LABOR LAW CASE DIGEST

GR 216635
CASE #1
G.R. No. 146530 January 17, 2005
PEDRO CHAVEZ, petitioner,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, SUPREME PACKAGING, INC. and
ALVIN LEE, Plant Manager, respondents.

FACTS:
Sometime in 1992, the petitioner expressed to respondent Alvin Lee, respondent
company’s plant manager, his (the petitioner’s) desire to avail himself of the benefits that
the regular employees were receiving such as overtime pay, nightshift differential pay,
and 13th month pay, among others. Although he promised to extend these benefits to the
petitioner, respondent Lee failed to actually do so.

On February 20, 1995, the petitioner filed a complaint for regularization with the Regional
Arbitration Branch No. III of the NLRC in San Fernando, Pampanga. Before the case
could be heard, respondent company terminated the services of the petitioner.
Consequently, on May 25, 1995, the petitioner filed an amended complaint against the
respondents for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice and non-payment of overtime pay,
nightshift differential pay, 13th month pay, among others.

The Labor Arbiter found that the petitioner’s dismissal was anchored on his insistent
demand to be regularized. Hence, for lack of a valid and just cause therefor and for their
failure to observe the due process requirements, the respondents were found guilty of
illegal dismissal.

The respondents seasonably interposed an appeal with the NLRC. However, the appeal
was dismissed by the NLRC in its Decision4 dated January 27, 1998, as it affirmed in toto
the decision of the Labor Arbiter.

The petitioner sought reconsideration of the July 10, 1998 Decision but it was denied by
the NLRC in its Resolution dated September 7, 1998. He then filed with this Court a
petition for certiorari.

The CA ruled that the petitioner was a regular employee of the respondent company
because as its truck driver, he performed a service that was indispensable to the latter’s
business. However, on motion for reconsideration by the respondents, the CA made a
complete turn around as it rendered the assailed Resolution dated December 15, 2000
upholding the contract of service between the petitioner and the respondent company. In
reconsidering its decision, the CA explained that the extent of control exercised by the
respondents over the petitioner was only with respect to the result but not to the means
and methods used by him.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the court of appeals committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
excess of jurisdiction in reversing its own findings that petitioner is a regular employee
and in holding that there existed no employer – employee relationship between private
respondent and petitioner in as much as the “control test” which is considered the most
essential criterion in determining the existence of said relationship is not present.

RULING:
The threshold issue that needs to be resolved is whether there existed an employer-
employee relationship between the respondent company and the petitioner. We rule in
the affirmative.

The elements to determine the existence of an employment relationship are: (1) the
selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of
dismissal; and (4) the employer’s power to control the employee’s conduct. The most
important element is the employer’s control of the employee’s conduct, not only as to the
result of the work to be done, but also as to the means and methods to accomplish it. All
the four elements are present in this case.

First. Undeniably, it was the respondents who engaged the services of the petitioner
without the intervention of a third party.

Second. Wages are defined as "remuneration or earnings, however designated, capable

of being expressed in terms of money, whether fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece
or commission basis, or other method of calculating the same, which is payable by an
employer to an employee under a written or unwritten contract of employment for work
done or to be done, or for service rendered or to be rendered."

Third. The respondents’ power to dismiss the petitioner was inherent in the fact that
they engaged the services of the petitioner as truck driver. They exercised this power by
terminating the petitioner’s services albeit in the guise of "severance of contractual
relation" due allegedly to the latter’s breach of his contractual obligation.

Fourth. As earlier opined, of the four elements of the employer-employee relationship,

the "control test" is the most important. Compared to an employee, an independent
contractor is one who carries on a distinct and independent business and undertakes to
perform the job, work, or service on its own account and under its own responsibility
according to its own manner and method, free from the control and direction of the
principal in all matters connected with the performance of the work except as to the
results thereof. Hence, while an independent contractor enjoys independence and
freedom from the control and supervision of his principal, an employee is subject to the
employer’s power to control the means and methods by which the employee’s work is to
be performed and accomplished.
As a rule, the employer bears the burden to prove that the dismissal was for a valid and
just cause. In this case, the respondents failed to prove any such cause for the petitioner’s
dismissal. They insinuated that the petitioner abandoned his job. To constitute
abandonment, these two factors must concur: (1) the failure to report for work or absence
without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear intention to sever employer-employee
relationship. Obviously, the petitioner did not intend to sever his relationship with the
respondent company for at the time that he allegedly abandoned his job, the petitioner
just filed a complaint for regularization, which was forthwith amended to one for illegal
dismissal. A charge of abandonment is totally inconsistent with the immediate filing of a
complaint for illegal dismissal, more so when it includes a prayer for reinstatement. The
single and isolated act of the petitioner’s negligence in the proper maintenance of the
truck alleged by the respondents does not amount to "gross and habitual neglect"
warranting his dismissal.

Thus, the lack of a valid and just cause in terminating the services of the petitioner renders
his dismissal illegal.

CASE #2
G.R. No. 159469 June 8, 2005
ZALDY G. ABELLA and the Members of the PLDT SECURITY PERSONNEL UNION
LISTED IN ANNEX "D" OF THIS PETITION, Petitioners,
vs.
PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY (PLDT CO.) and PEOPLE'S
SECURITY INC. (PSI), Respondents.

FACTS:
Respondent PSI entered into an agreement with the PLDT to provide the latter with such
number of qualified uniformed and properly armed security guards for the purpose of
guarding and protecting PLDT’s installations and properties from theft, pilferage,
intentional damage, trespass or other unlawful acts. Under the agreement, it was
expressly provided that there shall be no employer-employee relationship between the
PLDT and the security guards, which may be supplied to it by PSI, and that the latter shall
have the entire charge, control and supervision over the work and services of the supplied
security guards. It was likewise stipulated therein that PSI shall also have the exclusive
authority to select, engage, and discharge its security guards, with full control over their
wages, salaries or compensation.
Consequently, respondent PSI deployed security guards to the PLDT. PLDT’s Security
Division interviewed these security guards and asked them to fill out personal data sheets.
Those who did not meet the height requirements were sent back by PLDT to PSI.
On 05 June 1995, sixty-five (65) security guards supplied by respondent PSI filed a
Complaint for regularization against the PLDT with the Labor Arbiter. The Complaint
alleged inter alia that petitioner security guards have been employed by the company
through the years commencing from 1982 and that all of them served PLDT directly for
more than 1 year. It was further alleged that PSI or other agencies supply security to
PLDT, which entity controls and supervises the complainants’ work through its Security
Department. Petitioners likewise alleged that PSI acted as the middleman in the payment
of the minimum pay to the security guards, but no premium for work rendered beyond
eight hours was paid to them nor were they paid their 13th month pay. In sum, the
Complaint states that inasmuch as the complainants are under the direct control and
supervision of PLDT, they should be considered as regular employees by the latter with
compensation and benefits equivalent to ordinary rank-and-file employees of the same
job grade.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed
in toto the Labor Arbiter’s decision. The Court of Appeals, in turn, affirmed the NLRC’s
disquisition
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners and PLDT has employer – employee relationships.
RULING:
Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of our Resolution dated 16 March 2005 is hereby
DENIED with Finality no compelling reason having been adduced by petitioners to
warrant the reversal thereof.

Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission9 provides the legal
yardstick in addressing this issue. In that case, Unicorn Security Services, Inc. (USSI)
and Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) executed a security service agreement where USSI
was designated therein as the contractor. In determining which between PAL and USSI
is the employer of the security guards, we considered the following factors in considering
the existence of an employer-employee relationship: (1) the selection and engagement
of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power to dismiss; and (4) the
power to control the employee’s conduct.

On the first factor, applying PAL v. NLRC as our guidepost in the case before us, the
Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the Court of Appeals rendered a consistent finding based
on the evidence adduced that it was the PSI, the security provider of the PLDT, which
selected, engaged or hired and discharged the security guards.
On the second factor, the Labor Arbiter as well as the NLRC and the Court of Appeals
are all in agreement that it is PSI that determined and paid the petitioners’ wages, salaries,
and compensation. As elucidated by the Labor Arbiter, petitioners’ witness testified that
his wages were collected and withdrawn at the office of PSI and PLDT pays PSI for the
security services on a lump-sum basis and that the wages of complainants are only a
portion of the total sum.
Anent the third and fourth factors, petitioners capitalize on the delinquency reports
prepared by PLDT personnel against some of the security guards as well as certificates
of participation in civil disturbance course, certificates of attendance in first aid training,
certificate of completion in fire brigade training seminar and certificate of completion on
restricted land mobile radio telephone operation to show that the petitioners are under the
direct control and supervision of PLDT and that the latter has, in fact, the power to dismiss
them.
The Labor Arbiter found from the evidence that the delinquency reports were nothing but
reminders of the infractions committed by the petitioners while on duty which serve as
basis for PLDT to recommend the termination of the concerned security guard from PLDT.
As already adverted to earlier, termination of services from PLDT did not ipso facto mean
dismissal from PSI inasmuch as some of those pulled out from PLDT were merely detailed
at the other clients of PSI as in the case of Jonathan Daguno, who was merely transferred
to PCIBank Makati.
The Labor Arbiter likewise rendered the distinct finding as regards petitioner Zaldy Abella
that documentary evidence belies his claim that PLDT directs and supervises him. These
documents include his application for employment with PSI, employment contract with
PSI, Special Orders of assignment at the different detachments of PLDT issued by a
certain Joreim Aguilar of PSI, his request to PSI for sick leaves and/or vacation leaves,
authority to deduct from his salary death contributions pursuant to the policy of PSI and
Order of Relief from PLDT Marikina for AWOL issued by said Joreim Aguilar of PSI per
Special Order dated 12 June 1995. Similarly, as found by the Labor Arbiter in the case of
petitioner Roberto Basilides, his 201 file reflects PSI Orders on his assignment to PLDT
installations and subsequent reassignment to another PCIB client.
In fine, while the Constitution is committed to the policy of social justice and the protection
of the working class, it should not be supposed that every labor dispute will be
automatically decided in favor of labor. The partiality for labor has not in any way
diminished our belief that justice is in every case for the deserving, to be dispensed in the
light of the established facts and the applicable law and doctrine.

CASE #3
G.R. No. 164156 September 26, 2006
ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP. vs NAZARENO

FACTS:
Petitioner employed respondents Nazareno, Gerzon, Deiparine, and Lerasan as
production assistants (PAs) on different dates. They were assigned at the news and
public affairs, for various radio programs in the Cebu Broadcasting Station, with a monthly
compensation of P4,000. They were issued ABS-CBN employees’ identification cards
and were required to work for a minimum of eight hours a day, including Sundays and
holidays.
On October 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. The Labor Arbiter directed the parties to submit their respective position
papers. Upon respondents’ failure to file their position papers within the reglementary
period, Labor Arbiter Jose G. Gutierrez issued an Order dated April 30, 2001, dismissing
the complaint without prejudice for lack of interest to pursue the case. Respondents
received a copy of the Order on May 16, 2001. 7 Instead of re-filing their complaint with
the NLRC within 10 days from May 16, 2001, they filed, on June 11, 2001, an Earnest
Motion to Refile Complaint with Motion to Admit Position Paper and Motion to Submit
Case For Resolution.8 The Labor Arbiter granted this motion in an Order dated June 18,
2001, and forthwith admitted the position paper of the complainants.

The Labor Arbiter rendered judgment in favor of the respondents, and declared that they
were regular employees of petitioner; as such, they were awarded monetary benefits.

On November 14, 2002, the NLRC rendered judgment modifying the decision of the Labor
Arbiter.

Finding no merit in petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, the CA denied the same in a
Resolution dated June 16, 2004.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondents should be considered as a regular employees of the
petitioner

RULING:
Yes, the respondents are regular employees of the petitioner.

The Supreme Court through Justice Callejo, Sr. declared that the respondents are regular
employees of ABS-CBN. It was held that a person who has rendered at least one year of
service, regardless of the nature of the activity performed or whether work is continuous
or intermittent, should be considered as regular as long as the activity for which that
person is employed exists. The reason for this being that a customary appointment is not
indispensable before one may be formally declared as having attained regular status.

The Court further held that the presumption should be that when the work done is an
integral part of the regular business of the employer and when the worker, relative to the
employer, does not furnish an independent business or professional service, such work
is a regular employment of such employee and not an independent contractor. As regular
employees, respondents are entitled to the benefits granted to all other regular employees
of petitioner under the CBA . Besides, only talent-artists were excluded from the CBA and
not production assistants who are regular employees of the respondents. Moreover,
under Article 1702 of the New Civil Code: “In case of doubt, all labor legislation and all
labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living of the laborer.”

CASE #4
G.R. No. 146881 05 February 2007
COCA-COLA BOTTLERS v. CLIMACO

FACTS:
Respondent Dr. Climaco is a medical doctor who was hired by petitioner Coca-Cola by
virtue of a Retainer Agreement. Despite the non-renewal of the agreement, respondent
continued to perform his functions as company doctor. He inquired from petitioner if it was
agreeable recognizing him as a regular employee but the management refused to do so.
This prompted respondent to file a complaint seeking recognition as a regular employee.
While the case was pending, respondent received a letter from petitioner concluding their
retainer agreement which then prompted him to file a complaint for illegal dismissal. The
Labor Arbiters in the 2 complaints both found for petitioner finding no employer-employee
relationship existed between the parties. NLRC tribunal affirmed. CA reversed the
decision.

ISSUE:
Whether or not employer-employee relationship exists between the parties.

RULING:
No. The Court, in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, has
invariably adhered to the four-fold test: (1) the selection and engagement of the
employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to
control the employee’s conduct, or the so-called “control test,” considered to be the most
important element.

The Court agrees with the finding of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that the
circumstances of this case show that no employer-employee relationship exists between
the parties. Petitioner company lacked the power of control over the performance by
respondent of his duties. The Comprehensive Medical Plan which contains the
respondent ‘s objectives, duties and obligations, does not tell respondent “How to conduct
his physical examination, how to immunize, or how to diagnose and treat his patients,
employees of petitioner company, in each case.” It provided guidelines merely to ensure
that the end result was achieved, but did not control the means and methods by which
respondent performed his assigned tasks.

