PETITIONER University of Santo Tomas (UST)

Samahang Manggagawa ng UST, Fernando Pontesor , Rodrigo Claser, Santiago

RESPONDENT
Buisa, Jr. and Jimmy Nazareth
CASE NUMBER: G.R. No. 184262
DATE: April 24, 2017
FACTS: A complaint filed by respondents Pontesor et.al for regularization and illegal
dismissal against the University of Santo Tomas.

Respondents alleged that on various periods spanning the years of 1990 – 1999,
UST repeatedly hired the respondents to perform various maintenance duties within
the campus (i.e. laborer, mason, tinsmith, painter, electrician, welder, carpenter ). In
view of Pontesor et. al, their performance and tasks, they should be deemed regular
employees of UST. They also argued that as long that the educational institution
continues to operate and exists with rooms, buildings, and facilities to maintain
which are necessary to the business of the petitioner.

On the other hand, UST admitted that it repeatedly hires the respondents in different
capacities on the mentioned years, nevertheless they maintained that they were
merely hired as a per- project bases as evidenced by the signed numerous
Contractual Employee Agreement (CEA). In this regard, the petitioner pointed that
the CEA signed by the petitioners defined the nature and terms of the projects they
were assigned.

The Labor Arbiter Ruling:

On October 23, 2022, the LA ruled against UST and ordered them that Pontesor et.
al. to be reinstated to their former jobs with full backwages and loss of seniority
rights.

They found that Pontesor et. al. should be deemed as petitioner’s regular
employees, considering that:
a. They have rendered at least one (1) year of service to the petitioner
as its employees
b. The activities for which they were hired were vital or inherently
indispensable to the maintenance of the buildings or classrooms
where petitioner’s classes held
c. their CEA’s were contrived to preclude them from obtaining security
tenure.

LA concluded that UST illegally dismissed the respondents.

 THE NLRC RULING:

NLRC vacated the ruling of LA and dismissed the respondent’s complaint for lack of
merit.

NLRC found that the respondents cannot be considered regular employees as they
willingly and voluntarily entered into fixed term contracts of employment. They also
rejected the petitioner’s contention that the respondents were project- employees.

CA RULING:
Respondents moved for reconsideration but was denied by the NLRC in a
Resolution dated May 25, 2004. Dissatisfied with the ruling, respondents filed a
petition for certiorari.

In a decision by the CA dated June 12, 2004, the CA reversed and set aside the
ruling of the NLRC and reinstated the ruling of the LA. They held that Pontesor et. al
cannot be considered as merely fixed term employees or project – employees
considering that (a) they performed work that is necessary and desirable to
petitioner’s continuous need for their services; (b) the specific undertaking or project
for which they were employed were not clear as project description set f forth in their
respective CEA’s were either too general or too broad.

Thus, CA find Pontesor et. al as regular employees who are entitled to security of
tenure and cannot be terminated without any just or authorized cause.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA correctly ruled that Pontesor, et al. are regular employees.
RULING:
CA correctly ruled Pontesor et. al as regular employees.

The law provides for two (2) types of regular employees, namely: (a) those who are
engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer; and (b) those who have rendered at least one
year of service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in which
they are employed.

In the case at bar, a review of Pontesor, et al. respective CEAs

reveal that petitioner repeatedly rehired them for various positions in the nature of
maintenance workers, such as laborer, mason, painter, tinsmith, electrician,
carpenter, and welder, for various periods spanning the years 1990-1999. it is clear
that their respective cumulativeperiods of employment as per their respective CEAs
each exceed one (1) year. Thus, Pontesor, et al. fall under the second category of
regular employees under Article 295 of the Labor Code. Accordingly, they should be
deemed as regular employees but only with respect to the activities for which they
were hired and for as long as such activities exist.

Therefore, UST’s petition was DENIED and they were ordered to be reinstated to
their respective positions with full backwages and without loss of seniority rights. As
pointed out by the LA, the NLRC Computation & Examination Unit should be
directed to compute the monetary awards that petitioner should be ordered to pay
Pontesor, et al.as a consequence of this ruling.