GMA Network, Inc v.

Pabriga Pabriga, Arias, Campo, Lagahit, Catubig (respondents)

REGULAR EMPLOYEES
-the jobs & undertakings are clearly
within the regular/ usual business of
GMA and are not identifiably distinct/
separate from other undertakings of
company
-the fact that they were merely
substitutes, as GMA alleges, does not
change the fact that their jobs cannot be
considered projects
-project employee may also attain the
status of regular employee:
a. continuous rehiring of project
employees even after cessation of
project
b. tasks performed by alleged project
employees are vital, necessary, and
indispensable to usual business/ trade of
employer
-5 classifications of employment
a. regular; b. project; c. casual; d.
seasonal
e. fixed term – Brent school v Zamora
- employed by GMA Network
-filed complaint in NLRC
-summoned by GMA Network’s Area Manager to explain themselves
-after, they were barred from entering and reporting for work
-wrote to Area Manager requesting they be recalled back to work and inquired as to benefits
GMA’s head of Personnel and Labor Relations
-admitted non payment of benefits
Respondents
-sent another letter requesting to be recalled to work – IGNORED
-filed case for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice and damages
GMA Network
-employees were NOT REGULARS, considering that they were merely substitutes/ “pinch-hitters” as the regulars were absent/ on leave
LA
-dismissed employees’ complaints – not illegally dismissed; but held GMA liable for 13th month pay
NLRC
-in favor of employees – REGULAR EMPLOYEES
CA
-affirmed NLRC

Regular/project/ seasonal
-activities which are usually necessary/
desirable in employer’s usual trade/
business

Casual
-GR: not usually necessary/ desirable in
employer’s trade/ business

Principal test for determining whether

properly characterized as project/
regular:
-WON the employees were assigned to
carry out a “specific project/
undertaking,” the duration (and scope) of
which were specified at the time they
were engaged for that project
-employers SHOULD NOT ONLY PROVE
THAT duration & scope of employment
was specified at the time they were
engaged but also that there was indeed
a PROJECT
ALU-TUCP v. NLRC
PROJECT EMPLOYEES
-services are co-terminous with project and
may be terminated upon the end/ completion
of project for which they were hired
Regular employees
-legally entitled to remain in service of their
employer until that service is terminated by 1/
another of recognized modes of termination of
service under Labor Code
ALU-TUCP
-plead that they had been employed by National Steel Corporation (NSC) in connection with its 5 year expansion program for varying lengths of time when they were
separated from NSC’s service
-July 5 1990-filed separate complaints for unfair labor practice, regularization & monetary benefits with NLRC
LA
-petitioners were REGULAR PROJECT EMPLOYEES – continue employment as such for as long as such project activity exists but entitled to the salary of regular
employee pursuant to provisions of CBA
Both parties appealed to NLRC

Principal test for determining whether properly NLRC

characterized as project/ regular (see prev
case)
2 types of activities:
a. particular job/ undertaking that is within
regular/ usual business of employer company,
BUT WHICH IS DISTINCT & SEPARATE &
IDENTIFIABLE AS SUCH, from other
undertakings of company
e.g. project of construction company
-modified LA’s decision – PROJECT EMPLOYEES but set aside award of same benefits enjoyed by regular employees for lack of factual and legal basis
ALU-TUCP (petitioners)
- argue that they are REGULAR EMPLOYEES
a. jobs are necessary, desirable and work-related to NSC’s main business, steel making
b. rendered service for 6 years/more to NSC
NSC
-petitioners are PROJECT EMPLOYEES-employed to undertake a SPECIFIC PROJECT (5 yr expansion program)

b. particular job/ undertaking that is NOT

WITHIN REGULAR BUSINESS OF CORP
-case at bar!!!!
The carrying out of the Five Year Expansion
program constitutes a distinct undertaking
identifiable from ordinary business & 5 year expansion program
activity of NSC à expanding the volume & increasing the kinds of products that it may offer for sale to the public
-NSC was not in the business of àhad a number of component projects
constructing buildings& installing plant àinstead of contracting out to an outside/ independent contractor the tasks of constructing buildings with related civil & electrical works, installation of newly
machinery (not a construction/ engineering acquired mill/ plant machinery & equip and commissioning of such mach & equip- NSC opted to execute and carry out its project “in house,” as it were, by
company) administration
LENGTH OF SERVICE OF PROJECT
EMPLOYEE IS NOT THE CONTROLLING
TEST OF EMPLOYMENT TENURE