CASE #5
G.R. No. 164652 June 8, 2007
THELMA DUMPIT-MURILLO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ASSOCIATED
BROADCASTING COMPANY, JOSE JAVIER ANDEDWARD TAN, respondents.

FACTS:
Associated Broadcasting Company (ABC) hired Thelma Dumpit-
Murillo under a talentcontract as a newscaster and co-anchor for Balitang-Balita, an early
evening news program. The contract was for a period of three months. After four years
of repeated renewals, petitioner’s talent contract expired. Two weeks after the expiration
of the last contract, petitioner sent a letter to Mr. Jose Javier, Vice President for News
and Public Affairs of ABC, informing the latter that she was still interested in renewing her
contract subject to a salary increase. Thereafter, petitioner stopped reporting for
work. She sent a demand letter to ABC, demanding reinstatement, payment of unpaid
wages and full back wages, payment of 13 th month pay, vacation/sick/service incentive
leaves and other monetary benefits due to a regular employee. ABC replied that a check
covering petitioner’s talent fees had been processed and prepared, but that the other
claims of petitioner had no basis in fact or in law. The Labor Arbiter dismissed
the complaint for illegal constructive dismissal. NLRC reversed.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Murillo is an employee of Associated Broadcasting Company.

RULING:
Thelma Dumpit-Murillo was a regular employee under contemplation of law. The practice
of having fixed-term contracts in the industry does not automatically make all talent
contracts valid and compliant with labor law. The assertion that a talent contract exists
does not necessarily prevent a regular employment status. Further, the Sonza
case is not applicable. In Sonza, the television station did not exercise control over the
means and methods of the performance of Sonza’s work. In the case at bar, ABC had
control over the performance of petitioner’s work. Noteworthy too, is the comparatively
low P28,000 monthly pay of petitioner vis the P300,000 a month salary of Sonza, that all
the more bolsters the conclusion that petitioner was not in the same situation as Sonza.
The duties of petitioner as enumerated in her employment contract indicate that ABC
had control over the work of petitioner. Aside from control, ABC also dictated the work
assignments and payment of petitioner’s wages. ABC al
so had power to dismiss her. All these being present, clearly, there existed
an employment relationship between petitioner and ABC. Concerning regular
employment, the requisites for regularity of employment have been met in the instant
case. Petitioner’ s work was necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the
employer which includes, as a pre-condition for its enfranchisement, its participation in
the government’s news and public information dissemination. In addition, her work was
continuous for a period of four years. This repeated engagement under contract of hire is
indicative of the necessity and desirability of the petitioner’s work in private respondent
ABC’s business. As a regular employee, petitioner is entitled to security of tenure and
can be dismissed only for just cause and after due compliance with procedural due
process. Since private respondents did not observe due process in constructively
dismissing the petitioner, there was an illegal dismissal.

CASE #6
G.R. No. 172101 November 23, 2007
Republic of the Philippines vs. ASIAPRO

Facts:
The Respondent is composed of owners-members. Under its bylaws, owners-members
are of two categories, (1) regular member, who is entitled to all the rights and privileges
of membership; and (2) associate member, who has no right to vote and be voted upon
and shall be entitled only to such rights and privileges provided in its by-laws. Its primary
objectives are to provide savings and credit facilities and to develop other livelihood
services for its owners-members. In discharge of said objectives, respondent cooperative
entered into several Service Contracts with Stanfilco - a division of DOLE Philippines, Inc.
and a company based in Bukidnon. The owners-members do not receive compensation
or wages from the respondent cooperative. Instead, they receive a share in the service
surplus which ASIAPRO earns from different areas of trade it engages in, such as the
income derived from the said Service Contracts with Stanfilco. ASIAPRO alleges that
there exists no employer-employee relationship between it and its owners-members.
Respondent cooperative filed its answer with Motion to Dismiss alleging that no employer-
employee relationship exists between it and its owners-members, thus, petitioner SSC
has no jurisdiction over the respondent cooperative. On the other hand, the respondent
cooperative alleges that its owners-members own the cooperative, thus, no employer-
employee relationship can arise between them. The persons of the employer and the
employee are merged in the owners-members themselves. Likewise, respondent...
cooperative's owners-members even requested the respondent cooperative to register
them with the petitioner SSS as self-employed individuals. Hence, petitioner SSC has no
jurisdiction over the petition-complaint filed before it by petitioner SSS.

Issues:
1. Whether or not there is an employer-employee relationship between ASIAPRO and its
owners-members.

2. Whether or not petitioner has jurisdiction over the petition-complaint filed before it by
SSS against the respondent cooperative.

Ruling:
1. YES. In determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship, the following
elements are considered: (1) the selection and engagement of the workers; (2) the
payment of wages by whatever means; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to
control the worker ‘s conduct, with the latter assuming primacy in the overall
consideration. All the aforesaid elements are present in this case.
First, It is expressly provided in the Service Contracts that it is the respondent cooperative
which has the exclusive discretion in the selection and engagement of the owners-
members as well as its team leaders who will be assigned at Stanfilco. Second. It cannot
be doubted then that those stipends or shares in the service surplus are indeed wages,
because these are given to the owners-members as compensation in rendering services
to respondent cooperative ‘s client, Stanfilco. Third, it is also stated in the above-
mentioned Service Contracts that it is the respondent cooperative which has the power
to investigate, discipline and remove the owners-members and its team leaders who were
rendering services at Stanfilco. Fourth, In the case at bar, it is the respondent cooperative
which has the sole control over the manner and means of performing the services under
the Service Contracts with Stanfilco as well as the means and methods of work. Also, the
respondent cooperative is solely and entirely responsible for its owners-members, team
leaders and other representatives at Stanfilco. All these clearly prove that, indeed, there
is an employer-employee relationship between the respondent cooperative and its
owners-members.

2. Petitioner SSC ‘s jurisdiction is clearly stated in Section 5 of R.A. No. 8282 as well as
in Section 1, Rule III of the 1997 SSS Revised Rules of Procedure. Sec. 5 of R.A. 8282
provides: Sec. 5 Settlement of Disputes –(a) Any dispute arising under this Act with
respect to coverage, benefits, contributions and penalties thereon or any other matter
related thereto, shall be cognizable by the Commission, Similarly, Section 1, Rule III of
the 1997 SSS Revised Rules of Procedure states: Section 1. Jurisdiction; Any dispute
arising under the Social Security Act with respect to coverage, entitlement of benefits,
collection and settlement of contributions and penalties thereon, or any other matter
related thereto, shall be cognizable by the Commission after the SSS through its
President, Manager or Officer in-charge of the Department/Branch/Representative Office
concerned had first taken action thereon in writing. It is clear then from the aforesaid
provisions that any issue regarding the compulsory coverage of the SSS is well within the
exclusive domain of the petitioner SSC. It is important to note that the mandatory
coverage under the SSS Law is premised on the existence of an employer-employee
relationship. Consequently, the respondent cooperative being the employer of its owners-
members must register as employer and report its owners-members as covered members
of the SSS and remit the necessary premium contributions in accordance with the Social
Security Law of 1997.Accordingly, based on the allegations in the petition-complaint filed
before the petitioner SSC, the case clearly falls within its jurisdiction.

CASE #7
G.R. NO. 167648 - January 28, 2008
TELEVISION AND PRODUCTION EXPONENTS, INC. and/or ANTONIO P. TUVIERA
vs.
ROBERTO C. SERVAÑA

FACTS:
This Petition for Review under Rule 45 assails the Resolution of the Court of Appeals
declaring Roberto Servaña (respondent) a regular employee of petitioner Television and
Production Exponents, Inc. (TAPE). The appellate court likewise ordered TAPE to pay
nominal damages for its failure to observe statutory due process in the termination of
respondent's employment for authorized cause.

TAPE is a domestic corporation engaged in the production of television programs, such

as the long-running variety program, "Eat Bulaga!". Its president is Antonio P. Tuviera
(Tuviera). Respondent had served as a security guard for TAPE from March 1987 until
he was terminated on 3 March 2000 (13 years). He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
and nonpayment of benefits against TAPE. He alleged that he was first connected with
Agro-Commercial Security Agency but was later on absorbed by TAPE as a regular
company guard. However, on March 2, 2000, he received a memorandum informing him
of his impending dismissal on account of TAPE's decision to contract the services of a
professional security agency. At the time of his termination, he was receiving a monthly
salary of P6,000.00. He claimed that the holiday pay, unpaid vacation and sick leave
benefits and other monetary considerations were withheld from him. He further contended
that his dismissal was undertaken without due process and violative of existing labor laws,
aggravated by nonpayment of separation pay.

In a motion to dismiss which was treated as its position paper, TAPE countered that the
labor arbiter had no jurisdiction over the case in the absence of an employer-employee
relationship between the parties. TAPE averred that respondent was an independent
contractor falling under the talent group category and was working under a special
arrangement which is recognized in the industry. Respondent insisted that he was a
regular employee for 13 years.

Labor Arbiter Daisy G. Cauton-Barcelona declared respondent to be a regular employee

of TAPE. She relied on the nature of the work of respondent, which is securing and
maintaining order in the studio, as necessary and desirable in the usual business activity
of TAPE. She also ruled that the termination was valid on the ground of redundancy, and
ordered the payment of respondent's separation pay equivalent to one (1)-month pay for
every year of service (78k).

On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in a Decision reversed the
Labor Arbiter and considered respondent a mere program employee.
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied, he filed a petition
for certiorari with the Court of Appeals contending that the NLRC acted with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it reversed the decision of
the Labor Arbiter. Reversing the decision of the NLRC, the Court of Appeals found
respondent to be a regular employee. The Decision of the Labor Arbiter
is REINSTATED with MODIFICATION in that private respondents are ordered to pay
jointly and severally petitioner the amount of P10,000.00 as nominal damages for non-
compliance with the statutory due process.

The Court of Appeals issued a Resolution denying TAPE's motion for reconsideration.
TAPE filed the instant Petition for Review raising substantially the same grounds as those
in its petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE:
WON an employer-employee relationship exists between TAPE and respondent.

RULING:
Yes. An employer-employee relationship exists between the two parties.
Jurisprudence is abound with cases that recite the factors to be considered in determining
the existence of employer-employee relationship aka “four-fold test”, namely: (a) the
selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of
dismissal; and (d) the employer's power to control the employee with respect to the means
and method by which the work is to be accomplished. The most important factor involves
the control test. Under the control test, there is an employer-employee relationship when
the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not only the
end achieved but also the manner and means used to achieve that end.

First. The selection and hiring of petitioner was done by private respondents. In fact,
private respondents themselves admitted having engaged the services of petitioner only
in 1995 after TAPE severed its relations with RPN Channel 9.

By informing petitioner through the Memorandum dated 2 March 2000, that his services
will be terminated as soon as the services of the newly hired security agency begins,
private respondents in effect acknowledged petitioner to be their employee. For the right
to hire and fire is another important element of the employer-employee relationship.

Second. Payment of wages is one of the four factors to be considered in determining the
existence of employer-employee relation. . . Payment as admitted by private respondents
was given by them on a monthly basis at a rate of P5,444.44.

Third. Of the four elements of the employer-employee relationship, the "control test" is
the most important.

The bundy cards representing the time petitioner had reported for work are evident proofs
of private respondents' control over petitioner more particularly with the time he is required
to report for work during the noontime program of "Eat Bulaga!". The daily time cards of
petitioner are not just for mere record purposes as claimed by private respondents. It is a
form of control by the management of private respondent TAPE.

TAPE asseverates that the Court of Appeals erred in applying the "four-fold test" in
determining the existence of employer-employee relationship between it and respondent.

The position of TAPE is untenable. Respondent was first connected with Agro-
Commercial Security Agency, which assigned him to assist TAPE in its live productions.
When the security agency's contract with RPN-9 expired in 1995, respondent was
absorbed by TAPE or, in the latter's language, "retained as talent." Clearly, respondent
was hired by TAPE. Respondent presented his identification card to prove that he is
indeed an employee of TAPE. It has been in held that in a business establishment, an
identification card is usually provided not just as a security measure but to mainly identify
the holder thereof as a bona fide employee of the firm who issues it.

TAPE relies on Policy Instruction No. 40, issued by the Department of Labor, in classifying
respondent as a program employee and equating him to be an independent contractor.
Policy Instruction No. 40 defines program employees as: those whose skills, talents or
services are engaged by the station for a particular or specific program or undertaking
and who are not required to observe normal working hours such that on some days they
work for less than eight (8) hours and on other days beyond the normal work hours
observed by station employees and are allowed to enter into employment contracts with
other persons, stations, advertising agencies or sponsoring companies. The engagement
of program employees, including those hired by advertising or sponsoring companies,
shall be under a written contract specifying, among other things, the nature of the work to
be performed, rates of pay and the programs in which they will work. The contract shall
be duly registered by the station with the Broadcast Media Council within three (3) days
from its consummation.

TAPE failed to adduce any evidence to prove that it complied with the requirements laid
down in the policy instruction. It did not even present its contract with respondent. Neither
did it comply with the contract-registration requirement.

Even granting arguendo that respondent is a program employee, stills, classifying him as
an independent contractor is misplaced. The Court of Appeals had this to say:

We cannot subscribe to private respondents' conflicting theories. The theory of private

respondents that petitioner is an independent contractor runs counter to their very own
allegation that petitioner is a talent or a program employee. An independent contractor is
not an employee of the employer, while a talent or program employee is an employee.
The only difference between a talent or program employee and a regular employee is the
fact that a regular employee is entitled to all the benefits that are being prayed for. This
is the reason why private respondents try to seek refuge under the concept of an
independent contractor theory. For if petitioner were indeed an independent contractor,
private respondents will not be liable to pay the benefits prayed for in petitioner's
complaint.

More importantly, respondent had been continuously under the employ of TAPE from
1995 until his termination in March 2000, or for a span of 5 years. Regardless of whether
or not respondent had been performing work that is necessary or desirable to the usual
business of TAPE, respondent is still considered a regular employee under Article 280 of
the Labor Code which provides:

Art. 280. Regular and Casual Employment. The provisions of written agreement to the
contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an
employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to
perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade
of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or
undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of
engagement of the employee or where the work or service to be performed is seasonal
in nature and employment is for the duration of the season.
An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding
paragraph. Provided, that, any employee who has rendered at least one year of service,
whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee
with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue
while such activity exists.

