Jeff Gabriel Cruz

2-A
Labor 1 – Prof. Daway

Roy D. Pasos v. Philippine National Construction Corp.

Roy Pasos started working for PNCC on Apr. 26, 1996 and was assigned to the NAIA-II Project. It was
stated that his project employment was from Apr. 26 1996 to July 25 1996 and that if services are still
needed beyond, Company will extend your services. His employment was extended for 3 more times with
the third not having a specified date of termination but eventually ending on Oct. 19, 2000.Despite the
termination, his superior instructed him to report for work the following day, telling him that he will again
be employed for the succeeding SM projects. He submitted his application for sick leave when it was
revealed he contracted Koch’s disease but the Personnel Officer told him that he was not entitled to a sick
leave because he is not a regular employee.
He still served his leave and was eventually given medical clearance that he was fit to work. But
upon presenting this, he was informed that he was terminated on Oct. 19 2000 and was already replaced.
He filed for illegal dismissal. He argued that he is deemed a regular employee due to his prolonged
employment as a project employee and that PNCC failed to report his termination every time a project is
completed.

Issue:
1. W/N Pasos is a regular employee – YES

Held:
1. Petitioner worked continuously for more than two years after the supposed three-month duration
of his project employment for the NAIA II Project. While his appointment for said project allowed
such extension if "services are still needed beyond the validity of the contract, the Company shall
extend his services," there was no subsequent contract or appointment that specified a particular
duration for the extension.
o His employment after the first 3 months, when his services were extended without any
specification of as to the duration, made him a regular employee of PNCC. And his status
as a regular employee was not affected by the fact that he was assigned to several other
projects and there were intervals in between said projects since he enjoys security of
tenure.
2. Failure of an employer to file termination reports after every project completion proves that an
employee is not a project employee. PNCC did not report the termination of petitioner’s supposed
project employment for the NAIA II Project in accordance with DO No. 19
o If respondents were indeed employed as "project employees," PNCC should have
submitted a report of termination to the nearest public employment office every time
their employment was terminated due to completion

Malicdem v. Marulas
Petitioners were hired by Marulas as extruder operators in 2006. They were to bag lament yarn
and ensure cleanliness of the work area for a period of 1 year. Every year thereafter, they would sign a
Resignation/Outclaim in favor of Marulas a day after their contracts ended, then sign another for 1 year.
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. In 2011,
Malicdem was also terminated after signing a similar document. Malicdem claims the contract explicitly
states that petitioners were fixed-term employees and termination was due to expiration of their contracts
while petitioners claim their continuous rehiring made them regular employees.

Issue:
1. W/N petitioners were project or regular employees – REGULAR

Held:
1. Their employment agreement in 2008 states a probationary period of 6 months. In the event that
they would be able to comply with standards, they shall be reclassified as project employees with
respect to the remaining period.
a. Art. 281, LC states that "an employee who is allowed to work after a probationary period
shall be considered a regular employee."
2. 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.
a. The Court is of the considered view that there was clearly a deliberate intent to prevent
the regularization of the petitioners.
b. There is no actual project. As there was no specific project or undertaking to speak of, the
respondents cannot invoke the exception in Article 280 of the Labor Code
3. Granting that they were project employees, the petitioners could only be considered as regular
employees as the two factors enumerated in Maraguinot, Jr., are present in this case. It is
undisputed that the petitioners were continuously rehired by the same employer for the same
position. Their work was vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the
employer.

Hacienda Leddy v. Villegas

Paquito Villegas worked in Hacienda Leddy owned first by Ricardo Gamboa, and succeeded by his
son, Gamboa Jr. as early as 1960 performing sugar farming jobs 8 hrs a day, 6 days a week. In 1993, he
terminated Villegas’ employment which prompted the latter to file a complaint for illegal dismissal.
Gamboa denies dismissing Villegas alleging that he only did casual and odd jobs until his Father’s death in
1993. He retracted said statements and alleged instead that he only worked in the farm in February 9 and
11, 1993 as was contracted to cut coconut lumber. He also alleges that he only filed the complaint to stop
Gamboa from evicting him as he had built a house in the Hacienda.