2nd par of Art 280-refers to casual, not project

employee
Hermonias Liganza v. RBL Shipyard Corp
NOTE: RBL CHANGED ITS DEFENSE TWICE
DURING LIFETIME OF CASE
Regular employee
- work was necessary/ desirable to RBL/s
business
- employed by RBL continuously from 1991-
1999
- repeated rehiring and continuing need for
his services for over 8 years have
undeniably made him a regular employee
- length of service not the controlling test of
employment tenure but WON employment
has been fixed for a specific project/
undertaking the completion/ termination of
which has been determined at the time of
engagement of employee
- length of time is not the controlling test
for project employees, but it is vital in
determining if employee was hired for
specific undertaking/ tasked to perform
functions vital, necessary & indispensable
to the usual trade/ business of employer
-LIGANZA HAD BEEN PROJECT
EMPLOYEE SEVERAL TIMES OVER-
employment ceased to be coterminous with
specific projects when he was repeatedly
re-hired due to demands of RBL’s business
Appropriate evidence to show that a person is
a project employee-
- employment contract specifying the project &
duration of project – but existence of such
contract is NOT ALWAYS CONCLUSIVE OF
THE NATURE OF ONE’S EMPLOYMENT
- RBL seeks to prove status through 4
employment contracts covering a period of
only 2 years
- RBL failed to present contracts covering
employment from 1991-July 1997 (6 yrs of 8)
- RBL has been unable to refute Liganza’s
allegation that he did not sign any contract
when he started working for the company
- Free to seek employments outside RBL – not
supported by record
Liganza
-carpenter
-worked for RBL Shipyard Corporation since Aug 1991
-terminated employment on Oct 30 1999
- filed complaint for illegal dismissal – he was verbally informed that he was already terminated from employment & barred from entering premises; told to look for
another job (terminated without any valid/ authorized cause)
-regular employee because he worked for RBL continuously and without interruption from Aug 31 1991 – Oct 30 1999 and that his work as carpenter was necessary
and desirable to usual business of shipbuilding & repair
RBL Shipyard Corporation (shipbuilding & repair)
-Liganza was a mere PROJECT EMPLOYEE (terminated upon completion of project for which he was hired)
- reason on failure to present other contracts – destroyed by rains and flashfloods that hit the office
Defenses:
(1) NLRC- Liganza was separated from work bc of project completion
(2) CA- Liganza was not terminated from work but he resigned
(3) SC- Liganza – sep bc of project completion
LA
-Liganza is a REGULAR EMPLOYEE (RBL failed to present alleged project employment contracts)
-dismissal was not done in accordance with due process requirement of twin notices = illegal
-ordered reinstatement + payment of backwages
NLRC
-set aside LA decision; award of damages not warranted
-RBL presented other project employment contracts + termination reports submitted to DOLE
-Liganza’s service of 8 years is not the controlling factor in determining the nature of employment- each contract he entered into were renewed every 6 months and
from those contracts he knew beforehand when his engagement was supposed to end
Liganza
-filed petition for review on certiorari-NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion
CA
-dismissed petition
-cannot be considered as regular
1. petitioner’s appointment papers provided for the specific project to be undertaken & duration of project
2. he was issued an accountability clearance
3. RBL submitted the requisite employment termination reports
-after every completion of project, Liganza was free to seek other employments outside RBL’s company