CASE #8
G.R. No. 183810: January 21, 2010
FARLEY FULACHE, MANOLO JABONERO, DAVID CASTILLO, JEFFREY
LAGUNZAD, MAGDALENA MALIG-ON BIGNO, FRANCISCO CABAS, JR., HARVEY
PONCE and ALAN C. ALMENDRAS, Petitioners,
vs.
ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, Respondent.

FACTS:
The petitioners alleged that on December 17, 1999, ABS-CBN and the ABS-CBN Rank-
and-File Employees Union executed a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) effective
December 11, 1999 to December 10, 2002. When they obtained copies of the agreement,
they learned that they had been excluded from its coverage as ABS-CBN considered
them temporary and not regular employees, in violation of the Labor Code. They claimed
they had already rendered more than a year of service in the company and, therefore,
should have been recognized as regular employees entitled to security of tenure and to
the privileges and benefits enjoyed by regular employees. They asked that they be paid
overtime, night shift differential, holiday, rest day and service incentive leave pay. They
also prayed for an award of moral damages and attorney’s fees.

Labor Arbiter Rendoque rendered his decision holding that the petitioners were regular
employees of ABS-CBN, not independent contractors, and are entitled to the benefits and
privileges of regular employees.

While the appeal before the NLRC was pending, ABS-CBN dismissed Fulache, Jabonero,
Castillo, Lagunzad and Atinen (all drivers) for their refusal to sign up contracts of
employment with service contractor Able Services. The four drivers and Atinen responded
by filing a complaint for illegal dismissal (illegal dismissal case). In defense, ABS-CBN
alleged that even before the labor arbiter rendered his decision of January 17, 2002 in
the regularization case, it had already undertaken a comprehensive review of its existing
organizational structure to address its operational requirements.

In her April 21, 2003 decision in the illegal dismissal case, Labor Arbiter Rendoque upheld
the validity of ABS-CBN's contracting out of certain work or services in its operations. The
labor arbiter found that petitioners Fulache, Jabonero, Castillo, Lagunzad and Atinen had
been dismissed due to redundancy, an authorized cause under the law.
The NLRC reversed the labor arbiters ruling in the illegal dismissal case; it found that
petitioners Fulache, Jabonero, Castillo, Lagunzad and Atinen had been illegally
dismissed and awarded them backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. The
petitioners moved for reconsideration, contending that Fulache, Jabonero, Castillo and
Lagunzad are entitled to reinstatement and full back wages, salary increases and other
CBA benefits as well as 13th month pay, cash conversion of sick and vacation leaves,
medical and dental allowances, educational benefits and service awards. ABS-CBN
likewise moved for the reconsideration of the decision, reiterating that Fulache, Jabonero,
Castillo and Lagunzad were independent contractors. The NLRC stood by the ruling that
the petitioners were regular employees entitled to the benefits and privileges of regular
employees. On the illegal dismissal case, the petitioners, while recognized as regular
employees, were declared dismissed due to redundancy.

Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the CA, contending that the NLRC
committed grave abuse of discretion in denying them benefits under the CBA. The CA
ruled that the petitioners failed to prove their claim to CBA benefits since they never raised
the issue in the compulsory arbitration proceedings, and did not appeal the labor arbiter’s
decision which was silent on their entitlement to CBA benefits. On the illegal dismissal
issue, the CA upheld the NLRC decision holding that Fulache, Jabonero, Castillo and
Lagunzad were not illegally dismissed as their separation from the service was due to
redundancy.

The petitioners moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied the motion in a resolution
promulgated on July 8, 2008. Hence, the present petition.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not petitioners are entitled to CBA benefits
2. Whether or petitioners were illegally dismissed

RULING:
As regular employees, the petitioners fall within the coverage of the bargaining unit and
are therefore entitled to CBA benefits as a matter of law and contract

The LA decision which was affirmed by the NLRC and the CA, finding petitioners to be
regular employees and not independent contractors. This declaration unequivocally
settled the petitioner’s employment status: they are ABS-CBNs regular employees
entitled to the benefits and privileges of regular employees. These benefits and privileges
arise from entitlements under the law (specifically, the Labor Code and its related laws),
and from their employment contract as regular ABS-CBN employees, part of which is the
CBA if they fall within the coverage of this agreement.

Under these terms, the petitioners are members of the appropriate bargaining unit
because they are regular rank-and-file employees and do not belong to any of the
excluded categories. Specifically, nothing in the records shows that they are supervisory
or confidential employees; neither are they casual nor probationary employees. Most
importantly, the labor arbiter’s decision of January 17, 2002 affirmed all the way up to the
CA level ruled against ABS-CBNs submission that they are independent contractors.
Thus, as regular rank-and-file employees, they fall within CBA coverage under the CBAs
express terms and are entitled to its benefits.
2nd Issue:
The termination of employment of the four drivers occurred under highly questionable
circumstances and with plain and unadulterated bad faith.

The records show that the regularization case was in fact the root of the resulting bad
faith as this case gave rise and led to the dismissal case. First, the regularization case
was filed leading to the labor arbiter’s decision declaring the petitioners, including
Fulache, Jabonero, Castillo and Lagunzad, to be regular employees. ABS-CBN appealed
the decision and maintained its position that the petitioners were independent contractors.

In the course of this appeal, ABS-CBN took matters into its own hands and terminated
the petitioner’s services, clearly disregarding its own appeal then pending with the NLRC.
Notably, this appeal posited that the petitioners were not employees. To justify the
termination of service, the company cited redundancy as its authorized cause but offered
no justificatory supporting evidence. It merely claimed that it was contracting out the
petitioner’s activities in the exercise of its management prerogative.

By doing all these, ABS-CBN forgot labor law and its realities.

It forgot that by claiming redundancy as authorized cause for dismissal, it impliedly

admitted that the petitioners were regular employees whose services, by law, can only be
terminated for the just and authorized causes defined under the Labor Code.

Likewise ABS-CBN forgot that it had an existing CBA with a union, which agreement must
be respected in any move affecting the security of tenure of affected employees;
otherwise, it ran the risk of committing unfair labor practice both a criminal and an
administrative offense. It similarly forgot that an exercise of management prerogative can
be valid only if it is undertaken in good faith and with no intent to defeat or circumvent the
rights of its employees under the laws or under valid agreements.

Lastly, it forgot that there was a standing labor arbiters decision that, while not yet final
because of its own pending appeal, cannot simply be disregarded. By implementing the
dismissal action at the time the labor arbiters ruling was under review, the company
unilaterally negated the effects of the labor arbiters ruling while at the same time
appealing the same ruling to the NLRC. This unilateral move is a direct affront to the
NLRCs authority and an abuse of the appeal process.
All these go to show that ABS-CBN acted with patent bad faith. GRANTED

CASE #9
G.R. No. 196426 August 15, 2011
MARTICIO SEMBLANTE AND DUBRICK PILAR, Petitioners,
Vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, GALLERA DE MANDAUE /
SPOUSES VICENTE AND MARIA LUISA LOOT, Respondents.

FACTS:

Petitioners Marticio Semblante and Dubrick Pilar assert that they were hired by
respondents-spouses Vicente and Maria Luisa Loot, the owners of Gallera de Mandaue,
as the official masiador and sentenciador, respectively, of the cockpit sometime in 1993.

As the masiador, Semblante calls and takes the bets from the gamecock owners and
other bettors and orders the start of the cockfight. He also distributes the winnings after
deducting the arriba, or the commission for the cockpit. Meanwhile, as the sentenciador,
Pilar oversees the proper gaffing of fighting cocks, determines the fighting cocks’ physical
condition and capabilities to continue the cockfight, and eventually declares the result of
the cockfight.

For their services as masiador and sentenciador, Semblante receives PhP 2,000 per
week or a total of PhP 8,000 per month, while Pilar gets Php 3,500 a week or Php 14,000
per month. They work every Tuesday, Wednesday, Saturday, and Sunday every week,
excluding monthly derbies and cockfights held on special holidays. Their working days
start at 1:00 p.m. and last until 12:00 midnight, or until the early hours of the morning
depending on the needs of the cockpit. Petitioners had both been issued employees’
identification cards that they wear every time they report for duty. They alleged never
having incurred any infraction and/or violation of the cockpit rules and regulations.

However, on November 14, 2003, petitioners were not allowed to enter into the cockpit
upon the instructions of respondents, and were informed of the termination of their
services effective that date. Hence, prompted petitioners to file a complaint for illegal
dismissal against respondents.

The respondents argued that the petitioners were not their employees and alleged that
they were associates of respondents’ independent contractor, Tomas Vega. Also claimed
that petitioners have no regular working time or day and they are free to decide for
themselves whether to report for work or not on any cockfighting day. In times when there
are few cockfights in Gallera de Mandaue, petitioners go to other cockpits in the vicinity.
Lastly, petitioners were only issued identification cards to indicate that they were free from
the normal entrance fee and to differentiate them from the general public.

LA Julie C. Rendoque ruled that the petitioners were regular employees of respondents
as they performed work that was necessary and indispensable to the usual trade or
business of respondents for a number of years. Hence, they were illegally dismissed and
therefore ordered respondents to pay petitioners their backwages and separation pay.

Respondents appealed but without posting a cash or surety bond equivalent to the
monetary award granted by the Labor Arbiter. NLRC denied the appeal for its non-
perfection. On MR, NLRC held in its Resolution that there was no employer-employee
relationship between petitioners and respondents, respondents having no part in the
selection and engagement of petitioners, and that no separate individual contract with
respondents was ever executed by petitioners. Petitioners appealed to CA.

The CA issued its ruling, noting that referees and bet-takers in a cockfight need to have
the kind of expertise that is characteristic of the game to interpret messages conveyed by
mere gestures. Hence, petitioners are akin to independent contractors who possess
unique skills, expertise, and talent to distinguish them from ordinary employees. Further,
respondents did not supply petitioners with the tools and instrumentalities they needed to
perform work. Petitioners only needed their unique skills and talents to perform their job
as masiador and sentenciador, hence, this petition for review on certiorati.

ISSUE:
WON there exists an EER between the parties.

RULING:
No. There has been NO Employer-Employee Relationship between the parties. While
respondents had failed to post their bond within the 10-day period provided, it is evident,
that petitioners are NOT employees of respondents, since their relationship fails to pass
muster the four-fold test of employment We have repeatedly mentioned in countless
decisions: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee; (2) the payment of wages;
(3) the power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the employees’ conduct, which is
the most important element.

As found by both the NLRC and the CA, respondents had no part in petitioners’ selection
and management; petitioners’ compensation was paid out of the arriba (which is a
percentage deducted from the total bets), not by petitioners; and petitioners performed
their functions as masiador and sentenciador free from the direction and control of
respondents. In the conduct of their work, petitioners relied mainly on their expertise that
is characteristic of the cockfight gambling, and were never given by respondents any tool
needed for the performance of their work.

Respondents, not being petitioners’ employers, could never have dismissed, legally or
illegally, petitioners, since respondents were without power or prerogative to do so in the
first place. The rule on the posting of an appeal bond cannot defeat the substantive rights
of respondents to be free from an unwarranted burden of answering for an illegal
dismissal for which they were never responsible.

Strict implementation of the rules on appeals must give way to the factual and legal reality
that is evident from the records of this case. After all, the primary objective of our laws is
to dispense justice and equity, not the contrary.

CASE #10
G.R. No. 192084 September 14, 2011
JOSE MEL BERNARTE, Petitioner,
vs.
PHILIPPINE BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION (PBA), JOSE EMMANUEL M. EALA, and
PERRY MARTINEZ, Respondents.

FACTS:
Complainants, Bernarte and Guevarra aver that they were invited to join the PBA as
referees in which they were made to sign contracts on a year-to-year basis however,
changes were made on the terms of their employment.

On 2004, Bernarte received a letter from the Office of the Commissioner advising him
that his contract would not be renewed citing his unsatisfactory performance on and off
the court. He felt that the dismissal was caused by his refusal to fix a game upon order of
De Leon.

On the other hand, complainant Guevarra alleges that Martinez issued a memorandum
to Guevarra expressing dissatisfaction over his questioning on the assignment of referees
officiating out-of-town games in which he was no longer made to sign a contract.

Respondents aver, on the other hand, that complainants entered into two contracts of
retainer with the PBA in the year 2003. After the lapse of the latter period, PBA decided
not to renew their contracts. Complainants were not illegally dismissed because they were
not employees of the PBA. Their respective contracts of retainer were simply not
renewed. PBA had the prerogative of whether or not to renew their contracts, which they
knew were fixed.4
In the 2005 Decision,5 the Labor Arbiter6 declared petitioner an employee whose
dismissal by respondents was illegal. Accordingly, the Labor Arbiter ordered the
reinstatement of petitioner.
The Court of Appeals found petitioner an independent contractor since respondents did
not exercise any form of control over the means and methods by which petitioner
performed his work as a basketball referee.

ISSUE:
Whether petitioner is an employee of respondents, which in turn determines whether
petitioner was illegally dismissed?

RULING:
No. the petitioner are not employees of the respondents.

The existence of an employer-employee relationship is ultimately a question of fact. As a

general rule, factual issues are beyond the province of this Court. However, this rule
admits of exceptions, one of which is where there are conflicting findings of fact between
the Court of Appeals, on one hand, and the NLRC and Labor Arbiter, on the other, such
as in the present case.

To determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship, case law has

consistently applied the four-fold test, to wit: (a) the selection and engagement of the
employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer’s
power to control the employee on the means and methods by which the work is
accomplished. The so-called "control test" is the most important indicator of the presence
or absence of an employer-employee relationship.19
In addition, the fact that PBA repeatedly hired petitioner does not by itself prove that
petitioner is an employee of the former. For a hired party to be considered an employee,
the hiring party must have control over the means and methods by which the hired party
is to perform his work, which is absent in this case. The continuous rehiring by PBA of
petitioner simply signifies the renewal of the contract between PBA and petitioner, and
highlights the satisfactory services rendered by petitioner warranting such contract
renewal. Conversely, if PBA decides to discontinue petitioner’s services at the end of the
term fixed in the contract, whether for unsatisfactory services, or violation of the terms
and conditions of the contract, or for whatever other reason, the same merely results in
the non-renewal of the contract, as in the present case. The non-renewal of the contract
between the parties does not constitute illegal dismissal of petitioner by respondents.

CASE #11
G.R. No. 201298, 5 February 2014
Cosare v. Broadcom Asia, Inc.

FACTS:
Cosare claimed that sometime in April 1993, he was employed as a salesman by
Arevalo, who was then in the business of selling broadcast equipment needed by
television networks and production houses. In December 2000, Arevalo set up the
company Broadcom, still to continue the business of trading communication and
broadcast equipment. Cosare was named an incorporator of Broadcom, having been
assigned 100 shares of stock with par value of ₱1.00 per share.5 In October 2001,
Cosare was promoted to the position of Assistant Vice President for Sales (AVP for
Sales) and Head of the Technical Coordination

Sometime in 2003, Alex F. Abiog (Abiog) was appointed as Broadcom’s Vice President
for Sales and thus, became Cosare’s immediate superior. On March 23, 2009, Cosare
sent a confidential memo to Arevalo to inform him of the anomalies which were
alledgedly being committed by Abiog against the company.

Apparently, Arevalo failed to act on Cosare’s accusations. Cosare claimed that he was
instead called for a meeting by Arevalo on March 25, 2009, wherein he was asked to
tender his resignation in exchange for “financial assistance” in the amount of
₱300,000.00. Cosare refused to comply with the directive.

On March 30, 2009, Cosare received from Roselyn Villareal (Villareal), Broadcom’s
Manager for Finance and Administration, a memo signed by Arevalo, charging him of
serious misconduct and willful breach of trust.

On April 1, 2009, Cosare was totally barred from entering the company premises, and
was told to merely wait outside the office building for further instructions. On April 3,
2009, Cosare filed the subject labor complaint, claiming that he was constructively
dismissed from employment by the respondents. In refuting Cosare’s complaint, the
respondents argued that Cosare was neither illegally suspended nor dismissed from
employment.

Labor arbiter dismissed petitioner’s complaint since he was not able to establish that he
was illegally dismissed.

NLRC reversed the LA.

CA reversed the NLRC and upheld the LA on the issue that it was an intra-corporate
controversy which should have been in the jurisdiction of the RTC.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the instant suit is an intra-corporate controversy, whereas such is within
the jurisdiction of the RTC.

Was petitioner illegally dismissed?

RULING:
It is not an intra-corporate controversy. Settled jurisprudence, however, qualifies that
when the dispute involves a charge of illegal dismissal, the action may fall under the
jurisdiction of the LAs upon whose jurisdiction, as a rule, falls termination disputes and
claims for damages arising from employer-employee relations as provided in Article 217
of the Labor Code. Consistent with this jurisprudence, the mere fact that Cosare was a
stockholder and an officer of Broadcom at the time the subject controversy developed
failed to necessarily make the case an intra-corporate dispute.

Thus, LA has the proper jurisdiction.

The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee’s

position would have felt compelled to give up his position under the circumstances. It is
an act amounting to dismissal but is made to appear as if it were not. Constructive
dismissal is therefore a dismissal in disguise. The law recognizes and resolves this
situation in favor of employees in order to protect their rights and interests from the
coercive acts of the employer

The charge of abandonment was inconsistent with this imposed suspension.

"Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his
employment. To constitute abandonment of work, two elements must concur: (1) the
employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without valid or
justifiable reason; and (2) there must have been a clear intention on the part of the
employee to sever the employer-employee relationship manifested by some overt
act."Cosares failure to report to work beginning April 1, 2009 was neither voluntary nor
indicative of an intention to sever his employment with Broadcom. It was illogical to be
requiring him to report for work, and imputing fault when he failed to do so after he was
specifically denied access to all of the company's assets. Hence, the Court held

Court reiterated that an illegally or constructively dismissed employee is entitled to: (1)
either reinstatement, if viable, or separation pay, if reinstatement is no longer viable; and
(2) backwages.The award of exemplary damages was also justified given the NLRC's
finding that the respondents acted in bad faith and in a wanton, oppressive and
malevolent manner when they dismissed Cosare. It is also by reason of such bad faith
that Arevalo was correctly declared solidarily liable for the monetary awards.

Petitioner was illegally dismissed. Courts ordered that the original NLRC decision be
reinstated.

CASE #12
Fuji Television Network, Inc- Petitioner
vs.
Arlene Espiritu- Respondent

FACTS:
In 2005, Arlene S. Espiritu (Arlene) was engaged by Fuji television Network, Inc. (Fuji) as
a news correspondent. She was tasked to report Philippine news to Fuji based in Japan,
through its Manila Bureau field.
Arlene’s employment is initially provided for a term of one (1) year but was successively
renewed on a yearly basis, with salary adjustment upon every renewal, for four (4) years.

In January 2009, Arlene was diagnosed with lung Cancer.

In turn, she informed Fuji of her condition, in return the Chief of News Agency of Fuji,
Yoshiki Aoki, informed Arlene that the company will have a problem renewing her
contract, since her condition will make her difficult to perform her job.

After several written communications between Arlene and Fuji, the non-renewal of
contract on May 9, 2009 was dispensed to Arlene. In consideration of the
acknowledgment of Arlene of the non-renewal of contract, Arlene acknowledge receipt of
US$ 18,050.00 representing her monthly salary from March 2009 to May 2009, year-end
bonus, mid-year bonus and separation pay.

Arlene affixed her signature on the non-renewal contract with the initials “U.P” for under
protest.

The case was filed by Arlene against Fuji. In the decision penned by Labor Arbiter
Corazon Borbolla dated September 19, 2009, she dismissed the case. Citing Sonza vs
ABS-CBN. It held that Arlene was not Fuji’s employee but an independent contractor.

The case was appealed by Arlene to National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The
NLRC Labor Arbiters decision dated March 10, 2010 granted the instant appeal made by
Arlene, and the decision made by the labor Arbiter in September 19, 2009 was reversed
and set aside.

ISSSUES:
1. Whether Arlene was a regular employee or an independent contractor?
2. Whether or not Arlene was illegally dismissed by Fuji?

RULING:
1. Arlene was a regular employee.

Article 280 of the Labor Code provides that, an employment shall be deemed to
be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are
usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer.
Here, Arlene work as news producer who plans and supervises newscast with
reporters in the field planning and gathering information, she was also tasked to
monitor and get news, stories, reports in timely reporting on camera. Also she was
also travelling to the regional office in Thailand. She had to work in Fuji’s Manila
Office from Mondays to Fridays, eight (8) hours per day and uses Fuji’s
equipment’s and facilities like laptop and camera.

While, Fuji is engaged in the business of broadcasting which includes

programming.
 Therefore, Arlene is a regular news producer who regularly performed activities
which is desirable in the usual business Fuji has been engaged.

2. Yes, Arlene was illegally dismissed. As a regular employee, Arlene was entitled to
security of tenure and could be dismissed only for just or authorized causes and
after observance of due process.

Art 279 of Labor Code provides, Security of tenure, in cases of regular

employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except
for a just cause of when authorized by this title.

Here, the manner by Fuji informed Arlene that her contract would no longer be
renewed is tantamount to constructive dismissal. To make matters worse, Arlene
was asked to sign a letter of resignation prepared by Fuji.
Therefore, Arlene was illegal dismissed by Fuji.

CASE #13
GR #: 199166, April 20, 2015
BEGINO vs. ABS-CBN

Facts:
Petitioners were employees of ABS-CBN Corporation in their Regional Network Office at
Naga City, Camarines Sur, Bicol Region. Nelson Begino and Gener Del Valle, are the
Cameramen/Editors for TV Broadcasting. Petitioners Ma. Cristina Sumayao and Monina
Avila-Llorin were likewise similarly engaged as reporters sometime in 1996 and 2002,
respectively. With their services engaged by respondents thru Talent Contracts which,
though regularly renewed over the years, provided terms ranging from three (3) months
to one (1) year, petitioners were given Project Assignment Forms which detailed, among
other matters, the duration of a particular project as well as the budget and the daily
technical requirements thereof.

While specifically providing that nothing therein shall be deemed or construed to establish
an employer-employee relationship between the parties, the aforesaid Talent Contracts
included, among other matters, provisions on the following matters: (a) the Talent’s
creation and performance of work in accordance with the ABS-CBN’s professional
standards and compliance with its policies and guidelines; (b) the Talent’s non-
engagement in similar work for a person or entity directly or indirectly in competition with
or adverse to the interests of ABS-CBN; and (c) the results-oriented nature of the talent’s
work which did not require them to observe normal or fixed working hours.

Claiming that they were regular employees of ABS-CBN, petitioners filed against
respondents the complaint before the National Labor Relations Commission.
Having been terminated during the pendency of the case, the petitioners filed a second
complaint for regularization, payment of labor standard benefits, illegal dismissal, and
unfair labor practices. However, it was dismissed for violation of the rules against forum
shopping.

The labor arbiter resolved the first complaint in favor of the petitioners who, having
rendered services necessary and related to ABS-CBN’s business for more than a year,
were determined to be its regular employees.

Aggrieved, the respondent appealed before the NLRC. During the pendency of which,
petitioners filed a third complaint for illegal dismissal however it was later on dismissed.

The NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.

The Court of Appeals reversed the decisions of the LA and the NLRC. CA discounted the
existence of an employer-employee relationship between the parties.

Issue:
Whether or not the petitioners are regular employees of the ABS-CBN Corporation in their
Regional Office in Naga City, Camarines Sur, Bicol Region?

Ruling:
Yes, they are regular employees of the ABS-CBN Corporation in their Regional Office in
Naga City, Camarines Sur, Bicol region.

To determine whether there is an employer-employee relationship between the

petitioners and the respondent, the so-called "control test" is generally regarded as the
most crucial and determinative indicator of the said relationship.

Under this test, an employer-employee relationship is said to exist where the person for
whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end result but
also the manner and means utilized to achieve the same.

The court finds that, notwithstanding the nomenclature of their Talent Contracts and/or
Project Assignment Forms and the terms and condition embodied therein, petitioners are
regular employees of ABS-CBN.

As cameramen, editors and reporters, it appears that Petitioners were subject to the
control and supervision of Respondents which provided them with the equipment
essential for the discharge of their functions. The exclusivity clause and prohibitions in
their Talent Contract were likewise indicative of Respondents' control over them, however
obliquely worded.

Also, the presumption is that when the work done is an integral part of the regular
business of the employer and when the worker does not furnish an independent business
or professional service, such work is the regular employment of an employee and not an
independent contractor.

Therefore, the petitioners are considered regular employees of the ABS-CBN Regional
Network in Naga City, Camarines Sur, Bicol region for they perform an integral part of the
business even with their services engaged thru Talent Contracts which, though regularly
renewed over the years, provided terms ranging from three (3) months to one (1) year,
the duration of a particular project as well as the budget and the daily technical
requirements thereof.

CASE #14
GR No. 198782, October 19, 2016
BAZAR v. RUIZOL
Petitioner: Allan Bazar (Norkis Display Center to Norkis Distributors, Inc.)
Respondent: Carlos A. Ruizol

FACTS:
Carlos A. Ruizol (Respondent) was wrongfully terminated as a mechanic at Norkis
Distributors in their Surigao City branch. He worked from 8am to 5pm, was provided 1-
hour lunch break for 6 days a week receiving a monthly salary of P2,050.00. Responded
claims that he was wrongfully terminated by his manager Allan Bazar due to his desire to
appoint his protégé as the mechanic. Respondent filed a complaint at Regional Arbitration
Branch No. XIII of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for illegal dismissal
and other monetary claims. In 2002 the name of the Petitioner (NDI) was amended to
from Norkis Display Center to Norkis Distributors, Inc. (NDI). NDI alleged that the
respondent was not an employee but a franchised mechanic under a retainership
agreement and the termination of his contract was due to his unsatisfactory performance.
On October 8, 2003 the NLRC rendered a decision in favor of respondent and declared
that he was an employee and was awarded a monetary sum. On appeal said decision
was reversed due to the failure of the respondent refute that there was no employer-
employee relationship. Respondent filed a motion for certiorari before the CA, making a
decision in favor of the respondent in which NDI file a motion for reconsideration but was
denied resulting into this petition.

ISSUES:
WON, respondent was an employee of Norkis.
WON, respondent was illegally dismissed.

RULING:
YES, respondent was an employee of Norkis as they have an employer-employee
relationship. The four-fold test used in determining the, existence of employer employee
relationship are: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of
wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer's power to control the employee
with respect to the means and. method by which the work is to be accomplished. As
proven that respondent was (1) engaged directly with NDI without the help of a third party,
(2) respondent was paid by NDI, (3) terminated through a letter informing of the non-
renewal of his contract and (4) he is required to follow the standards set by NDI supported
by his contract.
YES, respondent was illegally dismissed as stated that he is an employee and is entitled
to security of tenure. He can only be dismissed for a just or authorized cause. Petitioner
was dismissed through a letter informing him of termination of contract of retainership
which was construed as a termination notice. For lack of a just or authorized cause
coupled with failure to observe the twin-notice rule in termination cases, respondent's
dismissal is clearly illegal.

CASE #15
GR NO. 223625 NOVEMBER 22, 2016
NATIONAL TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, PETITIONER VS COMMISSION ON
AUDIT (COA)
CHAIRPERSON MICHAEL AGUINALDO (RESPONDENT)

FACTS:
On April 1, 2003, Transco engaged the services of Benjamin B. Miranda until it was
terminated on June 30, 2009. From April 1, 2003, to March 21, 2004, Miranda was a
contractual employee with the position of Senior Engineer pursuant to the service
Agreement.

In December 2007, a public bidding was conducted which awarded the concession to the
National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP). Transco executed a concession
agreement with NGCP.