Issue:
1. W/N Villegas was a regular employee – YES
Held:
1. 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.
a. Villegas had been working in the Hacienda when Gamboa Sr. was still managing the
Hacienda and had continued to do so until Gamboa’s father died
b. Villegas had been working in the Hacienda for more than 20 years which indicates the
regularity of his employment
i. Even if he had been doing odd jobs around the farm, such long period of doing
said odd jobs is indicative that the same was either necessary or desirable to
petitioner’s trade or business.
 ii. Owing to the length of service alone, he became a regular employee, by
operation of law, one year after he was employed.
2. Furthermore, even assuming that Villegas had only worked in the hacienda for only a specific
duration, the fact that he was repeatedly rehired over a long period of time shows that his job is
necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer.

Mercado v. NLRC & Cruz

Petitioners were agricultural workers for the respondents in all agricultural phases of work on
sugar land they owned and dismissed in 1979 (Mercado Sr and Santillan worked since 1949, Mercado Jr
and Mercado worked since 1972, and the rest worked since 1960). Cruz denied that they were regular
employees and that she engaged services through Sps. Mercado, their “mandarols”, only to do a particular
phase of the agricultural work necessary in rice and sugar cane production. LA held that petitioners were
not regular and permanent workers. The nature of the terms and conditions of their hiring reveal that they
were required to perform phases of agricultural work for a definite period of time after which their services
would be available to any other farm owner. In this present petition, petitioners claim that would be unjust,
if not unlawful, to consider them as casual workers since they have been doing all phases of agricultural
work for so many years, activities which are undeniably necessary, desirable and indispensable in the rice
and sugar cane production business of the private respondents.

Issue:
1. W/N petitioners are regular and permanent farm workers – NO

Held:
1. Petitioners being project employees / seasonal employees, their employment legally ends upon
completion of the project or the season. The termination of their employment cannot and should
not constitute an illegal dismissal.
2. The 2nd paragraph of Art. 280, LC, explains “casual” employees as all other employees who do
not fall under the definition of the preceding paragraph and deems as regular employees those
“casual” employees who have rendered at least one year of service regardless of the fact that
such service may be continuous or broken.
a. Applicable only to the employees who are deemed “casuals'” but not to the “project”
employees nor the regular employees treated in paragraph one of Art. 280.
b. The proviso in the second paragraph of Art. 280 was not designed to stifle small-scale
businesses nor to oppress agricultural land owners to further the interests of laborers,
whether agricultural or industrial.
c. What Art. 280 seeks to eliminate are abuses of employers against their employees and
not, as petitioners would have us believe, to prevent small-scale businesses from
engaging in legitimate methods to realize profit.

Risonar v. Cor Jesu College

Risonar was appointed Dean of respondent college in 2003, ending in 2004. On June 2004, it was
renewed for 3 years starting. The letter stated: “if CJC doesn’t intend to renew, he will be informed in
writing 30 days before expiration of the appointment.” The term ended without him receiving any notice
and thus, he continue to perform his duties. Sometime in July 2007, Escuril, president of CJC, informed
him that his service was already terminated. Risonar wrote to protest his termination, arguing he wasn’t
given a 30-day notice, but was ignored. He then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. In response, CJC
claimed that he was informed of his termination, albeit orally.

