FVR SKILLS AND SERVICES EXPONENTS (SKILLEX), et. Al. v. JOVERT SEVA, et. al.

FACTS:

Jovert and 27 others: employees of FVR

FVR: independent contractor engaged in business of providing janitorial and other manpower services to
its clients

As early as 1998, some of respondents have already been employed by FVR as janitors, supervisor,
leadmen, service crew, sanitation aides, or janitor aides

4/21/08: FVR entered into a Contract of Janitorial Service (service contract) with Robinsons Land
Corporation
o
FVR shall supply janitorial, manpower and sanitation services to Robinsons Place Ermita Mall for
one year (1/1-12/31 08)

Halfway through service contract, FVR asked Jovert et. al. to excecute individual contracts which stipulated
that their respective employments shall end on 12/31/08

FVR and Robinsons did not extend their contract of janitorial services. FVR dismissed the respondents
they were project employees whose duration of employment was dependent on service contract

Respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal

o
Argument: they were regular employees, cannot be dismissed without just cause

LA: not regular employees, but project employees. Since Service Contract not renewed, employment
contracts must also be terminated

NLRC: reversed LA ruling; regular employees; had been employed for more than 1 yr, some as early as
1998; no just cause for dismissal

CA: affirmed NLRC decision

o
Work of respondents were necessary or desirable to FVRs business of providing janitorial,
manpower and sanitation services to clients
o
Continuing need for services (>1 yr) regular, not project employees
o
Fixed term employment contracts has NO BINDING EFFECT

Contracts were used to justify dismissal and prevent respondents from attaining regular
status

Respondents were only made to sign when it became clear that service contract with
Rob would not be renewed

Respondens were threatened that they would not be given their salaries if they did not
sign

FUlgencio Rana (president) and Monina Burgos (general manager) of FVR are solidarily
liable with FVR for payment of monetary awards acted in bad faith
ISSUE
1. WON JOvert et.al. are regular employees of FVR2.
2. WON fixed term contract belatedly executed is valid
3. WON respondents were illegally dismissed
4. WON officers of FVR are solidarily liable
HELD
1. Respondents REGULAR EMPLOYEES, not project employees
Art. 294 (280) LC
Two kinds of regular employees
1. Engaged to perform activities necessary or desirable in usual business or trade of ER
2. Casual employees who became regular after one year of service, whether continuous or broken (only with
respect to activitiy for which they have been hired)
Project employee
One whose employment was fixed for a specific project or undertaking, whose completion or termination had been
determined at the time of engagement
Court used REASONABLE CONNECTION test: between activity performed by EE and ERs business or trade

Respondents work are necessary or desirable to FBRs business

Were already employed even before service contract

D.O. 18-02. Contractor or subcontractor is considered as employer of contractual employee for purposes of
enforcing provisions of LC and other social legislation
Grants contractual employees all the rights and priviliges due a regular employee

Safe and healthful working conditions

Labor standards such as service incentive leave, rest days, overtime pay, holiday pay, 13 th
month pay and separation pay

Social security and welfare benefits

Self-organization, collective bargaining and peaceful concerted action

Security of tenure

THEREFORE: although respondents were assigned as contractual employees to the clients of FVR, under the law,
they remain to be petitioners REGULAR employees, who are entitled to all the rights and benefits of regular
employment
2. Employment contracts are VOIDABLE
If FVR really intended respondents to be project employees, contracts should have been executed at time of hiring,
not when service contract with Rob was about to end. It is a ploy to evade right to security of tenure
Respondents were threated nonpayment of salaries intimidation voidable
3. Respondents ILLEGALLY DISMISSED
Dismissal must comply with substantive and procedural requirements od due process
SUbstantitve just or authorized cause
Procedural twin notice and hearing requirements
Respondents being regular employees, illegal dismissal took place when FVR failed to comply
That resondents were absorved by Robs new contractors immaterial. FVR cannot excape liability by relying on
goodwill of others
Court cannot give credence to FVRs assertion that under DO 18-02 Sec 10, respondents not entitled to separation
pay because employment was terminated due to completion of project
Sec 7 treats contractual employees as the independent contractors regular employees for purposes of enforcing
the LC and other social legislation laws.
4. Officers not solidarily liable
Respondents were not able to clearly show the definite participation of Burgos and Rana in their illegal dismissal
malice and bad faith not proven