KINDS OF EMPLOYEES

CONVOY MARKETING CORP VS ALBIA

The Supreme Court held that the fact that Convoy had fifteen regular drivers only proved that Albia,
having been hired as a driver, was engaged to perform an activity which was necessary or desirable in the
usual company business of marketing and distributing of bottled wines, liquor, and water. The Court
further emphasized that the delivery agency agreements, executed for the periods of November 22, 2002 to
April 22, 2003, May 29, 2003 to October 29, 2003, November 11, 2003 to April 10, 2004, and April 13, 2004 to
September 13, 2004, indicated that Albia rendered at least one year of broken service with respect to the
same activity. These two facts are what Art. 280 (now Art. 295) of the Labor Code enunciates whereby a
regular employee is someone who has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade of employer or someone who has rendered at least one year of
service with respect to the activity in which he is employed, whether such service is continuous or broken.
Thus, the Court ruled that Albia was a regular employee of Convoy.

The Supreme Court likewise held that Albia could not be deemed a fixed-term contractual employee since
the petitioners failed to show that Convoy and Albia dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with
no moral dominance exercised by Convoy on Albia because of the latter’s low educational attainment. It
was also not proved that a fixed-term employment was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the
parties without any force, duress, or improper pressure.

BEGINO VS ABS CBN CORP

The Court finds that petitioners as cameramen/editors and reporters, are subject to the control and
supervision of respondents which, first and foremost, provided them with equipments that are essential
for the discharge of their functions. Their Talent Contracts tellingly provide as well that ABS-CBN retained
“all creative, administrative, financial and legal control” of the program to which they were assigned.

It has been ruled by the Court, time and time again that the test to determine whether employment is
regular or not is the reasonable connection between the activity performed by the employee in relation to
the business or trade of the employer. As cameramen/editors and reporters, petitioners were undoubtedly
performing functions necessary and essential to ABS-CBN’s business of broadcasting television and radio
content. It matters little that petitioners’ services were engaged for specified periods for TV Patrol Bicol and
that they were paid according to the budget allocated therefor. Aside from the fact that said program is a
regular weekday fare of the ABS-CBN’s Regional Network Group in Naga City, the record shows that,
from their initial engagement in the aforesaid capacities, petitioners were continuously re-hired by
respondents over the years. To the mind of the Court, respondents’ repeated hiring of petitioners for its
long-running news program positively indicates that the latter were ABS-CBN’s regular employees.

OKS DESIGN TECH V CACCAM

The Supreme Court ruled against respondent (Caccam) and found that she was validly dismissed. An
examination of the contracts entered into by respondent reveals that her employment was clearly limited
to a fixed period and did not go beyond such period. Case law dictates that even if an employee is engaged
to perform activities that are necessary or desirable in the usual trade or business of the employer, the same
does not preclude the fixing of employment for a definite period. There is nothing essentially contradictory
between a definite period of employment and the nature of the employee’s duties.

Respondent was made well-aware of the fixed period undertaking from the time of her engagement on
January 21, 2008, because it is clearly stated that she was to be employed for a fixed period of five (5) months
pursuant to the first employment contract. The same holds true for the second fixed-term contract. Nothing
on record shows that respondent’s consent was vitiated or that force, duress, or improper pressure was
exerted on her.

Having been hired under a valid fixed-period employment contract, respondent’s employment was
lawfully terminated upon its expiration on June 21, 2009 without need of further notice.

LABAYUG VS MYSAN BISCUITS

They are not regular employees. The court ruled that while their employment as mixers, packers and
machine operators was necessary and desirable in the usual business of M.Y San Biscuits, they were
employed temporarily only, during periods when there was heightened demand for production. There
could have been no illegal dismissal when their services were terminated on expiration of their contracts.
There was even no need for notice of termination because they knew exactly when their contracts would
end. Contracts of employment for a fixed period terminate on their own at the end of such period.