On January 15, 2009, Transco turned over the management and operation of its
nationwide transmission system to NGCP, several personnel including Miranda were
terminated on June 30, 2009. He received his separation pay benefits in the amount of
401, 911.90 pesos.

On January 26, 2011, Transco received a Notice of Disallowance from COA disallowing
the amount of 55, 758.26 corresponding to Miranda’s service from April 1, 2003 to April
15, 2004. The COA ruled that the TransCo Board of directors erred in including
contractual employees in availing separation benefits. Moreover the COA expounded that
there was no employer – employee relationship between Miranda and TransCo and that
he was not entitled to benefits enjoyed by government employees.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not it is within the TransCo boards power to grant financial
assistance benefit to personnel engaged by virtue agreements
2. Whether or not COA committed grave abuse of discretion when it affirmed
decision and notice of disallowance.
RULING:
Court’s ruling:
The denial of subject disbursement is anchored on 2 things, first that the service contract
of Miranda categorically stated that the service shall not be deemed as government
service and that no employer-employee relationship exists, second , as a contractual
employee Miranda is entitled under the EPIRA and its IRR only if his appointments had
been approved by CSC.

The court finds the COA did not gravely abuse its discretion in upholding the Notice of
Disallowance.

The Court, nevertheless, finds that TransCo and Miranda be excused from refunding the
disallowed amount notwithstanding the propriety of the ND in question. In view of
TransCo's reliance on Lopez, which the Court now abandons, the Court grants TransCo's
petition pro hac vice and absolved it from any liability in refunding the disallowed amount.

On another note, even if the ND is to be upheld, Miranda should not be solidarily liable to
refund the same. In Silang v. COA,21 the Court had ruled that passive recipients of the
disallowed disbursements, who acted in good faith, are absolved from refunding the
same, viz:

By way of exception, however, passive recipients or payees of disallowed salaries,

emoluments, benefits, and other allowances need not refund such disallowed amounts if
they received the same in good faith. Stated otherwise, government officials and
employees who unwittingly received disallowed benefits or allowances are not liable for
their reimbursement if there is no finding of bad faith. In Lumayna v. COA, the Court
declared that notwithstanding the disallowance of benefits by COA, the affected
personnel who received the said benefits in good faith should not be ordered to refund
the disallowed benefits.

Verily, good faith is anchored on an honest belief that one is legally entitled to the benefit,
as said employees did so believe in this case. Therefore, said petitioners should not be
held liable to refund what they had unwittingly received.

In the present case, Miranda was a mere passive recipient as he not been involved when
the BOD passed the resolution granting separation benefits to all TransCo employees.
Thus, Miranda acted in good faith as he merely received the benefits to which he believed
he was entitled to.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED pro hac vice. The March 19, 2015 Decision and
December 23, 2015 Resolution of the Commission on Audit are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The Notice of Disallowance No. 11-003-(10) is DISMISSED.

CASE #16
GR 216635

Dr. Lorenche-Amit vs. Cagayan de Oro Medical Center

FACTS:

Dr. Mary Loreche-Amit was as associate pathologist in Cagayan de Oro Medical Center
(CMDC) before she was officially appointed as Chief Pathologist. However, her
appointment was recalled due to a dispute that arose between her and another doctor in
the hospital which led to her dismissal. In this connection that she filed a complaint of
illegal dismissal contending that she was dismissed without due process. CMDC on their
part aver that Dr. Amit was not hired by the hospital as she merely assisted then the Chief
Pathologist, and that she worked at the same thime as pathologist in two other hospitals
as she was not probited to do so.

The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. This was affirmed by
the NLRC and reiterated that Amit is a corporate officer and that there was no employer
employee relation between CMDC and her. The NLRC contends that the issue is an intra
corporate which belongs to the regular courts. The CA also dismissed the petition for
Certiorari who echoed the rulings of the NLRC.

ISSUE:

WON Dr Amit was an employee of CMDC.

RULING:

No. as the relationship does not pass the four fold test and the economic reality test.

Dr. Amit is not a corporate officer as her position as Pathologist is not among those
included in the by laws of CMDC nor in the Corporation Code.

However, this is not an automatic declaration that the petitioner is an employee of CMDC.
The four fold test, to wit: 1) the selection and engagement of the employee; 2) the
payment of wages: 3) the power of dismissal 4) the power to control the employees
conduct, must be applied to determine the existence of an employer-employee
relationship.

It is apparent that CMDC, through the Board of Directors, exercised the power to select
and supervise petitioner as Pathologist. She was likewise paid compensation. However,
CMDC does not exercise the power of control over Dr. Amit. The fact that she also works
at two other hospitals evinces that petitioner controls her working hours.

The economic reality test which the Court has adopted in determining the existence of
employer-employee relationship is relevant. The economic realities prevailing withing the
circumstances surrounding the true nature of the relationship between the parties. In the
jurisdiction of SC the benchmark of economic reality in analyzing possible employment
relationship is the economic dependence of the worker on his employer. The fact that the
petitioner continued to work for other hospitals strengthens the proposition that petitioner
was now wholly dependent on CMDC.

The rule is that where a person who works for another performs his job more or less at
his own pleasure, in the manner that he sees fit, not subject to definite hours or conditions
of work and is compensate according to the result of his efforts and not the amount
thereof, no employer-employee relationship exists.

CASE #17
G.R. No. 233413, June 17, 2019
CELIA R. ATIENZA VS. NOEL SACRAMENTO SALUTA

Facts:
The instant case stemmed from the complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of
wages, overtime pay, holiday pay, premium pay for work on holidays and
rest day, illegal deduction, and issuance
of acertificate of employment filed by Noel Sacramento Saluta (respondent) against Celi
a R. Atienza(petitioner) and CRV Corporation before the NLRC. Respondent alleged that
he was hired as a company driver by CRV Corporation in May 2012. He was assigned to
drive for the petitioner, one of the company's top officials and received P9,000.00 monthly
salary. On December 11, 2014, while driving along North Luzon Expressway, respondent
hit the rear portion of the vehicle in front of him. Thus, he was made to pay the amount of
P15,000.00 to answer for the damages caused to the said vehicle. The amount
was first advanced by the company, but will be deducted from his monthly salary. On the
said occasion, the authorities confiscated his driver's license and issued him a Temporary
Operator's Permit (TOP). On December 23, 2014, respondent told the petit10ner that he
needed to absent himself from work because he had to claim his driver's license since his
TOP had already expired. According to him, petitioner refused to excuse him from work
because she had appointments lined up that day. As it was illegal for him to drive without
a license, he was constrained to get his license the following day, December 24,
2014; thus, he failed to report for work. However, before going on leave, he first
requested another company driver to drive for the petitioner. When petitioner learned that
he was not around, she immediately called him up saying,"kung hindi ka makakapag-
drive ngayon, mabuti pa maghiwalay na tayo." Upon hearing such words, respondent
concluded that he had been verbally terminated.

The General Manager of the company, confirmed that he was already terminated from
work. Asit was Christmas Eve, he requested that he be given his last salary, but this was
refused on the ground that he has yet to reimburse the company the P15,000.00 it had
advanced. Thus, on April 7, 2015, respondent filed a complaint against CRV Corporation
and the petitioner for illegal dismissal, non-payment of wages, overtime pay, holiday pay,
premium pay for work on holidays and rest day, illegal deduction, and issuance of a
certificate of employment. The Labor Arbiter rendered judgement against Respondent.
On appeal, the NLRC reversed and set aside the decision of the Labor Arbiter in a
Decision dated April 27,2016. Thus, it ordered CRV Corporation and the petitioner to pay
respondent full back wages from December2014, separation pay equivalent to one month
salary for every year of service, wage differentials, holiday pay, 13th month pay and
service incentive leave pay from May 2012.

Thus, the appellate court affirmed the Decision of the NLRC with modification in that it
imposed a 6%interest per annum on all the monetary awards granted to the respondent
from the finality of judgment until fully paid. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the
CA denied it in a Resolution dated August 9, 2017.

Issues:
1.Whether or not the respondent is the personal driver of the petitioner.
2.Whether or not the respondent is illegally dismissed from employment.
3.Whether or not the respondent abandoned his work.

Ruling:
1.Respondent is the personal/family driver of the petitioner. Settled is the tenet that
allegations in the complaint must be duly proven by competent evidence and the burden
of proof is on the party making the allegation. In an illegal dismissal case, the onus
probandi rests on the employer to prove that its dismissal of an employee was for a valid
cause.

However, before a case for illegal dismissal can prosper, an employer-employee

relationship must first be established. Thus, in filing a complaint before the Labor Arbiter
for illegal dismissal, based on the premise that he was
an employee of CRY Corporation, it is incumbent upon the respondent to prove the
employer-employee relationship by substantial evidence. Apart from his staunch
insistence that he was a company driver of CRV Corporation, respondent did not proffer
any competent evidence, documentary or otherwise, as would prove his claimed
employment with the company.

2.Respondent was not dismissed from employment. It is axiomatic that in illegal dismissal
cases, the employer bears the burden of proving that the termination was for a valid
or authorized cause. However, there are cases wherein the facts and the evidence do not
establish prima facie that the employee was dismissed from employment. Before the
employer is obliged to prove that the dismissal was legal, the employee must first
establish by substantial evidence the fact of his dismissal from service. If there is
no dismissal, then there can be no question as to the legality or illegality thereof. The
Court must also stress that the evidence presented to show the employee's termination
from employment must be clear, positive, and convincing. Absent any showing of an overt
or positive act proving that petitioner had dismissed the respondent, the latter's claim of
illegal dismissal cannot be sustained - as the same would be self-serving, conjectural,
and of no probative value.

3.Respondent did not abandon his work. The reversal of the judgment rendered by the
court will not inure to the benefit of CRV Corporation. Considering that CRV Corporation
did not appeal the decision of the appellate court, the same stands insofar as the
corporation is concerned. Art. 95. Right to service incentive leave. (a) Every employee
who has rendered at least one year of service shall be entitled to a yearly service incentive
leave of five days with pay.(b) This provision shall not apply to those who are
already enjoying the benefit herein provided, those enjoying vacation leave with pay of at
least five days and those employed in establishments regularly employing less than ten
employees or in establishments exempted from granting this benefit by the Secretary of
Labor and Employment after considering the viability or financial condition of such
establishment.( c) The grant of benefit in excess of that provided herein shall not be made
a subject of arbitration or any court or administrative action.

CASE #18

MANILA HOTEL COMPANY vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

G.R. No. L-18873 September 30, 1963

FACTS:
A petition before the Court of Industrial Relations was filed by the Pines Hotel Employees
Association praying, among other things, that its employees who were working at the
Pines Hotel be paid additional compensation for overtime services rendered due to the
exigencies of the business, as well as additional compensation for Sunday, legal holiday
and night time work. The Manila Hotel in its answer denied the material averments of the
petition and alleged that if overtime services rendered were unauthorized and voluntary
for the employees were interested in the “tips” offered by the patrons of the hotel. After
the trial, judgment was promulgated in favor of the employees for they were entitled to
compensation, including that for overtime work even if he rendered such service without
prior authority. A motion for reconsideration was filed on the ground that the order was
contrary to law and the evidence, but the same was denied by the Industrial Court en
banc. In compliance with the order of the court, the Examining Division submitted a report
in which it stated the amount due to the employees. The management filed its objection
for the report included 22 names of employees who were not employees of the Pines
Hotel at the time the petition was filed. The trial judge, however, overruled this objection
holding that, while the22 employees were actually not in the service at the time of the
filing of the petition, they were however subsequently employed during the pendency of
the incident, and so their claims come within the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial
Relations.
 ISSUE:
Are the 22 employees listed in the report entitled to the money claims even if their names
are not included in the list during the petition was filed?

RULING:
Yes. While it is true that the 22 employees whose claim is objected to were not actually
in their service at the time the instant petition was filed, they were however subsequently
re-employed even while the present incident was pending consideration by the trial court.
Moreover, it appears that the questioned employees were never separated from the
service. Their status is that of regular seasonal employees who are called to work from
time to time, mostly during summer season. They are not strictly speaking separated from
the services but are merely considered as on leave of absence without pay until they are
re- employed. Their employment relationship is never severed but only suspended. As
such, these employees can be considered as in the regular employment of the hotel.

CASE #19
G.R. No. L-48494. February 5, 1990
BRENT 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, Alegre accepted 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) of said 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 accept 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 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 a 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

CASE #20
GR NO. 157788, 2005-03-08
SAINT MARY’S UNIVERSITY v. CA

Facts:
Respondent Marcelo Donelo started teaching on a contractual basis at St. Mary's
University in 1992. In 1995, he was issued an appointment as an Assistant Professor
I. Later on, he was promoted to Assistant Professor III. He taught until the first semester
of school year 1999-2000 when the school discontinued giving him teaching
assignments. For this, respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the
university.
In its defense, petitioner St. Mary's University showed that respondent was merely a part-
time instructor and, except for three semesters, carried a load of less than eighteen
units. Petitioner argued that respondent never attained permanent or regular status for
he was not a full-time teacher. Further, petitioner showed that respondent was under
investigation by the university for giving grades to students who did not attend classes.
The Labor Arbiter ruled that respondent was lawfully dismissed because he had not
attained permanent or regular status pursuant to the Manual of Regulations for Private
Schools. The Labor Arbiter held that only full-time teachers with regular loads of at least
18 units who have satisfactorily completed three consecutive years of service qualify as
permanent or regular employees.
In the appeal by respondent, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed
the Decision of the Labor Arbiter and ordered the reinstatement of respondent without
loss of seniority right petitioner elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed
the Decision of the NLRC.
Petitioner contends that respondent did not attain permanent status since he did not carry
a load of at least 18 units for three consecutive years; and that only full-time teachers can
attain permanent status. Further, since respondent was not a permanent employee, the
twin-notice requirement in the termination of the latter's employment did not apply
Respondent argues that, as early as 1995, he had a permanent appointment as Assistant
Professor, and he was a permanent employee regardless of the provisions of the Manual
of Regulations for Private Schools. He asserts that he should not be faulted for not
carrying a load of at least 18 units since the university unilaterally controls his load
assignment in the same manner that the university has the prerogative to shorten his
probationary period.
Issues:
1. Was respondent a full-time teacher?
2. Had he attained permanent status?
3. Was he illegally dismissed?