Even assuming that Liganza is a project

employee- RBL failed to prove that the
termination was for a just & valid cause
- failed to prove that last project was
completed (no evidence presented)
Judy Dacuital v. LM Camus Engineering
Corp
REGULAR EMPLOYEES
-work pool can either be project/ regular
-LMCEC did not present the employment
contracts of petitioners except that of Dacuital
bc accdg to them, it was no longer necessary
to present other contracts since petitioners
were similarly situated (believes that they
sufficiently established petitioners’ status as
project) à NOTE: DURATION OF THE
PROJECT WAS NOT SPECIFIED IN THE
CONTRACT
- absence of employment contracts raises a
serious question of whether the employees
were properly informed at the onset of their
employment of their status as project
employees
- NON PRESENTATION OF CONTRACTS
GIVES RISE TO THE PRESUMPTION THAT
EMPLOYEES WERE NOT INFORMED OF
THE NATURE AND DURATION OF
EMPLOYMENT
-NO EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS INDEED
A REPORT OF AN EMPLOYEE’S
TERMINATION SUBMITTED TO DOLE AS
REQUIRED BY DO 19
-failure to file: indication that they were not
project but REGULAR
-illegally dismissed
-records failed to show that LMCEC afforded
petitioners, as regular employees, due process
prior to their dismissal, through the twin req of
notice and hearings
-Application of technical rules of procedure
may be relaxed in labor cases to serve the
demand of substantial justice
-decision of LA has not attained finality
-President not personally liable for backwages
LM Camus Engineering Corp (LMCEC)
-domestic corp duly organized and existing under and by virtue of Phil laws
-engaged in construction, engineering & airconditioning business
Luis Camus
-company president à NOTE: SC RULING as to him: absence of malice, bad faith/ specific provision of law, a director/ officer of corp cannot be made personally
liable for corp liabilities (mere fact that he is the pres of the company does not make him personally liable for payment of back wages)
Petitioners
-hired by LMCEC as welder, tinsmith, pipefitter, and mechanical employee
-Jan, Feb, Mar 2001- required by LMCEC to surrender their IDs and ATms and were ordered to execute contracts of employment
-most of petitioners did not comply with the directive- believed that it was only LMCEC’s strategy to get rid of their regular status since they would become new
employees disregarding their length of service
-dismissed by LMCEC
-complaint for illegal dismissal & non-payment of monetary benefits before NLRC
-REGULAR EMPLOYEES as they had been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary/ desirable in the usual business/ trade of LMCEC
- NOT PROJECT/ CONTRACTUAL because: their employment was continuous and uninterrupted for more than 1 year
- THEY WERE PART OF WORK POOL from which LMCEC drew its workers for its various projects
LMCEC
-denied that they were illegally dismissed
-petitioners were PROJECT EMPLOYEES –upon completion of project, they were served notices of project completion (termination due to completion)
LA
-did not give credence to LMCEC’s claim because of failure to present evidences
-dismissal without just & valid cause (illegal termination)
-refused to award backwages and other monetary claims – employment was not continuous as they belonged to the regular work pool of LMCEC
Employees jointly filed a partial appeal to NLRC
EXCEPT PACATANG & LUCAS who filed separate appeal
NLRC
-agreed with LA but also wanted to give employees their backwages
-appeal filed by Pacatang and Lucas dismissed for having filed out of time; moved for reconsideration=entitling them to receive backwages
Petitioners moved for execution of NLRC decision
Respondents filed a Clarificatory Motion & Opposition to the Motion for Issuance of Entry of Judgment and Writ of Execution & for Recomputation of Monetary Award
NLRC
-granted motion; some employees who were earlier dismissed were reinstated
CA
-petitioners were PROJECT EMPLOYEES –as their employment contracts provided that their respective tenures of employment were dependent on the duration of
construction projects (no illegal dismissal)
San Miguel Corp v. NLRC
Regular employee
>> DATA GATHERED THROUGH MALIKSI’S
WORK WOULD BE SUBMITTED FOR
ANALYSIS & EVAL, thereby allowing SMC to
make the NECESSARY BUSINESS
- he was juggled from 1 employment
contract to another in a continuous bid to
circumvent labor laws (bad faith)
-BUT reinstatement was no longer feasible/
practicable (SMC Magnolia Division has been
acquired by another entity)
- while under employ of either Lipercon/
Skillpoewr- Maliksi has rendered service with
SMC for at least 3 yrs and 7 months
- having served SMC for an aggregate period
of more than 3 years through employment
contracts with these 2 labor contractors,
Maliksi should be considered as SMC’S
REGULAR EMPLOYEE
-SMC did not make any insinuation at all that
the services of Maliksi with SMC was project-
related such that an employment contract with
Lipercon and Skillpower was necessary
-Madriaga v. CA
-There’s no need for Maliksi to be employed
under PHILSSEC’s computerization program
to be considered as regular employee of SMC
at the time
-SMC itself admits that Maliksi’s work under
computerization program did “not require the
operation of computer system, such as the
software program being developed by
PHILSSEC” – why Malsik should be included
in the computerization project as project
employee? – his placement in the project
was for the purpose of circumventing labor
laws
-immediately before he entered PHILSSEC
project in Oct 1989, Maliksi was fresh out of
his employment with SMC through
Skillpower assigned to SMC Magnolia from
Oct 1988-1989
Rafael Maliksi (private resp)
-filed complaint against San Miguel Corp-Magnolia Division (SMC) & Philippine Software Services and Education Center (PHILSSEC)
-compel the respondents to recognize him as REGULAR EMPLOYEE
-amended complaint: include charge of illegal dismissal (terminated services on Oct 31 1990)
-rendered service:
(Apr 1 1981-Feb 1982) with Lipercon Services - budget head assigned to SMC-Beer Division
(July 1983-April 1985) with Skillpower, Inc – accounting clerk assigned to SMC-Magnolia Finance
(Oct 1988-1989) with Skillpower – accounting clerk assigned to SMC-Magnolia Finance
(Oct 1989-Oct 31 1990) with PHILSSEC assigned to Magnolia Finance – accounting clerk
-considered himself as employee of SMC-Magnolia
Lipercon, Skillpower and PHILSSEC are labor only contractors
- his dismissal was in retaliation for his filing of complaint for regularization (illegal, no just cause, not accorded due process, dismissal not reported to DOLE)
