jamin is a regular employee

HELD:
Yes. CA Decision Affirmed.

"Surely, length of time is not the controlling test for project employment.
Nevertheless, it is vital in determining if the employee was hired for a specific
undertaking or tasked to perform functions vital, necessary and indispensable to
the usual business or trade of the employer. Here, private respondent had been a
project employee several times over. His employment ceased to be coterminous
with specific projects when he was repeatedly re-hired due to the demands of
petitioners business.
 Samonte et al. v. La Salle Greenhills, Inc.
Facts:
 Petitioners are medical professional hired by LSGI under a uniform one-page Contract of
Retainer for the period of a specific academic calendar
 The contract specifically provides that the retainer is only temporary in character and
exclusively limited to the undertaking and/or to the job/task assigned to the retainer
within the said undertaking.
 the school (LSGI) informed the petitioner that their contracts will no longer be renewed
for the following school year.
 When petitioners’ requests for payment of their separation pay were denied, they filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for separation pay, damages and attorneys’
fees.
 LSGI posited that petitioners were independent contractors retained by LSGI by reason
of their medical skills and expertise to provide ancillary medical and dental services to
both students and faculty.
 The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint and ruled that the petitioners were
independent contractors but on the ground of compassionate social justice, awarded
separation pay.
 The NLRC disagreed with the appealed decision, finding petitioners as fixed term
employees according to the Contract of Retainer signed by the parties.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioners were regular employees who may only be dismissed for just
and authorized causes.

Ruling:
The petitioners attained retained regular employment.

A fixed-term employment is allowable under the Labor Code wherein the parties agree
upon the day certain for the commencement and termination of their employment
relationship. Furthermore, the term must be voluntarily and knowingly entered into by
the parties who must have dealt with each other on equal terms not one exercising
moral dominance over the other.
 Jamias et al. v. NLRC
Facts:
Respondent Innodata Philippines, Inc. (Innodata), a domestic corporation engaged in the
business of data processing and conversion for foreign clients, hired the petitioners on various
dates and under a project based contract for a period of one year.

After their respective contracts expired, petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
claiming that Innodata had made it appear that they had been hired as project employees in order
to prevent them from becoming regular employees.

The petitioners maintain that they should be accorded regular status to the employees because the
work they performed were necessary and desirable to the business of data encoding, processing
and conversion.

Issue:
Whether or not the contract of employment signed by the petitioners were invalid.

Ruling:
In holding that their contract of employment were valid, the Court reiterated that a fixed period
in a contract of employment does not by itself signify an intention to circumvent Article 280 of
the Labor Code.

In fine, the employment of the petitioners who were engaged as project employees for a fixed
term legally ended upon the expiration of their contract