There are two criteria to validate a contract of employment with a fixed period:

(1) the fixed period of employment was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties without any
force, duress or improper pressure being brought to bear on the employee and without any circumstances
vitiating consent or,

(2) 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 on the latter.

GMA NETWORK V PABRIGA

Respondents are regular employees of GMA.

Pursuant to Article 280 of the Labor Code, employees performing activities which are usually necessary or
desirable in the employer’s usual business or trade can either be regular, project or seasonal employees,
while, as a general rule, those performing activities not usually necessary or desirable in the employer’s
usual business or trade are casual employees.

On the other hand, the activities of project employees may or may not be usually necessary or desirable in
the usual business or trade of the employer. The term "project" could also refer to, secondly, a particular
job or undertaking that is not within the regular business of the corporation. Such a job or undertaking
must also be identifiably separate and distinct from the ordinary or regular business operations of the
employer. The job or undertaking also begins and ends at determined or determinable times.

Thus, in order to safeguard the rights of workers against the arbitrary use of the word "project" to prevent
employees from attaining the status of regular employees, employers claiming that their workers are
project employees should not only prove that the duration and scope of the employment was specified at
the time they were engaged, but also that there was indeed a project. As discussed above, the project could
either be (1) a particular job or undertaking that is within the regular or usual business of the employer
company, but which is distinct and separate, and identifiable as such, from the other undertakings of the
company; or (2) a particular job or undertaking that is not within the regular business of the corporation.
As it was with regard to the distinction between a regular and casual employee, the purpose of this
requirement is to delineate whether or not the employer is in constant need of the services of the specified
employee. If the particular job or undertaking is within the regular or usual business of the employer
company and it is not identifiably distinct or separate from the other undertakings of the company, there
is clearly a constant necessity for the performance of the task in question, and therefore said job or
undertaking should not be considered a project.

The jobs and undertakings of the private respondents in this case were clearly within the regular or usual
business of the employer company and are not identifiably distinct or separate from the other undertakings
of the company. There is no denying that the manning of the operations center to air commercials, acting
as transmitter/VTR men, maintaining the equipment, and acting as cameramen are not undertakings
separate or distinct from the business of a broadcasting company. GMA’s allegation that respondents were
merely substitutes or what they call pinch-hitters (which means that they were employed to take the place
of regular employees of petitioner who were absent or on leave) does not change the fact that their jobs
cannot be considered projects within the purview of the law.

HANJIN HEAVY INDUSTRIES VS IBANEZ

The Court reiterated that project employees are those which 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.
The duration, and the particular work or service to be performed should be defined in an employment
agreement. These should also be made clear to the employees at the time of hiring.

Hanjin failed to provide the employment contracts signed by Ibanez and co. While the Court stated that
such lapse in itself is not damning, no other evidence was presented by the former to prove that the latter
were duly informed of their status as project employees upon being hired by the former. The latter being
informed that they were being hired as project employees is an essential element to prove that they fully
consented to being hired as such.

Hanjin also failed to provide Termination Reports for the other projects that Ibanez and co, claimed they
were part of. These other Termination Reports could have proven the claims of the former that the latter
never worked on these other projects, and were properly regarded as project employees every time they
were hired to work.

Hanjin also improperly implemented Department Order no. 19, Series of 1993 issued by the Department of
Labor and Employment (DOLE), when they gave out a completion bonus that is not pro rata. The correct
rate is at least half the monthly salary given to the employees for every 12 months of service. Thus, the
former cannot use it to back up their claim that the latter were project employees.

Thus, the Court ruled that Ibanez and co. are regular employees who were illegally dismissed by Hanjin.

OMNI HAULERS V BON

The test to determine whether the employees are properly characterized as project employees was whether
the employees were assigned to carry out a “specific project or undertaking,” the duration (and scope) of
which were specified at the time they were engaged for that project regardless if the activity was within
the regular business of the company or not.