PHILSSEC (catering computer systems & program for business enterprises)
-disclaimed liability
-contracted with SMC Magnolia to computerize its manual accounting reporting systems of its provincial sales
-conducted a 3 phase analysis of SMC Magnolia set up – PHILSSEC uses it computer system and tech and provide the necessary manpower to compliment the
transfer of tech to SMC Magnolia
- Maliksi was one of those employed by PHILSSEC whose principal function was the manual control of data needed during the computerization; his work was
controlled by PHILSSEC supervisors, salary paid by agency and he reported directly to PHILSSEC
SMC
- PHILSSEC exercised exclusive managerial prerogative over complainant as to hiring, payment of salary, dismissal & control over work
- interested only in the result of work specified in the contract but not as to the means and methods of accomplishing the same
-PHILSSEC has substantial capital of its own
-what PHILSSEC set up employing Maliksi has no relation to the principal business of SMC which is food & beverage
LA
-Maliksi a REGULAR EMPLOYEE OF PHILSSEC; absolved SMC from liab
NLRC
-reversed LA
- Maliksi REGULAR EMPLOYEE OF SMC
CA
-affirmed NLRC
-SMC have utilized PHILSSEC, Lipercon and Skillpower, as conduits to circumvent Art 280 of Labor Code, employing Maliksi as contractual/ project employee
thereby undermining his right to gain regular employment status under the law
-Maliksi’s work was necessary/ desirable in business of SMC, for more than the required 1 year period
-Maliksi’s employment with SMC became permanent and regular AFTER THE STATUTORY PRIOD OF 1 YEAR OF SERVICE FROM THESE ENTITITES
-past employments with Lipercon and Skillpower-Maliksi was already regular employee of SMC when he entered into SMC’s computerization project as part of
PHILSSEC project complement
WORK POOL
Maraguinot, Jr v. NLRC and Viva Films
Regular employees
Illegally dismissed
-Viva expressly admitted that Maraguinot &
Enero were part of work pool
-while they were hired possibly as project,
they had attained the status of regular
employees in view of Viva’s conduct
-they had already gained status of regular
employees (completion of project, not valid
cause for dismissal)
A project employee/ member of work pool
may acquire status of regular employee when
following concur:
1. continuous rehiring even after cessation of
project
2. task performed-vital, necessary &
indispensable to usual business/ trade
length of time-merely serves as badge of
regular employment
-Enero: 2 years; 18 projects
-Maragunot: 3 years; 23 projects
-work pool
> worker shall be available when called to
report for a project
-although primarily applicable to regular
seasonal workers, this set up can be applied
to project insofar as the effect of temporary
cessation of work is concerned
Project/ work pool employees who have
gained the status of regular employees are
subject to the “no work no pay” principle
Maraguinot (petitioner)
- employed by Viva Films as part of filming crew, July 18 1989 (salary: P375 per week)
-4 months later, designated as Assistant Electrician (P400/ week); (P450, May 1990)
-June 1991, Electrician (P475) (P593, Sept 1991)
Enero (petitioner)
- Viva Films employed him in June 1990 as member of shooting crew (P375) (P425, May 1991); (P475, Dec 21 1991)
Tasks of petitioners:
- loading, unloading & arranging movie equipment in shooting area as instructed by cameraman, returning equipment to warehouse, assisting in the fixing of lighting
system, and performing other tasks that the cameraman and/or director may assign
Petitioners sought the assistance of their supervisor – Mrs. Cesario – to facilitate their request that Viva Films adjust their salary in accordance with min wage law
Mrs Cesario
-informed Maraguinot & Enero that Mr. del Rosario would agree to increase their salary ONLY IF THEY SIGNED A BLANK EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT – but refused
to sign
Viva Films
- forced Enero to go on leave in June 1992
-refused to take him back when he reported for work on July 20 1992
-Maraguinot was dropped from company payroll from Jun 8-21 1992, but was returned on June 22 1992
-he was again asked to sign blank employment contract, but still refused, then terminated services on July 20 1992
Maraguinot & Enero-sued for illegal dismissal before LA
Viva Films
- primarily engaged in distribution and exhibition of movies-but not in the business of making moveis (del Rosario is merely an exec producer-financier)
-they contract persons called “producers”/ “associate producers” – to produce/ make movies for Viva
-Maraguinot and Enero are PROJECT EMPLOYEES of the ASSOCIATE PRODUCERS, who in turn, act as independent contractors; HENCE NO EMPLOYEE-ER REL
WITH VIVA
-it was the associate producer of the film “Mahirap Maging Pogi” who hired Marguinot (July 2-Jul 22 1992); released upon payment of salary bc services no longer
needed
-Enero was hired for movie “Sigaw ng Puso” later re-titled “Narito and Puso”- went on vacation on June 8 and by the time he reported back to work on July 20 1992,
shooting for movie was already done
LA
-illegally dismissed
NLRC
-Maraguinot and Enero were PROJECT EMPLOYEES
To support claim that maraguinot & enero are regular employees:
- their performance of activities were necessary/ desirable in the usual trade/ business of Viva; their work was continuous (after 1 project was completed, they were
assigned to another project)
- considered themselves part of work pool from which Viva drew workers for assignment to diff projects
Tomas Lao Construction v. NLRC
Existence of work pool
-Decision of NLRC affirmed
-petitioners themselves admit that all
employees of either 3 petitioners were actually
assigned to a particular project until
completion, however after such completion,
they were transferred and rehired in another
on-going project
Respondents
-Oct-Dec 1990: individually filed complaints for illegal dismissal against Tomas Lao Construction with NLRC
-Hired for various periods as construction workers in diff capacities
-during employment, they alternately worked for Lao Group of Companies
-under JVA- they would undertake their projects either simultaneously/ successively so that, whenever necessary, they would lease tools & equipment to one another
> this allowed workers to be transferred whenever necessary to on-going projects of same company, or of the others, or were rehired after completion of project/
project phase to which they were assigned.
> TLC ceased its operations
> Thomas and James Developers (T&J) & LVM Construction Corp (LVM) stayed on