Ruling:
1. No, the respondent is a not full-time teacher.

Under Section 45 of the 1992 Manual of Regulations for Private Schools provides that
full-time academic personnel are those meeting all the following requirements: Who
possess at least the minimum academic qualifications prescribed by the Department
under this Manual for all academic personnel;

Who are paid monthly or hourly, based on the regular teaching loads as provided for in
the policies, rules and standards of the Department and the school;

Whose total working day of not more than eight hours a day is devoted to the school;

Who have no other remunerative occupation elsewhere requiring regular hours of work
that will conflict with the working hours in the school; and

Who are not teaching full-time in any other educational institution.

All teaching personnel who do not meet the foregoing qualifications are considered part-
time.
2. No, he did not attained permanent status
Under Section 93 of the 1992 Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, provides that
full-time teachers who have satisfactorily completed their probationary period shall be
considered regular or permanent. Furthermore, the probationary period shall not be more
than six consecutive regular semesters of satisfactory service for those in the tertiary
level. Thus, the following requisites must concur before a private school teacher acquires
permanent status: (1) the teacher is a full-time teacher; (2) the teacher must have
rendered three consecutive years of service; and (3) such service must have been
satisfactory.
In the present case, petitioner claims that private respondent lacked the requisite years
of service with the university and also the appropriate quality of his service, i.e., it is less
than satisfactory.
Since there is no showing that respondent worked on a full-time basis for at least three
years, he could not have acquired a permanent status.[ A part-time employee does not
attain permanent status no matter how long he has served the school.And as a part-timer,
his services could be terminated by the school without being held liable for illegal
dismissal. Moreover, the requirement of twin-notice applicable only to regular or
permanent employees could not be invoked by respondent.

3. No, he was not illegally dismissed

The school could not lawfully terminate a part-timer before the end of the agreed period
without just cause. But once the period, semester, or term ends, there is no obligation on
the part of the school to renew the contract of employment for the next period, semester,
or term.
In this case, the contract of employment of the respondent was not presented. However,
judicial notice may be taken that contracts of employment of part-time teachers are
generally on a per semester or term basis. In the absence of a specific agreement on the
period... of the contract of employment, it is presumed to be for a term or semester. After
the end of each term or semester, the school does not have any obligation to give
teaching load to each and every part-time teacher
That petitioner did not give any teaching assignment to the respondent during a given
term or semester, even if factually true, did not amount to an actionable violation of
respondent's rights. It did not amount to illegal dismissal of the part-time teacher.

CASE #21

FILIPINAS PRE-FABRICATED BUILDING SYSTEMS (FILSYSTEMS) v ROGER D.

PUENTE G.R. No. 153832. March 18, 2005

FACTS:

"[Respondent] avers that he started working with [Petitioner] Filsystems, Inc., a

corporation engaged in construction business, on June 12, 1989; that he was initially hired
by [petitioner] company as an ‘installer’; that he was later promoted to mobile crane
operator and was stationed at the company premises. On October 1, 1999, he was
dismissed from his employment allegedly because he was a project employee. He filed a
pro forma complaint for illegal dismissal against the [petitioner] company on November
18, 1999.

Respondent’s Claim:

That since his work was not dependent on any project, his employment with the
[petitioner- ]company was continuous and without interruption for the past ten (10) years;
Petitioner’s Claim:

The [petitioner-]company however claims that complainant was hired as a project

employee in the company’s various projects; that his employment contracts showed that
he was a project worker with specific project assignments; that after completion of each
project assignment, his employment was likewise terminated and the same was
correspondingly reported to the DOLE.

LABOR ARBITER/ NLRC: DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF MERIT CA:

Reversed the NLRC and the labor arbiter thus:

"The employment contracts signed by petitioner Puente do not have the specified duration
for each project contrary to the provision of Article 280 of the Labor Code, nor did
petitioner work in the project sites, but had always been assigned at the company plant
attending to the maintenance of all mobile cranes of the company, performing tasks vital
and desirable in the employer’s usual business for ten (10) continuous years.

The CA concluded that respondent was a regular employee of petitioners. Hence, this
Petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent is a project employee.

RULING:

Yes. ART. 280. Regular and Casual Employment. - The provision of written agreement
to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an
employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to
perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade
of the employer, except where the 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 services to be performed is
seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.

With particular reference to the construction industry, to which Petitioner Filsystems

belongs, Department (of Labor and Employment) Order No. 19,11 Series of 1993, states:

2.1 Classification of employees. – The employees in the construction industry are

generally categorized as a) project employees and b) non-project employees. Project
employees are those employed in connection with a particular construction project or
phase thereof and whose employment is co-terminous with each project or phase of the
project to which they are assigned
2.2 Indicators of project employment. – Either one or more of the following circumstances,
among other, may be considered as indicators that an employee is a project employee.

(a) The duration of the specific/identified undertaking for which the worker is engaged is
reasonably determinable.

(b) Such duration, as well as the specific work/service to be performed, is defined in an

employment agreement and is made clear to the employee at the time of hiring.

(c) The work/service performed by the employee is in connection with the particular
project/undertaking for which he is engaged.

(d) The employee, while not employed and awaiting engagement, is free to offer his
services to any other employer.

(e) The termination of his employment in the particular project/undertaking is reported to

the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional Office having jurisdiction
over the workplace within 30 days following the date of his separation from work, using
the prescribed form on employees’ terminations/dismissals/suspensions.

(f) An undertaking in the employment contract by the employer to pay completion bonus
to the project employee as practiced by most construction companies.

In the present case, the contracts of employment of Puente attest to the fact that he was
hired for specific projects. His employment was coterminous with the completion of the
projects for which he had been hired. Those contracts expressly provided that his tenure
of employment depended on the duration of any phase of the project or on the completion
of the construction projects. Furthermore, petitioners regularly submitted to the labor
department reports of the termination of services of project workers. Such compliance
with the reportorial requirement confirms that respondent was a project employee.

Evidently, although the employment contract did not state a particular date, it did specify
that the termination of the parties’ employment relationship was to be on a "day certain"
-- the day when the phase of work termed "Lifting & Hauling of Materials" for the "World
Finance Plaza" project would be completed. Thus, respondent cannot be considered to
have been a regular employee. He was a project employee.

That he was employed with Petitioner Filsystems for ten years in various projects did not
ipso facto make him a regular employee, considering that the definition of regular
employment in Article 280 of the Labor Code makes a specific exception with respect to
project employment. The mere rehiring of respondent on a project-to-project basis did not
confer upon him regular employment status."The practice was dictated by the practical
consideration that experienced construction workers are more preferred.It did not change
his status as a project employee.

CASE #22
Benares vs. Pancho
G.R. No. 151827 April 29, 2005

FACTS:
The petitioner, Josefina Benares is the owner of Hacienda Masin II in Negros Occidental,
where the respondents worked as sugar farm workers. The respondents wrote the
Regional Director of DOLE Bacolod City for intercession in matters regarding wages and
other benefits mandated by law, and alleged to have been terminated without being justly
paid in retaliation to their report to DOLE. A formal complaint was filed for illegal dismissal
with money claims.

The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. Respondents appealed before
the NLRC. The NLRC held that the respondents are regular seasonal workers having
worked for more than 1 year, that Benares failed to discharge the burden of proving that
termination was for a just and authorized cause, and that they should be awarded money
claims. The CA affirmed the NLRC ruling.
Benares then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the SC. She averred that
respondents are not her regular employees as they were merely pakiao workers who did
not work continuously. On the other hand, respondents alleged that they are regular
seasonal employees and therefore Banares has burden of proving that their dismissal
was for a just and authorized cause.

ISSUE:
Whether respondents are regular employees of Hacienda Maasin and thus entitled to
monetary claims.

RULING:
Yes. The LA, NLRC, and CA have similarly held that respondents were regular employees
of Benares. It is a settled rule that the factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies are
accorded respect and finality. Article 280 of the Labor code provides for three kinds of
employees:
1. Regular employees or those who have been engaged to perform activities
which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the
employer;
2. Project employees or those 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; and
3. Casual employees or those who are neither regular nor project employees.
In Mercado vs. NLRC, the workers were engaged to do a particular phase of particular
phase of agricultural work necessary for rice and/or sugarcane production, after which
they would be free to render services to other farm workers. The Court ruled that it is not
seasonal employees who rendered at least 1 year of service, whether continuous or
broken, that become regular employees, but casual employees as provided for under
Article 280.
In Had Fatima vs. NFSWFGT, the workers performed the same tasks for every season
for several years. The Court considered them regular employees for their respective tasks
even though they only work for the duration of the season. It held that seasonal workers
who are called to work from time to time and are temporarily laid off during off-season are
not separated from service in that period, but merely considered on leave until re-
employed.
The Court in Hacienda Fatima held that the primary standard for determining regular
employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by
the employee vis-à-vis the nature of the work performed and its relation to the scheme of
the particular business trade or in its entirety. The law deems repeated and continuing
need for the performance of the work as sufficient evidence of the necessity if not
indispensability of that activity to the business. Hence, the employment is considered
regular, but only with respect to such activity and while such activity exists.
Instant petition denied. Assailed Decision and Resolution of the CA are hereby affirmed.

CASE #23
GR. No. 168052
Poseidon Fishing v. NLRC

Facts:
Petitioner Poseidon Fishing is a fishing company engaged in the deep-sea fishing
industry. Its various vessels catch fish in the outlying islands of the Philippines, which are
traded and sold at the Navotas Fish Port. One of its boat crew was private respondent
Jimmy Estoquia. Petitioner Terry de Jesus is the manager of petitioner company.

Private respondent was employed by Poseidon Fishing in January 1988 as Chief Mate.
After five years, he was then promoted to Boat Captain. In 1999, petitioner, without
reason, demoted private respondent from Boat Captain to Radio Operator of petitioner
Poseidon. As such, he monitored the daily activities in their office and recorded in the dity
logbook the names of the callers and the time of their calls. On July 3, 2000, private
respondent failed to record a 7:25AM call in one of the logbooks. However, he was able
to record the same in the other logbook. Consequently, when he reviewed the two
logbooks, he noticed that the was not able to record the said call in one logbook so he
immediately recorded the 7:25AM call after the 7:30AM entry.
July 4, 2000, when petitioner Terry de Jesus detected the error in the entry in the logbook.
Subsequently, she asked the private respondent to prepare an incident report to explain
the reason for the said oversight. On the same day, poseidon’s secretary, Nenita Laderas,
summoned private respondent to get his separation pay amounting to P55,000. However,
he refused to accept the said amount as ge believed that he did nothing illegal to warrant
his immediate discharge from work.
Petitioners strongly asserted that private respondent was a contractual or a casual
employee whose services could be terminated at the end of the contract even without a
just or authorized cause. Petitioners further posited that when the private respondent was
engaged, it was. Made clear to him that he was being employed only on a por viaje or per
trip basis and that his employment would be terminated at the end of the trip which he
was being hired. As such, private respondent could not be entitled to separation pay and
other monetary claims.
The Labor Arbiter decided in favor of private respondent. The NLRC affirmed the decision
of the Labor Arbiter with the modification. Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with the
Court of Appeals, imputing grave abuse of discretion, but the Court of Appeals found
none.
Issue:
Whether or not Estoquia is a regular employee of Poseidon Fishing

Ruling:
Yes. He was a regular employee. The test to determine whether employment is regular
or not is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the
employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer. And, if the employee
has been performing the job for at least one year, even if the performance is not
continuous or merely intermittent, the law deems the repeated and continuing need for its
performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity, if not indispensability of that activity
to business.

Article 280 draws a line between regular and casual employment. The provision
enumerates two (2) kinds of employees, the regular employees and the casual
employees. The regular employees consist of the following: 1) those 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 such
service is continuous or broken. In a span of 12 years, Eustoquia worked for petitioner
first as a Chief Mate, then Boat Captain, and later as Radio Operator. His job was directly
related to the deep-sea fishing business of petitioner Poseidon. His work was, therefore,
necessary and important to the business of his employer. Such being the scenario
involved, Eustoquia is considered a regular employee.

CASE NO.24 (SAME CASE WITH CASE #3)

CASE #25
G.R. No. 173849 September 28, 2007
PIER 8 ARRASTRE & STEVEDORING SERVICES, INC. and/ or ELIODORO C. CRUZ,
Petitioners,
vs.
JEFF B. BACLOT, Respondent

FACTS:
Petitioner Pier 8 Arrastre and Stevedoring Services, Inc. (PASSI) is a domestic
corporation engaged in the business of providing arrastre and stevedoring services5 at
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. Petitioner Eliodoro C. Cruz is its Vice-
President and General Manager.
Respondent Jeff B. Boclot was hired by PASSI to perform the functions of a stevedore
starting 20 September 1999.

On 9 May 2003, respondent filed a Complaint with the Labor Arbiter of the NLRC, claiming
regularization; payment of service incentive leave and 13th month pays; moral, exemplary
and actual damages; and attorney's fees.

Respondent relied on Article XXV of the company's existing CBA, effective 4 March 1998
to 3 March 2003, which states the following:

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 probationary period for all future workers or employees shall be the following:

A. All skilled workers such as crane operator, mechanic, carpenter, winchman, signalman
and checkers shall become regular after three (3) months continuous employment;

b. All semi-skilled personnel shall become regular after four (4) months of continuous
employment;

c. All non-skilled personnel shall be regular after six (6) months continuous employment.

In opposition thereto, petitioners alleged that respondent was hired as a mere "reliever"
stevedore and could thus not become a regular employee.

On 24 November 2003, NLRC Labor Arbiter Felipe P. Pati ruled for petitioners and
dismissed respondent's complaint. In finding no factual or legal basis for the regularization
of respondent, the Labor Arbiter came to the conclusion that respondent was "nothing
more than an extra worker who is called upon to work at the pier in the absence of regular
stevedores at a certain shift. "He deemed that Articles 280 and 281 of the Labor Code
were inapplicable, on the contention that the aforementioned articles speak of
probationary employees and casual employees while respondent, as a reliever, is neither
a probationary employee nor a casual employee.

