Cocomangas Hotel Resort vs.

VISCA

Facts:

 Visca et. al., who worked for the maintenance and repairs of the petitioner, filed complaint
against Cocomangas for illegal dismissal.
 They alleged that they were regular employees but were eventually informed by Cocomangas
not to report for work because they caused irritation and annoyance to resorts’ guests, and
budgetary constraints.
 Eventually, they found out that Cocomangas hired new employees as their replacement.
 Cocomangas alleged that there was no employer-employee relationship, and that Visca was an
independent contractor who was called upon from time to time when repairs were needed.
 Labor Arbiter ruled that Visca was an independent contractor, and that the other respondents
were hired by him; and that there was no illegal dismissal but rather completion of projects; and
that respondents were project workers, not regular employees.
 NLRC affirmed the decision. CA reversed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Visca et. al. were regular employees.

HELD:

 Yes, Visca et. al. were regular employees.

 A project employee is one whose “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 service to be performed is seasonal in
nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.”
 Before an employee hired on a per-project basis can be dismissed, a report must be made to the
nearest employment office, of the termination of the services of the workers every time
completes a project, pursuant to Policy Instruction No. 20.
 Visca cannot be classified as project employees, since they worked continuously for Cocomangas
from three to twelve years without any mention of a project to which they were specifically
assigned.
 While they had designations as foreman, carpenter and mason, they performed work other than
carpentry or masonry. They were tasked with the maintenance and repair of the furniture,
motor boats, cottages, and windbreakers and other resort facilities.
 There was likewise no evidence of the project employment contracts covering Visca’s alleged
periods of employment.
 More importantly, there is no evidence that Cocomangas reported the termination of Visca’s
supposed project employment to the DOLE as project employees.
 Department Order No. 19, as well as the old Policy Instructions No. 20, requires employers to
submit a report of an employees termination to the nearest public employment office every
time his employment is terminated due to a completion of a project. Cocomangas’ failure to file
 termination reports is an indication that Visca et. al. were not project employees but regular
employees.
 An employment ceases to be coterminous with specific projects when the employee is
continuously rehired due to the demands of employers business and re-engaged for many more
projects without interruption.
 Once a project or work pool employee has been:
(1) continuously, as opposed to intermittently, rehired by the same employer for the same tasks
or nature of tasks; and
(2) 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.

Hacienda Fatima vs. National Federation of Sugar Cane

Facts:

 When complainant union (respondents) was certified as the collective bargaining

representative, petitioners refused to sit down w/ the union for the purpose of entering into a
CBA. The workers including complainants were not given work for more than 1month.
 In protest, they staged a strike w/c was however settled upon the signing of a MOA.
 Subsequently, alleging that complainants failed to load some wagons, petitioner reneged on its
commitment to bargain collectively & employed all means including the use of private armed
guards to prevent the organizers from entering the premises.
 No work assignments were given to complainants w/c forced the union to stage a strike.
 Dueto conciliation efforts by the DOLE, another MOA was signed by the parties & they met in a
conciliation meeting.
 When petitioners again reneged on its commitment, complainants filed a complaint.
 Petitioner accused respondents of refusing to work & being choosy in the kind of work they
have to perform.
 The NLRC ruled that petitioners were guilty of ULP & that the respondents were illegally
dismissed.
 The CA affirmed that while the work of respondents was seasonal in nature, they were
considered to be merely on leave during the off-season & were therefore still employed by
petitioners

ISSUE:

Whether the CA erred in holding that respondents, admittedly seasonal workers, were regular
employees, contrary to the clear provisions of Article 280 of the Labor Code, which categorically
state that seasonal employees are not covered by the definition of regular employees under
paragraph 1, nor covered under paragraph 2 which refers exclusively to casual employees who have
served for at least one year

RULING:
  No. For respondents to be excluded from those classified as regular employees, it is not enough
that they perform work or services that are seasonal in nature.
 They must have also been employed only for the duration of one season. The evidence proves
the existence of the first, but not of the second, condition.
 The fact that respondents repeatedly worked as sugarcane workers for petitioners for several
years is not denied by the latter.
 Evidently, petitioners employed respondents for more than one season. Therefore, the general
rule of regular employment is applicable.
 If the employee has been performing the job for at least a year, even if the performance is not
continuous & merely intermittent, the law deems the repeated & 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 w/respect to such activity & while such
activity exists. Seasonal workers who are called to work from time to time & are temporarily laid
off during off-season are not separated from service in said period, but merely considered on
leave until re-employed (De Leonv. NLRC)

Kimberly Independent Labor Union vs. Drilon

Facts:

 Kimberly-Clark Philippines, Inc. executed 3-year collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with
United Kimberly-Clark Employees Union-Philippine Transport and General Workers’
Organization (UKCEU-PTGWO) which already expired.
 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)
 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),
as among the qualified voters.
 During the pre-election conference, 64 casual workers were challenged by KIMBERLY and
(UKCEU-PTGWO) on the ground that they are not employees, of KIMBERLY but of RANK. It was
agreed by all the parties that the 64 voters shall be allowed to cast their votes but that their
ballots shall be segregated and subject to challenge proceedings.
 UKCEU-PTGWO came out as the winner, by garnering a majority of the votes cast therein with
the exception of 64 ballots which were subject to challenge. In the protest filed for the opening
and counting of the challenged ballots. KILUSAN-OLALIA raised the main and sole question of
regularization of the 64 casual workers. The med-arbiter refused to act on the protest on the
ground that the issue involved is within the jurisdiction of the then Minister of Labor.
 Consequently, Labor Minister Sanchez rendered the questioned decision finding that the
workers not engaged in janitorial and yard maintenance service are regular employees but that
they became regular only on the date of his decision, that is, on November 13, 1986, and
 therefore, they were not entitled to vote in the certification election. On the basis of the results
obtained in the certification election, Minister Sanchez declared UKCEU-PTGWO as the winner.