A work pool may exist although the workers Andres Lao (managing director of LVM & Pres of T&J)
in the pool do not receive salaries and are - 1989, issued memorandum requiring all workers and company personnel to sign employment contract forms & clearances which were issued on July 1 1989 BUT
free to seek other employment during ANTEDATED JAN 10 1989 –allegedly for audit purposes pursuant to a JVA between LVM & T&J
temporary breaks in the business, provided - to ensure compliance, company ordered the withholding of salary of employees who refused to sign
that the worker shall be available when -contracts EXPRESSLY described the construction workers as: PROJECT EMPLOYEES whose employments were for a definite period
called to report for project
_ CONTINUOUS REHIRING OF THE SAME Respondents (except for Gomez)
SET OF EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE
-refused to sign (scheme to downgrade their status from regular to mere project) hence salaries withheld
FRAMEWORK OF LGC IS STRONGLY
INDICATIVE THAT RESPONDENTS WERE AN -asked to explain why their services should not be terminated
INTEGRAL PART OF WORK POOL FROM -their services were terminated
WHICH PETITIONERS DREW ITS WORKERS
FOR ITS VARIOUS PROJECTS NLRC
-dismissed complaints, respondents were PROJECT EMPLOYEES
The repeated re-hiring and continuing need -On appeal, reversed decision- REGULAR EMPLOYEES who were dismissed without just cause & denied due process
for services over long span of time
-Monetary award- disregarded veil of corporate fiction & treated 3 corp as forming only 1 entity
(shortest:7 years) have undeniably made
them regular employees
-WHERE THE EMPLOYMENT OF PROJECT
EMPLOYEES IS EXTENDED LONG AFTER
THE SUPPOSED PROJECT HAS BEEN
FINISHED, THE EMPLOYEES ARE
REMOVED FROM THE SCOPE OF
PROJECT EMPLOYEES & CONSIDERED AS
REGULAR EMPLOYEES
E. FIXED TERM EMPLOYMENT