Respondent appealed the Labor Arbiter's dismissal of his complaint to the NLRC.

The NLRC ruled that petitioners' failure, without reasonable explanation, to present proof
of absences of "regular" stevedores leads to the conclusion that the stevedores, termed
by petitioners as "relievers," work on rotation basis, just like the "regular" stevedores.
Petitioners elevated their case to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Certiorari with
prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary
injunction.

On 18 November 2005, the Court of Appeals dismissed the Petition for Certiorari and
affirmed the Resolutions of the NLRC finding respondent to be a regular employee. Citing
De Leon v. National Labor Relations Commission, which enumerated the standards for
determining regular employment, the Court of Appeals ruled that even assuming that
respondent was able to render services for only 228.5 days in a period of 36 months, the
fact remains that his services were continuously utilized by petitioners in their business.
Where the job is usually necessary or desirable to the main business of the employer,
then the employment is regular.

Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the Court of Appeals.

Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari

ISSUE:
Whether or not private respondent Jeff Boclot is a regular employee.

RULING:
Yes, private respondent Jeff Boclot is a regular employee.
This Court has arrived at the same conclusion as those of the NLRC and the Court of
Appeals that respondent is a regular employee, but on a different basis.
The standards for determining whether an employee is a regular employee or a casual or
project employee have been delineated in Article 280 of the Labor Code, to wit:

Article 280. Regular and Casual Employment. - The provisions of written agreement to
the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an
employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to
perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade
of the employer, except where the 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 services to be performed is
seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.

An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding

paragraph: Provided, That, any employee who has rendered at least one year of service,
whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee
with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue
while such actually exist.

Based on the aforementioned, although performing activities that are necessary or

desirable in the usual trade or business of the employer, an employee such as a project
or seasonal employee is not necessarily a regular employee. The situation of respondent
is similar to that of a project or seasonal employee, albeit on a daily basis.
Petitioners concede that whenever respondent worked as a reliever stevedore due to the
absence of a regular stevedore, he performed tasks that are usually necessary and
desirable to their business.

Based on the circumstances of the instant case, this Court agrees. It takes judicial notice
that it is an industry practice in port services to hire "reliever" stevedores in order to ensure
smooth-flowing 24-hour stevedoring and arrastre operations in the port area.

The situation of respondent is akin to that of a seasonal or project or term employee,

albeit on a daily basis.

Anent petitioners' contention that respondent is neither a probationary nor a casual

employee, this Court again refers to Article 280 of the Labor Code.

The second paragraph thereof 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. Not qualifying under any of the kinds of
employees covered by the first paragraph of Article 280 of the Labor Code, then
respondent is a casual employee under the second paragraph of the same provision.

The same provision, however, provides that a casual employee can be considered as
regular employee if said casual employee has rendered at least one year of service
regardless of the fact that such service may be continuous or broken.

Respondent, who has performed actual stevedoring services for petitioners only for an
accumulated period of 228.5 days does not fall under the classification of a casual turned
regular employee after rendering at least one year of service, whether continuous or
intermittent.

NONETHELESS, this Court still finds respondent to be a regular employee on the basis
of pertinent provisions under the CBA between PASSI and its Workers' union, which was
effective from 4 March 1998 to 3 March 2003.

Applying the foregoing provisions of the CBA, respondent should be considered a regular
employee after six months of accumulated service. It is clearly stipulated therein that
petitioners shall agree to convert to regular status all incumbent probationary or casual
employees and workers in PASSI who have served PASSI for an accumulated service
term of employment of not less than six months from the original date of hiring. Having
rendered 228.5 days, or eight months of service to petitioners since 1999, then
respondent is entitled to regularization by virtue of the said CBA provisions.

In light of the foregoing, petitioners must accord respondent the status of a regular
employee.

CASE #26
THE PENINSULA MANILA VS. ELAINE ALIPIO
G.R. No. 167310 | June 17, 2008| J. Quisumbing
Doctrine: 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.

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.
● Manila Pen then required her to submit a summary of her tour of duty for 1997.
After submitting, she was paid her 13th month pay for 1997. Alipio also
requested for the payment of her 13th month pay for 1993 to 1996, but her
request was denied.
● 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:
- reinstate Alipio as regular staff nurse without loss of seniority rights;
- pay her full backwages and all the benefits under the Labor Code from December 12,
1994 up to the time of her actual reinstatement, moral damages, exemplary damages,
and attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award

ISSUE: WON Alipio was illegally dismissed. (my own words) – YES. RATIO:
 · The conclusions reached by the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter, that Alipio was not
a regular employee of the hotel and that she was validly dismissed, are not
supported by law and evidence on record.
· 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.

-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.
- Being a regular employee, Alipio enjoys security of tenure. Her services may be
terminated only upon compliance with the substantive and procedural requisites for a
valid dismissal: (1) the dismissal must be for any of the causes provided in Art. 282 of LC,
and (2) the employee must be given an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.
-In the case at bar, Alipio was illegally dismissed because Manila Pen failed to comply
with the twin requisites for a valid termination.
1) The dismissal was not based on a just cause - Misconduct is any forbidden act
or dereliction of duty. Alipio's act
of obtaining copies of her payslips cannot be characterized as misconduct, much
less a grave misconduct. On the contrary, it is absurd that she had to resort to her
own resourcefulness to get hold of these documents since it was incumbent upon
Manila Pen, as her employer, to give her copies of her payslips.
2) She was deprived of procedural due process - When Santos had a meeting
with Alipio, she was not informed that the hotel was contemplating her dismissal.
Neither was she informed of the ground for which her dismissal was sought. She
was simply told right there and then that she was already dismissed, thereby
affording no opportunity for her to be heard and defend herself.

CASE #27
G.R. No. 178835 February 9, 2009
MAGIS YOUNG ACHIEVER’S LEARNING CENTER v MANALO

FACTS:
Adelaida Manalo was hired as a teacher and acting principal on April 18, 2002 with a
monthly salary of Php 15, 000 pesos. On March 29, 2003, Manalo submitted a letter of
resignation due to family and personal reasons, which is effective by April 1. On March
31, 2003, Manalo received a letter of termination, indicating that part of the petitioner’s
cost-cutting scheme is a systematic reorganization, including the abolishment of the
position PRINCIPAL for the next school year. On April 4, 2003, respondent instituted
against petitioner a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of 13th month pay,
with a prayer for reinstatement, award of full back wages and moral and exemplary
damages. Manalo also claimed that her termination violated the provisions of her
employment contract, and that the alleged abolition of the position of principal was not
among the grounds for termination by an employer under Article 282 of the Labor Code.
She further asserted that petitioner infringed Article 283 of the Labor Code, as the
required 30-day notice to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and to her
as the employee, and the payment of her separation pay were not complied with.

On the other hand, petitioner countered that Manalo was legally terminated because the
one-year probationary period, from April 1, 2002 to March 3, 2003, had already lapsed
and she failed to meet the criteria set by the school pursuant to the Manual of Regulation
for Private Schools, adopted by the then Department of Education, Culture and Sports
(DECS), paragraph 75 of which provides that:

· Full time teacher who have rendered three years of satisfactory service shall
be considered permanent.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Manalo is a permanent employee.

RULING:
No, for Academic personnel in private elementary and secondary schools, it is only after
one has satisfactorily completed the probationary period of three (3) school years and is
rehired that he acquires full tenure as regular or permanent employee. The common
practice is for the employer and the teacher to enter into a contract, effective for one
school year. At the end of the school year, the employer has the option not to renew the
contract, particularly considering the teacher’s performance. If the contract is not
renewed, the employment relationship terminates. If the contract is renewed, usually for
another school year, the probationary employment continues.

LA- DISMISSED
· Lack of Merit; ordered payment of 13 th month pay. Manalo resigned prior to
the alleged termination.

NLRC- GRANTED
· Petitioner was ordered to reinstate Manalo as a teacher, who shall be
credited with one-year service of probationary employment.

CA- AFFIRMED
· There was no express acceptance of the said resignation and there is a
cloud of doubt as to the voluntariness of Manalo’s resignation.

CASE #28
G.R. No. 183572 April 13, 2010
MERCADO vs AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE, PARANAQUE CITY
FACTS:
The petitioners were faculty members who started teaching at AMACC on May 25, 1998.
The petitioner Mercado was engaged as a Professor 3, while petitioner Tonog was
engaged as an Assistant Professor 2. On the other hand, petitioners De Leon, Lachica
and Alba, Jr., were all engaged as Instructor 1. The petitioners executed individual
Teacher’s Contracts for each of the trimesters that they were engaged to teach. One of
the stipulations reads:

1. POSITION. The TEACHER has agreed to accept a non-tenured appointment to work

in the College of xxx effective xxx to xxx or for the duration of the last term that the
TEACHER is given a teaching load based on the assignment duly approved by the
DEAN/SAVP-COO.

For the school year 2000-2001, AMACC implemented new faculty screening guidelines,
set forth in its Guidelines on the Implementation of AMACC Faculty Plantilla. 7 Under the
new screening guidelines, teachers were to be hired or maintained based on extensive
teaching experience, capability, potential, high academic qualifications and research
background. The performance standards under the new screening guidelines were also
used to determine the present faculty members’ entitlement to salary increases. The
petitioners failed to obtain a passing rating based on the performance standards; hence
AMACC did not give them any salary increase. 8

On September 7, 2000, the petitioners individually received a memorandum from

AMACC, through Human Resources Supervisor Mary Grace Beronia, informing them that
with the expiration of their contract to teach, their contract would no longer be renewed

The Labor Arbiter ruled that the petitioners were illegally dismissed. The NLRC denied
the AMACC’s appeal. However, Court of Appeals granted AMACC’s petition for certiorari
and dismissed the petitioner’s complaint for illegal dismissal.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners were illegally dismissed?

RULING:
The use of employment for fixed periods during the teachers’ probationary period is
likewise an accepted practice in the teaching profession.

The school, however, cannot forget that its system of fixed-term contract is a system that
operates during the probationary period and for this reason is subject to the terms of
Article 281 of the Labor Code. Unless this reconciliation is made, the requirements of this
Article on probationary status would be fully negated as the school may freely choose not
to renew contracts simply because their terms have expired. The inevitable effect of
course is to wreck the scheme that the Constitution and the Labor Code established to
balance relationships between labor and management.

Given the clear constitutional and statutory intents, we cannot but conclude that in a
situation where the probationary status overlaps with a fixed-term contract not specifically
used for the fixed term it offers, Article 281 should assume primacy and the fixed-period
character of the contract must give way. This conclusion is immeasurably strengthened
by the petitioners and the AMACCs hardly concealed expectation that the employment
on probation could lead to permanent status, and that the contracts are renewable unless
the petitioners fail to pass the schools standards.

To highlight, a fixed-term contract specifically used for the fixed term it offers, a
replacement teacher, for example, may be contracted for a period of one year to
temporarily take the place of a permanent teacher on a one-year study leave. The
expiration of the replacement teachers contracted term, under the circumstances, leads
to no probationary status implications as she was never employed on probationary basis;
her employment is for a specific purpose with particular focus on the term and with every
intent to end her teaching relationship with the school upon expiration of this term.

While we can grant that the standards were duly communicated to the petitioners and
could be applied beginning the 1st trimester of the school year 2000-2001, glaring and
very basic gaps in the school’s evidence still exist. The exact terms of the standards were
never introduced as evidence; neither does the evidence show how these standards were
applied to the petitioners. Without these pieces of evidence (effectively, the finding of just
cause for the non-renewal of the petitioners’ contracts), we have nothing to consider and
pass upon as valid or invalid for each of the petitioners. Inevitably, the non-renewal (or
effectively, the termination of employment of employees on probationary status) lacks the
supporting finding of just cause that the law requires and, hence, is illegal.

In this light, the CA decision should be reversed. Thus, the LA’s decision, affirmed as
to the results by the NLRC, should stand as the decision to be enforced, appropriately re-
computed to consider the period of appeal and review of the case up to our level.

CASE #29
G.R. No. 170351 30 March 2011
Leyte Geothermal Power Progressive Employees Union v. PNOC-EDC

FACTS:
Respondent is a GOCC while petitioner is a legitimate labor organization. Among
[respondent’s] geothermal projects is the Leyte Geothermal Power Project located at the
Greater Tongonan Geothermal Reservation in Leyte. Thus, the [respondent] hired and
employed hundreds of employees on a contractual basis, whereby, their employment was
only good up to the completion or termination of the project and would automatically
expire upon the completion of such project.

Majority of the employees hired by [respondent] in its Leyte Geothermal Power Projects
had become members of petitioner. In view of that circumstance, the petitioner demands
from the [respondent] for recognition of it as the collective bargaining agent of said
employees and for a CBA negotiation with it. However, the [respondent] did not heed
such demands of the petitioner. Sometime in 1998 when the project was about to be
completed, the [respondent] proceeded to serve Notices of Termination of Employment
upon the employees who are members of the petitioner.

On December 28, 1998, the petitioner filed a Notice of Strike with DOLE against the
[respondent] on the ground of purported commission by the latter of unfair labor practice
for “refusal to bargain collectively, union busting and mass termination.” On the same day,
the petitioner declared a strike and staged such strike.
Secretary of Labor intervened and ordered all workers to return to work. However,
petitioner did not abide.

NLRC: ruled that the employees are PROJECT EMPLOYEES, and the strike as ILLEGAL
Petitioner Union contends that its officers and members performed activities that were
usually necessary and desirable to respondent’s usual business.

ISSUE:
WON they are project employees.

HELD:
They are PROJECT EMPLOYEES .Article 280 of the Labor Code contemplates four (4)
kinds of employees: (a) regular employees or those who have been “engaged to perform
activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the
employer”; (b) project employees or those “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”; (c) seasonal employees or
those who work or perform services which are seasonal in nature, and the employment
is for the duration of the season; and (d) casual employees or those who are not regular,
project, or seasonal employees.