There was no evidence shown that respondents were made to sign employment contracts explicitly stating
that they were going to be hired as project employees at the onset of employment in 2002, with the period
of their employment to be co-terminus with the original period of Omni’s service contract with the QC
LGU. The absence of an employment contract, although does not automatically give respondents a regular
status as employees gives rise to a serious doubt regarding the status of employees and can be considered
a red flag. As regular employees, it is incumbent upon petitioners to establish that respondents had been
dismissed for a just and/or authorized cause pursuant to the Labor Code.

AMPELOQUIO VS JAKA DISTRIBUTION INC.

The existence of an independent and permissible contractor relationship is generally established by

considering the following determinants: whether the contractor is carrying on an independent business;
the nature and extent of the work; the skill required; the term and duration of the relationship; the right to
assign the performance of a specified piece of work; the control and supervision of the work to another; the
employer's power with respect to the hiring, firing and payment of the contractor's workers; the control of
the premises; the duty to supply the premises, tools, appliances, materials and labor; and the mode, manner
and terms of payment.

Ampeloquio is correct in asserting that he is a senior employee compared to the other merchandisers whom
he himself designates as casual or contractual merchandisers. Attached to the recognition of seniority rights
of a reinstated employee who had been illegally dismissed is the entitlement to wages appurtenant thereto.

The phrase without loss of seniority rights applies with practical and real effect to Ampeloquio upon his
retirement because he will reach earlier than other regular employees of JAKA the required number of
years of service to qualify for retirement.

As the sole regular merchandiser of JAKA, Ampeloquio’s reinstatement entitles him, at the minimum, to
the standard minimum wage at the time of his employment and to the wages he would have received from
JAKA had he not been illegally dismissed, as if there was no cessation of employment. Ampeloquio is
likewise entitled to any increase which JAKA may have given across the board to all its regular employees.
To repeat, Ampeloquio is not entitled to all benefits or privileges received by other employees subsequently
hired by JAKA just by the fact of his seniority in the service with JAKA.

PAZ VS NORTHEN TOBACCO REDRYING CORPORATION

The test in determining regular employment is whether the particular activity performed by the employee
is usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. In the case at bar, the
services Paz performed as a sorter were necessary and indispensable to respondent NTRCI’s business of
flue-curing and redrying tobacco leaves. She was also regularly rehired as a sorter during the tobacco
seasons for 29 years since 1974. These considerations taken together allowed the conclusion that petitioner
Paz was a regular seasonal employee, entitling her to right to security of tenure under Article 279 of the
Labor Code.

Furthermore, NTRCI had considered petitioner Paz retired at the age of 63 before she reached the
compulsory age of 65. This does not fall under the just causes for termination in Article 282 of the Labor
Code, the authorized causes for termination in Article 283, or disease as a ground for termination in Article
284.

PIER 8 ARRASTRE & STEVEDORING SERVICES VS BOCLOT

Boclot attained regular status. The standards for determining whether an employee is a regular employee
or a casual or project employee is provided in Art. 280 of the Labor Code. Under the provision, a regular
employee is (1) one who is either engaged to perform activities that are necessary or desirable in the usual
trade or business of the employer except for project or seasonal employees; or (2) a casual employee who
has rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in
which he is employed. Art. 280 par. (2) stipulates in unequivocal terms that all other employees who do
not fall under the definitions in the first paragraph of regular, project and seasonal employees, are deemed
casual employees.

While Boclot’s accumulated length of service does not qualify him as a regular employee under the Labor
Code, pertinent provisions under the CBA between PASSI and its Workers' union provides that “The
Company agrees to convert to regular status all incumbent probationary or casual employees and workers
in the Company who have served the Company for an accumulated service term of employment of not less
than six (6) months from his original date of hiring.”

The SC also notes that PASSI adopts a union-shop agreement, stated in Art. II of the 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.

Thus, having rendered 228.5 days, or eight months of service to petitioners since 1999, Boclot is entitled to
regularization by virtue of the said CBA provisions.