ISSUE:

WON said workers, not performing janitorial or yard maintenance service became regular employees of
KIMBERLY.

RULING:

 The law thus provides for two kinds of regular employees, namely:
(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 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.

 Owing to their length of service with the company, these workers became regular employees, by
operation of law, one year after they were employed by KIMBERLY through RANK. 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. To rule otherwise, and to instead make their regularization dependent
on the happening of some contingency or the fulfillment of certain requirements, is to impose a
burden on the employee which is not sanctioned by law.

BRENT SCHOOL vs. ZAMORA

Facts:

 Doroteo R. Alegre was engaged as athletic director by Brent School, Inc. at a yearly
compensation of P20,000.00.
 The contract fixed a specific term for its existence, five (5) years, i.e., from July 18, 1971, the
date of execution of the agreement, to July 17, 1976.
 3 months before the expiration of the stipulated period, Alegre was given a copy of the report
filed by Brent School with the Department of Labor advising of the termination of his services
effective on July 16, 1976.
  On May 16, 1976 , Alegreaccepted the amount of P3,177.71, and signed a receipt therefor
containing the phrase, "in full payment of services for the period May 16, to July 17, 1976 as full
payment of contract”.
 However at the investigation conducted by a Labor Conciliator (LC) ofsaid report of termination
of his services, Alegre, protested the announced termination of his employment.

Alegre’s argument:
Although his contract did stipulate that the same would terminate on July 17, 1976, since his
services were necessary and desirable in the usual business of his employer, and his
employment had lasted for five years, he had acquired the status of a regular employee and
could not be removed except for valid cause.

 The Regional Director(RD)considered Brent School's report as an application for clearance to

terminate employment (not a report of termination), and accepting the recommendation of the
Labor Conciliator, refused to give such clearance and instead required the reinstatement of
Alegre, as a "permanent employee," to his former position without loss of seniority rights and
with full back wages.
 Brent filed a motion, but was denied and forwarded the case to Secretary of Labor for review.
 Secretary of Labor sustained the RD. Brent appealed to the Office of the President, but affirmed
the decision of LC.

ISSUE:

 Whether or not the provisions of the Labor Code, as amended, have anathematized "fixed
period employment" or employment for a term.

RULING:

 NO. The employment contract between Brent School and Alegre was executed on July 18, 1971,
at a time when the Labor Code of the Philippines (P.D. 442) had not yet been promulgated. At
that time, the validity of term employment was impliedly recognized by the Termination Pay
Law, R.A. 1052, as amended by R.A. 1787.

 Prior, thereto, it was the Code of Commerce (Article 302) which governed employment without
a fixed period, and also implicitly acknowledged the propriety of employment with a fixed
period. The Civil Code of the Philippines, which was approved on June 18, 1949 and became
effective on August 30,1950, itself deals with obligations with a period.

 No prohibition against term-or fixed-period employment is contained in any of its articles or is

otherwise deducible therefrom.
 It is plain then that when the employment contract was signed between Brent School and
Alegre, it was perfectly legitimate for them to include in it a stipulation fixing the duration
thereof Stipulations for a term were explicitly recognized as valid by this Court.

 The status of legitimacy continued to be enjoyed by fixed-period employment contracts under

the Labor Code (PD 442), which went into effect on November 1, 1974.

 Accordingly, and since the entire purpose behind the development of legislation culminating in
the present Article 280 of the Labor Code clearly appears to have been, as already observed, to
prevent circumvention of the employee's right to be secure in his tenure, the clause in said
article indiscriminately and completely ruling out all written or oral agreements conflicting with
the concept of regular employment as defined therein should be construed to refer to the
substantive evil that the Code itself has singled out: agreements entered into precisely to
circumvent security of tenure.

 It should have no application to instances where a fixed period of employment was agreed upon
knowingly and voluntarily by the parties, without any force, duress or improper pressure being
brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent, or
where 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 over the
latter. Alegre's employment was terminated upon the expiration of his last contract with Brent
School on July 16, 1976 without the necessity of any notice.

 The advance written advice given the Department of Labor with copy to said petitioner was a
mere reminder of the impending expiration of his contract, not a letter of termination, nor an
application for clearance to terminate which needed the approval of the Department of Labor to
make the termination of his services effective.

 In any case, such clearance should properly have been given, not denied. Alegre's contract of
employment with Brent School having lawfully terminated with and by reason of the expiration
of the agreed term of period thereof, he is declared not entitled to reinstatement