Cherry Price v. Innodata Phils Inc Price, Domingo, Arbilera (petitioners)

Regular employees (Art 280)
Invalid fixed-term employment contracts
Illegally dismissed
The employment status of a person is
defined & prescribed by law, not by what
the parties say it should be
-parties not at liberty to insulate themselves
and their relationships from the impact of
labor laws and regulations by simply
contracting with each other
Petitioners belong to the 1 type of regular
st
employees
- those who are engaged to perform
activities which are necessary/ desirable in
the usual business/ trade of employer,
regardless of length of employment
-Employed by Innodata on Feb 17 1999 as
formatters
-primary business: data encoding
>> formatting of data entered into computers
is an essential part of the process of data
encoding
Work performed by petitioners was
necessary/ desirable in business/ trade of
innodata
-employed as formatters by Innodata
Employment contract: “Contract of Employment for a Fixed Period” stipulating that contract shall be for 1 year
-see full case for contract provisions
NOTE::
PROVISION IN CONTRACT IN WHICH PETITIONERS HAVE NO RIGHT AT ALL TO EXPECT SECURIYY OF TENURE!!!! BECAUSE THEY CAN STILL BE PRE-TERMINATED!!!
Innodata (encoding, conversion & data processing company)
-petitioners’ employment already ceased due to end of contract
Petitioners
-filed complaint for illegal dismissal and damages against Innodata
-should be considered REGULAR EMPLOYEES – since positions as formatters were necessary & desirable to the usual business of innodata
-decisions in Villanueva v. NLRC & Servidad v NLRC – nature of employment at Innodata is regular constituted stare decisis to the present case
-COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS PROJECT because employment was not coterminous with any project/ undertaking, the termination of which was predetermined
Innodata
-due to wide range of services rendered to clients, it was constrained to hire new employees for a FIXED PERIOD OF NOT MORE THAN 1 YEAR
-they were not illegally dismissed, terminated due to expiration of terms of employment
-petitioners estopped from asserting a position contrary to contracts which they had knowingly, voluntarily and willfully agreed to/ entered into
LA
-in favor of employees
-as formatters, petitioners occupied jobs that were necessary, desirable and indispensable to data processing & encoding business of innodata
-very nature of work as formatters, REGULAR EMPLOYEES
- illegal termination(no just/ authorized cause)
Innodata appealed to NLRC