Issue:
1. W/N Risonar was dismissed illegally – YES
Held:
1. The appointment was impliedly renewed, making the dismissal illegal under the fixed-term
employee’s right to security of tenure.
2. 2 necessary elements of a valid fixed-term employment:
a. The fixed period was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties without any
force, duress or improper pressure being brought to bear on the employee, and without
any circumstances vitiating consent.
b. It satisfactorily appears that the employer and employee dealt with each other on more
or less equal terms with no moral dominance whatever being exercised by the former
on the latter.
3. It is undisputed that Risonar and CJC entered into the fixed-term employment embracing all the
necessary elements thereof.
4. The fixed-term employment was impliedly renewed after expiry.
a. From the letter: “Likewise, if the administration does not intend to renew/extend this
appointment, you will be informed in writing 30 days before this term appointment
ends.”
b. Logic would dictate that CJC intended for Risonar to continue in his capacity as Dean
since they did not send any letter of termination.
5. Article 1377 of the Civil Code states that any ambiguity in the stipulation or doubt in the
interpretation of contracts will not favor the party who caused the obscurity. CJC cannot be
permitted to have an undue advantage due to its own error.

Ganzon v. Ando
Ando filed a complaint against his employer EGI and its president Ganzon for illegal dismissal
alleging that he was a regular employee as a finishing carpenter in the construction business, repeatedly
hired from Jan 2010 to Apr 2011 when he was dismissed without prior notice and hearing. EGI responded
by saying that as proven by the 3 project employment contracts, Ando was a project worker from June to
Sept 2010, Jan to Feb 2011, and Feb to March 2011, in Laoag, QC, and Metro Manila, respectively. The LA
and NLRC ruled in favor of EGI. CA however declared that Ando was illegally dismissed.

Issue:
1. W/N Ando was a regular employee – NO

Held:
1. Ando is a project employee even if his contracts were extended until Dec (which should have
ended in Sept - Laoag), and shortened to Feb 15 (when it should have ended on Feb 28 – Metro
Manila), and extended until Apr 30 (which should’ve ended on March 31 - QC)
a. The fact that Ando was required to render services necessary or desirable in the
operation of EGI's business for more than a year does not in any way impair the validity
of his project employment contracts.
2. Ando was adequately notified of his employment status at the time his services were engaged by
EGI for the Bahay Pamulinawen and the West Insula Projects. The contracts he signed consistently
stipulated that his services as a project worker were being sought. There was an informed consent
to be engaged as such. His consent was not vitiated.
a. There was no attempt to frustrate Ando's security of tenure. His employment was for a
specific project or undertaking because the nature of EGI's business is one which will not
allow it to employ workers for an indefinite period
3. The determinant in project employment is the activity that the employee is called upon to perform
and not the day certain agreed upon by the parties
a. The duration of the specific/identified undertaking for which Ando was engaged was
reasonably determinable. The employment contract specified the termination of the
parties' employment relationship on a "day certain," which is "upon completion of the
phase of work”
 Unica v. Anscor Swire Ship Management Corp.
Anscore is a manning agency and Unica was employed by them under various contracts since the
1980s. Unica was deployed for 9 months from Jan to Oct 2000 in his last contract. However, the vessel was
still at sea at the time of the expiration of his employment and was repatriated only after 20 days. He now
avers that his contract was impliedly renewed and since he was repatriated on Nov 14, 2000, without a
valid cause, that he was illegally dismissed. Anscor argues that Antonio was hired for a fixed period, the
duration of which depends upon the mutual agreement of the parties. Therefore, Antonio’s employment
was co-terminus with the terms of his contract. The LA and NLRC ruled in favor of Unica. But the CA said
There was no implied renewal of contract and the 20 days extensions was due to the fact that the ship was
still at sea.

Issue:
1. W/N there is an implied renewal of Unica’s contract – NO

Held:
1. A seaman need not physically disembark from a vessel at the expiration of his employment
contract to have such contract considered terminated. Such late disembarkation was not without
valid reason.
a. Anscor couldn’t have disembarked petitioner because the vessel was still in the middle of
the sea. It was impossible for petitioner to safely disembark at the expiration of his
contract
2. It is a settled rule that seafarers are considered contractual employees. Their employment is
governed by the contracts they sign every time they are rehired and their employment is
terminated when the contract expires.

