Two kinds of regular employee

1. Those engaged to perform activities which are necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer; and
2. Casual employees who have rendered at least 1 year of service, whether continuous or
broken, with respect to the activity in which they are employed. [Romares v. NLRC, G.R.
No. 122327 (1998)]

Reasonable connection rule

The primary standard to determine regular employment is the reasonable connection between
the activity performed by the employee to the business or trade of the employer.

Test: W/N the employee is usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the
employer.

If the employee has been performing the job for at least one year, even if not continuous or
merely intermittent, the repeated and continuing need for performance is sufficient evidence of
necessity, if not indispensability of that activity to the business of the employer. Hence, the
employment is also considered regular, but only with respect to such activity and while such
activity exists. [Forever Richons Trading Corp. v. Molina, G.R. No. 206061 (2013)]

When Art. 295 not applicable

It does not apply where the existence of an EER is in dispute. It is not the yardstick for
determining the existence of an EER, as it merely distinguishes between two kinds of
employees, i.e., regular and casual, for purposes of determining the right of an employee to
certain benefits, to join or form a union, or to security of tenure. [Atok Big Wedge Co., Inc. v.
Gison, G.R. No. 169510 (2011)]

Hiring for an extended period

Where the employment of project employees is extended long after the supposed project has
been finished, the employees are removed from the scope of project employees and considered
regular employees. [Audion Electric Co., Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 106648 (1999)]

While length of time is not a controlling test for project employment, it can be a strong factor in
determining whether the employee was hired for a specific undertaking or in fact tasked to
perform functions which are vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of
the employer. [Tomas Lao Const. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 116781 (1997)]