Recognition of validity of fixed term NLRC

employment contracts- exception rather than
GR (valid only in certain circumstances)
example:
-overseas employment contracts
-appts to positions of deans,asst dean, college
sec, principal and other admin offices in educ
institutions which are by prac/ tradition rotated
among faculty members
Terms were meant only to circumvent
petitioners’ right to security of tenure and
therefore invalid
-reversed LA decision
-absolved Innodata on charge of illegal dismissal
-NOT REGULAR but WERE FIXED-TERM employees as stipulated in contract
-applied Brent School v Zamora & St Theresa’s school v NLRC – upheld validity of fixed-term contracts (determining factor: day certain agreed upon by parties)
CA
-sustained ruling of NLRC
-not illegally dismissed
-in fixed term contracts, the stipulated period of employment is governing and not nature thereof

total period of employment becomes

irrelevant- nature of work they performed
as formatters necessary in business/ trade
of innodata
PROBATIONARY EMPLOYMENT
San Miguel Corp v. Del Rosario
Regular employees
Illegal dismissal
-SMC presented 2 payroll authorities showing
that Del Rosario was hired as replacement,
however, this does not constitute substantial
evidence
-assuming it is temporary, she should still be
declared as regular since by the time she was
dismissed on March 12 2001, her alleged
probationary employment already exceeded
6 months
6 MONTHS AND 8 DAYS
-evidence presented by SMC was not
substantial enough to conclude that there is
indeed redundancy
Failed to present the required notice to
DOLE and separated employees
Criteria in implementing redundancy: less
preferred status; efficiency and seniority
Instead, SMC used Del Rosario’s status as
criterion.
Buiser v. Hon Leogardo
18 month probationary period was valid
GR: probationary period is limited to 6 months
XPN: when the parties to an employment
contract may agree otherwise
-established by company policy
-the same is required by the nature of work to
be performed by employee
(especially where the employee must learn
a particular kind of work, such as selling, or
when the job requires certain qualifications,
skills, experience/ training)
Purpose of probationary period- protect
worker & enable employer to make
meaningful employee selection
Del Rosario
-Apr 17 2000 - employed as key account specialist @ San Miguel Corp
San Miguel Corp
-Mar 9 2001 - informed Del Rosario that her probationary period will end on March 12 2001
-Mar 13 – Del Rosario was refused entry to SMC’s premises
Del Rosario
-filed complaint for illegal dismissal & underpayment/ nonpayment of monetary benefits
-SMC feigned an excess in manpower because after her dismissal, it hired new recruits and re-employed 2 of her batchmates
San Miguel Corp
-Del Rosario was a PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE whose services were terminated as result of excess of manpower (REDUNDANCY)
-employed Del Rosario- temporary reliever (Apr 17 2000)
-hired Del Rosario as account specialist on probationary status (Sept 4 2000) – assigned to Greater Manila Area-Key Accounts Group (GMA-KAG) Beer Sales Group
-expected business growth did not materialize, it reorganized GMA-KAG and created Centralized Key Accounts Group – due to excess of employees, some were
redeployed including Del Rosario
LA
- respondent was REGULAR EMPLOYEE because employment exceeded 6 months; illegally dismissed (no authorized cause)
NLRC
-modified decision of LA – valid termination; but ineffectual for SMC’s failure to comply with 30 day notice to employee
-denied MRs
CA 1st division
-reversed NLRC decision – reinstated decision of LA
CA 3rd division
-affirmed decision of NLRC
Buiser, Rilloacuña, Intengan (petitioners)
- employed by General Telephone Director Company as sales representatives
-task: solicit advertisements for inclusion in the telephone directory
- employed via contract: employed on probationary status- such status lasting for 18 months
-further provided: GTDC may terminate employment during probationary period without necessity of giving notice of termination
-purpose of 18 month period: to determine his true character, conduct & selling capabilities of employee
Petitioners failed to meet sales quota, hence dismissed
-Filed case in Ministry of Labor and Development for backwages, commissions, and other benefits
Regional director - dismissed case
Deputy Ministry of Labor
-petitioners have not attained permanent status since GTDC was justified in requiring a longer period of probation and termination was valid because failed to meet
sales quotas
PETITIONERS: PROB EMPLOYMENT CANNOT EXCEED 6 MONTHS, xpn: apprenticeship & learnership agreements
Alcira v. NLRC
Probationary employee – middleby justified
termination of employment relationship
WON termination occurred before/ after 6
month prob period
Note: “probationary (6 months)”
5 month period referred to evaluation of
his work
Computation of 6 month prob period is
reckoned from the date of appointment
up to the same calendar date of the 6th
month following (jurisprudence)
Since the no. of days in each particular
month is irrelevant, Alcira was still a
probationary employee when Middleby
opted not to “regularize” him on Nov 20
1996
WON Middleby informed Alcira of
standards for regularization at start of
employment
àSec 6(d) of IRR of Book VI of Labor
Code
à Middleby substantially notified Alcira
of standards to qualify as regular
employee when it apprised him, at the
start of employment, that it would
evaluate his supervisory skills after 5
months
Prob employees do not enjoy permanent
status, but they are accorded the consti
protection of security of tenure
- but consti protection ends on
expiration of probationary period
Middleby Philippines Corporation (Middleby) - respondent
-hired petitioner as engineering support services supervisor on a probationary basis for 6 months
-unhappy with Alcira’s performance, terminated services
Alcira – May 20 1996 (starting date of employment)
Middleby- May 27 1996
“probationary (6 months)”
“after 5 months Alcira’s performance shall be evaluated and any adjustment in salary shall depend on his work performance”
Alcira:
-Nov 20 1996, senior officer of Middleby in bad faith, withheld his time card and did not allow him to work
-dismissal “after lapse of his probationary employment”
-filed on Nov 21 – complaint in NLRC – regular employee as of the date he was illegally dismissed
-included in complaint: General Manager, HR Manager and Engineering Manager
-claims under terms of contract, his prob employment was only 5 months because of remark “please be informed that after 5 months, your performance shall be
evaluated and any adjustment in salary shall depend on your work performance”
-6 month prob period ended on Nov 16 1996 (from May 20 1996) à Art 13, CC (hence, regular employee when dismissed)
Middleby:
-Alcira showed poor performance, incurred 10 absences, was late several times and violated company rules on wearing of uniform
-failed to meet company standards-disapproved application to become regular employee, hence terminated
LA
-dismissed complaint
-Middleby was able to prove that Alcira was apprised of standards for becoming regular employee; affidavit showed he did not perform well; dismissal was before
regularization (6 mo prob period ended on Nov 20 1996, starting May 20)
NLRC
-affirmed LA
CA
-affirmed NLRC
Magis Young Achievers Learning Center v. Manalo (respondent)
Manalo -April 18 2002-hired as teacher and acting as principal of petitioner Magis Young Achievers’ Learning Center
ILLEGALLY DISMISSED
Employment of Manalo, as teacher, in school
March 29 2003- wrote resignation letter addressed to Cariño (directress)
is probationary in character
-she has not yet completed the requisite 3 Reason: due to personal & family reasons)
year period of prob employment, as provided
in manual March 31 2003 –received letter of termination from school (cost cutting, systematic reorganization)
-appointment as acting principal is merely
temporary (good until another appointment is Filed complaint for illegal dismissal & nonpayment of 13th month pay
made to take its place) -termination violated provisions of employment contract
-alleged abolition of position of Principal not among grounds for termination by employer under Art 282