Fonterra Brands Phils. Inc. v. Largado

Fonterra contracted the services of Zytron Marketing to provide for trade merchandising
representatives (TMRs) to promote its milk and dairy products. After 4 years, Fonterra terminated its
contract and entered into an agreement for manpower supply with AC Sicat Marketing. Largsado and
Estrellado, wanting to continue TMR work for Fonterra, submitted job application to AC which in turn hired
their services for 5 months. When they sought for renewal and was refused, they filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal against Fonterra, Zytron and AC Sicat. The LA dismissed the complaint: they were
employed by Zytron and AC Sicat, not Fonterra. NLRC affirmed the LA. CA found that AC Sicate satisfies
the requirements of a legitimate job contracting, but Zytron does not, Thus, respondents were Fonterra’s
employees.

Issue:
1. W/N respondents were illegally terminated by Zytron – NO
2. W/N respondents were illegally terminated by AC Sicat – NO

Held:
1. Resignation is a voluntary act of employees who are compelled by personal reasons to dissociate
their employment accomplished with the intent of relinquishing an office and done by the act of
abandonment
a. Respondents terminated their employment with Zytron by refusing to renew their
contract with the latter and applying with AC Sicat
2. Respondents were fixed-term employees. Fixed-term employment contracts are not limited to
those by nature seasonal or for specific projects with predetermined dates of completion; they also
include those to which the parties by free choice have assigned a specific date of termination. The
 determining factor of such contracts is not the duty of the employee but the day certain agreed
upon by the parties for the commencement and termination of the employment relationship
a. R’s contract with AC Sicat: “AC Sicat is temporarily employing [R] as TMRs effective June
6, 2006 under the following terms and conditions: The need for your service being only
for a specific project, your temporary employment will be for the duration only of said
project of our client, namely to promote FONTERRA BRANDS products xxx which is
expected to be finished on or before Nov. 06, 2006.”
b. The non-renewal of their contracts by AC Sicat is a management prerogative, and failure
of R to prove that such was done in bad faith militates against their contention that they
were illegally dismissed.

Philippine Tobacco Flue-Curing v. NLRC

A notice of closure at Balintawak and Transfer of operations to Candon was served to the DOLE by
petitioner after supposed financial losses. Respondents were notified on Aug 3, 1994. Their benefits were
given to them on Aug 16, 1994, each with alleged errors. The Luris grp claimed a wrong computation when
management didn’t consider ¾ of their length of service. The Lubat grp wasn’t granted separation pay as
their previous seasonal service alleged to be non-continuous, and as of Aug 1994, weren’t employed with
petitioner. The 2 grps then filed claims: illegal dismissal and non-payment of separation pay by the Lubat
grp (because they were informed of their termination at the start of the 1994 season) and Flaw
Computation of Separation Pay by the Luris Grp (they were no longer allowed to work from Aug 4 even
though the closure of operations was to be effective on Sept 15). The LA ordered petitioners to pay
complainants and affirmed by the NLRC. Both agencies held that the 2 groups were entitled to separation
pay equivalent to ½ month salary for every year of service, provided that the employee workeda t least
one month in a given year

Issue:
1. W/N the Lubat group was illegally dismissed and thus entitled to separation pay – YES

Held:
1. From the facts, petitioner illegally dismissed the members of the Lubat group when it refused to
allow them to work during the 1994 season.
a. Manila Hotel Company v. CIR: 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 said
period, but are merely considered on leave until reemployed
b. The nature of their relationship x x x is such that during off season they are temporarily
laid off but during summer season they are re-employed, or when their services may be
needed. [Seasonal Workers] are not strictly speaking separated from the service but are
merely considered as on leave of absence without pay until they are re-employed.
2. It follows that the employer-employee relationship between herein petitioner and members of
the Lubat group was not terminated at the end of the 1993 season.
a. From the end of the 1993 season until the beginning of the 1994 season, they were
considered only on leave but nevertheless still in the employ of petitioner.