Jurisprudence has added a fifth kind— a fixed-term employee. By entering into such a
contract, an employee is deemed to understand that his employment is coterminous with
the project. He may not expect to be employed continuously beyond the completion of
the project. It is of judicial notice that project employees engaged for manual services or
those for special skills like those of carpenters or masons, are, as a rule, unschooled.
However, this fact alone is not a valid reason for bestowing special treatment on them or
for invalidating a contract of employment. Project employment contracts are not lopsided
agreements in favor of only one party thereto. The employer’s interest is equally important
as that of the employee[s’] for theirs is the interest that propels economic activity. While
it may be true that it is the employer who drafts project employment contracts with its
business interest as overriding consideration, such contracts do not, of necessity,
prejudice the employee. Neither is the employee left helpless by a prejudicial employment
contract. After all, under the law, the interest of the worker is paramount.

Union’s own admission, both parties had executed the contracts freely and voluntarily
without force, duress or acts tending to vitiate the worker[s’] consent. Thus, we see no
reason not to honor and give effect to the terms and conditions stipulated therein.
The litmus test to determine whether an individual is a project employee lies in setting a
fixed period of employment involving a specific undertaking which completion or
termination has been determined at the time of the particular employee’s engagement.

CASE #30
G.R. No. 204406, February 26, 2014
MACARTHUR MALICDEM and HERMENIGILDO FLORES, Petitioners,
vs.
MARULAS INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION and MIKE MANCILLA, Respondents.

FACTS:
A complaint for illegal dismissal, separation pay, money claims, moral and exemplary
damages, and attorney's fees was filed by petitioners Malicdem and Flores against
respondents Marulas Industrial Corporation (Marulas) and Mike Mancilla (Mancilla), who
were engaged in the business of manufacturing sacks intended for local and export
markets.

Malicdem and Flores were first hired by Marulas as extruder operators in 2006, as shown
by their employment contracts. They were responsible for the bagging of filament yarn,
the quality of pp yarn package and the cleanliness of the work place area. Their
employment contracts were for a period of one (1) year. Every year thereafter, they would
sign a Resignation/Quitclaim in favor of Marulas a day after their contracts ended, and
then sign another contract for one (1) year. Until one day, on December 16, 2010, Flores
was told not to report for work anymore after being asked to sign a paper by Marulas' HR
Head to the effect that he acknowledged the completion of his contractual status. On
February 1, 2011, Malicdem was also terminated after signing a similar document. Thus,
both claimed to have been illegally dismissed.

Marulas countered that their contracts showed that they were fixed-term employees for a
specific undertaking which was to work on a particular order of a customer for a specific
period. Their severance from employment was due to the expiration of their contracts. On
July 13, 2011, the Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a decision5 in favor of the respondents,
finding no illegal dismissal.

Malicdem and Flores appealed to the NLRC which partially granted their appeal. Still,
petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the NLRC on February
29, 2011. Aggrieved, Malicdem and Flores filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with
the CA. On July 18, 2012, the CA denied the petition,9 finding no grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the NLRC.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in not finding any grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the NLRC.
RULING:
Yes, The petitioners have convincingly shown that they should be considered regular
employees and, as such, entitled to full backwages and other entitlements. A reading of
the 2008 employment contracts,13 denominated as "Project Employment Agreement,"
reveals that there was a stipulated probationary period of six (6) months from its
commencement. It was provided therein that in the event that they would be able to
comply with the company’s standards and criteria within such period, they shall be
reclassified as project employees with respect to the remaining period of the effectivity of
the contract.

The test to determine whether employment is regular or not is the reasonable connection
between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual
business or trade of the employer. To begin with, there is no actual project. The only
stipulations in the contracts were the dates of their effectivity, the duties and
responsibilities of the petitioners as extruder operators, the rights and obligations of the
parties, and the petitioners’ compensation and allowances. As there was no specific
project or undertaking to speak of, the respondents cannot invoke the exception in Article
280 of the Labor Code.18 This is a clear attempt to frustrate the regularization of the
petitioners and to circumvent the law. The respondents cannot use the alleged expiration
of the employment contracts of the petitioners as a shield of their illegal acts.

Now that it has been clearly established that the petitioners were regular employees, their
termination is considered illegal for lack of just or authorized causes. Under Article 279 of
the Labor Code, an employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to
reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full
backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent
computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his
actual reinstatement. The law intends the award of backwages and similar benefits to
accumulate past the date of the LA decision until the dismissed employee is actually
reinstated

CASE #31
G.R. Nos. 174365-66, February 04, 2015
Basan vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines,

Facts:
Petitioners Romeo Basan, Danilo Dizon, Jaime L. Tumabiao, Jr., Roberto Dela Rama,
Ricky Nicolas, Crispulo D. Donor, Galo Falguera filed a complaint for illegal dismissal wi
th money claims againstrespondent Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, alleging that
respondent dismissed them without just cause and prior written notice required by law.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioners and found that since they were performing
activities necessary and desirable to the usual business of petitioner for more than the
period for regularization, petitioners are considered as regular employees, and thus, their
dismissal was done contrary to law in the absence of just cause and prior written notice.
Thus, it ordered respondent to reinstate petitioners with full back wages from the time
their salaries were withheld until their actual reinstatement and to pay their lumpsum
increase extended to them in their collective bargaining agreement, their accrued
vacation and sick leave benefits, as well as monetary awards and attorney's fees. The
NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision and rejected respondent's contention that
petitioners were merely employed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or
termination of which has been determined at the time of their engagement. Respondent
filed a petition for certiorari with the CA alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of
the NLRC in finding that petitioners were regular employees.
In the meantime, petitioners filed before the Labor Arbiter a Motion for Issuance of a Writ
of Execution to which respondent filed a Manifestation and Motion with attached
Opposition. The Labor Arbiter ordered that the Writ of Execution be issued, which was
affirmed by the NLRC.
Consequently, respondent filed another petition for certiorari claiming that the NLRC
committed grave abuse of discretion in directing the execution of a judgment,
the propriety and validity of which was still under determination of the appellate court. The
CA consolidated respondent's two (2) petitions for certiorari and reversed the rulings of
the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter. The CA denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
Petitioners essentially maintain that contrary to the findings of the CA, they were
continuously hired by respondent company to perform duties necessary and desirable in
the usual trade or business and are, therefore, regular employees. They allege that if their
services had really been engaged for fixed specific periods, respondent should have at
least provided the contracts of employment evidencing the same. For its part, respondent
contends that the petition should be denied due course for its verification and certification
of non-forum shopping was signed by only one of the petitioners. It alleges that even
assuming the validity of the same, it should still be dismissed for the appellate court aptly
found that petitioners were fixed-term employees who were hired intermittently.
Issue:
Whether or not the petition should be denied due course for its verification and certification
of non-forum shopping was signed by only one of the petitioners.
Held:
No. The general rule is that the verification and certification of non-forum shopping must
be signed by all the petitioners in a case, the signature of only one of them, petitioner
Basan in this case, appearing thereon may be deemed substantial compliance with the
procedural requirement. Jurisprudence is replete with rulings that the rule on verification
is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge to swear to
the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification, and when
matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct.
Similarly, this Court has consistently held that when under reasonable or justifiable
circumstances, as when all the petitioners share a common interest and invoke a
common cause of action or defense, as in this case, the signature of only one of them in
the certification against forum shopping substantially complies with the certification
requirement. Thus, the fact that the petition was signed only by petitioner Basan does not
necessarily result in its outright dismissal for it is more in accord with substantial justice
to overlook petitioners' procedural lapses.
Indeed, the application of technical rules of procedure may be relaxed in labor cases to
serve the demand of justice.

CASE #32
GR #: 199683, February 10, 2016
ARLENE SAMONTE
vs.
LA SALLE GREENHILLS

FACTS:
La Salle Greenhills, Inc. (LSGI), for 15 years, contracted the services of medical
professionals, for its Health Service Team (HST). Petitioners, along with other members
of the HST signed uniform one-page Contracts of Retainer for the period of a specific
academic calendar beginning in June of a certain year (1989 and the succeeding 15
years) and terminating in March of the following year when the school year ends.

1. This retainer is only temporary in character and, as above specified, shall be solely
and exclusively limited to the project/undertaking and/ or to the job/task assigned
to the retainer within the said project/undertaking;
2. This retainer shall, without need of any notice to the retainer, automatically cease
on the afore specified expiration date/s of the said project/undertaking and/or the
said job/task; provided, that this retainer shall likewise be deemed terminated if the
said project/undertaking and/or fob/task shall be completed on a date/s prior to
their afore specified expiration date/s;

However, after 15 consecutive years of renewal each academic year, LSGI Head
Administrator, Herman Rochester, on that last day of the school year in 2004, informed
the Medical Service Team, including the petitioners, that their contracts will no longer be
renewed for the following school year by reason of LSGI's decision to hire two (2) full-
time doctors and dentists. One of the physicians from the same Health Service Team was
hired by LSGI as a full-time doctor.

Petitioners' requests for payment of their separation pay, but were denied. They filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for separation pay, damages and attorney's
fees before the NLRC.

Petitioners alleged that they were regular employees who could only be dismissed for just
and authorized causes, who, up to the time of their termination, regularly received the
following amounts:
1. Monthly salary for the ten-month period of a given school year;
 2. Annual 13th Month Pay equivalent to their one month salary;
3. Automatic yearly increase to their monthly salary, the rate of which is discretionary
to LSGFs Executive Administrator based on a comparative rate to the across the
board increase of the regular school employees which increase was subsequently
reflected in their [HST'S] monthly salaries for the following school year;
4. Since 1996, as a result of the HST's request for a performance bonus, the team
was likewise evaluated for a year-end performance rating by HRD- CENTRO

Complainants also pointed out that in the course of their employment, each of them
served an average of 9 hours a week. But beyond their duty hours, they were on call for
any medical exigencies of the La Sallian community.

LSGI denied that complainants were regular employees, asserting that they were
independent contractors who were retained by LSGI by reason of their medical skills and
expertise to provide ancillary medical and dental services to both its students and faculty,
consistent with the following circumstances:

1. Complainants were professional physicians and dentists on retainer basis, paid on

monthly retainer fees, not regular salaries;
2. LSGI had no power to impose disciplinary measures upon complainants including
dismissal from employment;
3. LSGI had no power of control over how complainants actually performed their
professional services.

The Labor Arbiter dismissed petitioners' complaint and ruled that complainants, as
propounded by LSGI, were independent contractor. The Labor Arbiter based its over-all
finding of the absence of control by LSGI over complainants on the following points:
1. The professional services provided by complainants, cannot be considered as
necessary to LSGI's business of providing primary and secondary education to its
students;
2. The pay slips of complainants are not salaries but professional fees less taxes
withheld for the medical services they provided;
3. Issuance of identification cards to, and the requirement to log the time-in and time-
out of, complainants are not indicia of LSGI's power of control over them but were
only imposed for security reasons and in compliance with the agreed clinic
schedules of complainants at LSGI premises.
4. In contrast to regular employees of LSGI, complainants: (a) were not required to
attend or participate in school-sponsored activities and (b) did not enjoy benefits
such as educational subsidy for their dependents.

The Labor Arbiter, on the ground of compassionate social justice, awarded complainants
separation pay at the rate of one-half month salary for every year of service.

NLRC disagreed with the Labor Arbiter's ruling that complainants were independent
contractors based on the latter's opinion that the services rendered by complainants are
not considered necessary to LSGI's operation as an educational institution.
The NLRC noted that Presidential Decree No. 856, otherwise known as the Sanitation
Code of the Philippines, requires that private educational institutions comply with the
sanitary laws. Nonetheless, the NLRC found that complainants were fixed-period
employees whose terms of employment were subject to agreement for a specific duration.

In all, the NLRC ruled that the Contracts of Retainer between complainants and LSGI are
valid fixed-term employment contracts.

In dismissing the petition for certiorari, the appellate court ruled that the NLRC did not
commit an error of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals ruled against petitioners' claim of
regular employment

ISSUE:
WON the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioners were fixed-period employees
and not regular employees of LSGI.

RULING:
Yes. The CA erred in the ruling.

In the case at bar, the Court of Appeals disregarded the repeated renewals of the
Contracts of Retainer of petitioners spanning a decade and a half.

The uniform one-page Contracts of Retainer signed by petitioners were prepared by LSGI
alone. Petitioners, medical professionals as they were, were still not on equal footing with
LSGI as they obviously did not want to lose their jobs that they had stayed in for fifteen
(15) years.

There is no specificity in the contracts regarding terms and conditions of employment that
would indicate that petitioners and LSGI were on equal footing in negotiating it. Notably,
without specifying what are the tasks assigned to petitioners, LSGI "may upon prior
written notice to the retainer, terminate [the] contract should the retainer fail in any way to
perform his assigned job/task to the satisfaction of LSGI or for any other just cause.

While vague in its sparseness, the Contract of Retainer very clearly spelled out that LSGI
had the power of control over petitioners. Time and again we have held that the power of
control refers to the existence of the power and not necessarily to the actual exercise
thereof, nor is it essential for the employer to actually supervise the performance of duties
of the employee. It is enough that the employer has the right to wield that power.

In all, given the following: (1) repeated renewal of petitioners' contract for fifteen years,
interrupted only by the close of the school year; (2) the necessity of the work performed
by petitioners as school physicians and dentists; and (3) the existence of LSGI's power
of control over the means and method pursued by petitioners in the performance of their
job, we rule that petitioners attained regular employment.
Consequently, petitioners were illegally dismissed and are entitled to the twin remedies
of payment of separation pay and full back wages. We order separation pay in lieu of
reinstatement given the time that has lapsed, twelve years, in the litigation of this case.

A fixed-term employment is allowable under the Labor Code only if the term was
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.

From the wording of Article 280 of the Labor Code, that the nomenclature of contracts,
especially employment contracts, does not define the employment status of a person:
Such is defined and prescribed by law and not by what the parties say it should be.
Equally important to consider is that a contract of employment is impressed with public
interest such that labor contracts must yield to the common good. Thus, provisions of
applicable statutes are deemed written into the contract…, Further, a fixed-term contract
is an employment contract, the repeated renewals of which make for a regular
employment.