Acting employment – a temporary
appointment, revocable at will
-School infringed on required 30day notice under Art 283
-terminated based on alleged expiration of employment but contract did not provide for fixed term/period
Resignation of Manalo is not valid
-no express acceptance of employer Magis Young
-doubt on voluntariness of resignation -Manalo was legally terminated- 1 year prob period (April 1 2002-March 3 2003) had already lapsed & failed to meet criteria set by DECS
-resignation is inconsistent with filing of illegal
dismissal complaint (must be with clear
LA
intention to relinquish position)
- Manalo actively pursued her illegal dismissal
-dismissed complaint (in favor of school)
case, such that she cannot be said to have
voluntarily resigned from job NLRC
-reversed LA (reinstated Manalo)
Resignation – voluntary act of employee
who finds himself in situation where he CA
believes that personal reasons cannot be -affirmed NLRC
sacrificed in favor of exigency of service,
and that he has no other choice but to
disassociate himself from employment
Note: Employment contract doubt:
- Manalo’s copy – period of effectivity remained blank
Art 1702, CC – in case of doubt, all labor - Magis Young – 1 year period from April 1 2002-March 31 2003 (even though pleadings submitted indicated hired on April 18 2002; handwriting diff)
contracts shall be construed in favor of labor
-it should be Manalo’s copy which did not
provide for express period which should be
upheld. (State policy: protection of labor)
-employment agreement likened into a
contract of adhesion (construed against party
Note:
who drafted the same) Probationary implies the purpose of the term/ period, not its length
Art 281 upper limit on term does not apply to ALL CLASSES OF OCCUPATIONS
Illegally dismissed
- Magis failed to show by competent evidence -academic personnel in private schools, colleges & universities – Sec 92 of 1992 Manual of Regulations for Private Schools (Manual)
that she did not meet the standards set by - period of probation counted in terms of “school years” and not “calendar years”
school
-reason: cost-cutting, position of Principal
for acad personnel in private elementary & secondary schools, it is only after 1 has satisfactorily completed prob period of 3 school years and is rehired that
abolished – but nowhere informed Manalo he acquires full tenure as regular/ permanent employee
about performance as school teacher was less impt: specify the term/ period of effectivity
than satisfactory
-absent any concrete & competent proof
that her performance as teacher was
unsatisfactory from her hiring on April 18
2002 – March 31 2003, Manalo is entitled to
continue her 3 year period of prob period,
such that from March 31 2003 her prob
employment is deemed renewed for the
following 2 years
Robinsons Galleria/ Robinsons
Supermarket Corp v Irene Ranchez
ILLEGALLY TERMINATED; PROBATIONARY
EMPLOYEE AT TIME OF DISMISSAL
-There is prob employment when employee
upon his engagement is made to undergo a
trial period during which the employer
determines his fitness to qualify for regular
employment based on reasonable standards
made known to him at the time of engagement
-additional ground for termination: (Art 281)
> failure to qualify as regular employee in
accordance with reasonable standards made
known by employer to employee at time of
engagement
-Art 277(b) mandates employer to furnish
worker a written notice containing statement
of the causes of termination
Robinsons failed to accord Ranchez
substantive and procedural due process
- administrative investigation was not
conducted by Robinsons
-same day, Rob already pre-judged her guilt
without proper investigation and instantly
reported her to police as the suspected
thief
Due process requirements under Labor Code
are MANDATORY and may not be supplanted
by police investigation/ court proceedings
-crimin aspect of case is considered
independent of admin aspect
-employers mandated to conduct own
separate investigation to accord employee
every opportunity to defend himself
-Ranchez was not represented by counsel
(strip searched, during police investigation, PI)
-Ranchez was constructively dismissed
effective OCTOBER 30 1997
Monetary claims: 2 reliefs
1. either reinstatement, if viable, or separation
pay if reinstatement no longer viable AND
2. backwages
Ranchez
-probationary employee of Robinsons Supermarket for 5 months (Oct 15 1997-March 14 1998)
-Underwent 6 weeks of training as cashier before hired on Oct 15 1997
-Oct 30 1997 (2 weeks after she was hired) – reported to supervisor for loss of cash P20,299 which she had placed inside company locker
Jess Manuel (petitioner)
- Operations Manager
-ordered Ranchez be strip-searched by company guards (however, search yielded nothing)
Ranchez
-acknowledged responsibility and requested that she be allowed to settle and pay lost amount
Manuel
- did not heed her request; reported the matter to police
-requested QC Prosecutor’s Office for inquest (Nov 5- info for Qualified Theft was filed with RTC, QC)
Ranchez
-constrianed to spend 2 weeks in jail for failure to immediately post bail (P40k)
-Nov 25 1997- filed complaint for illegal termination & damages
Robinsons
-March 9 1998- sent by mail notice of termination and/or notice of expiration of probationary employment
LA
-dismissed complaint for illegal dismissal (time when Ranchez filed complaint, she was not yet dismissed)
-strip searching- merely conducting investigation
NLRC
-reversed LA (Ranchez was denied due process)
-strip searching and sending to jail for 2 weeks- constructive dismissal
-although prob employee, lapse of contract did not have effect of validly terminating employment bc of constructive dismissal
CA
-affirmed with modification NLRC (reinstatement no longer possible-strained relation)
Robinsons
-Ranchez was a prob employee and her prob contract lapsed on March 14 1998-moot and academic
Ranchez
-at the time money was discovered missing, it was not with her but locked in company locker. Company failed to provide cashiers with strong locks & proper security.
Denied due process.
Gadia v. Sykes Asia, Inc
PROJECT-BASED EMPLOYEES
(Project v. Regular)
-Sykes Asia have shown by substantial
evidence
-NLRC gravely abused its discretion in ruling
that they were regular when Sykes had
established by substantial evidence that they
were merely project based
-Sykes adequately informed petitioners of their
employment status at time of engagement
(contracts-hired in connection with Alltel
project; and positions were “project-based
and as such is co-terminus to the project”)
-also submitted Establishment Employment
Report & Establishment Termination Report to
DOLE
Project employee
-assigned to project which begins and ends at
determined/ determinable times
-may be lawfully terminated at completion of
project
Regular
-may only be dismissed for just and/or
authorized causes
principal test for determining whether
employees are properly characterized as
project as distinguished from regular
-WON the employees were assigned to
carry out a specific project/ undertaking,
the duration and scope of which were
specified at the time they were engaged for
that project
Sykes Asia (respondent)
- corp engaged in BPO which provides support to its international clients from various sectors
Alltel Communications, Inc. (Alltel)
- US based telecommunications firm
-contracted Syke Asia’s services to accommodate the needs and demands of Alltel clients for its postpaid and prepaid services (Alltel Project)
Sykes Asia hired petitioners as CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVES, TEAM LEADERS & TRAINERS FOR ALLTEL PROJECTS
Alltel
-sent 2 letters to Sykes Asia – Aug 7 2009 & Sept 9 2009 – terminating all support services provided by Sykes Asia related to project
Sykes Asia
-sent each of petitioners end-of-life notices – informing them of dismissal due to termination of project
Petitioners
-filed complaints for illegal dismissal (unjust)
Sykes Asia
-petitioners NOT REGULAR employees but merely PROJECT-BASED (valid termination- termination of project)
-employment contracts indicated they are “project-based” and thus “co-terminus to project” hence complied with requirements of procedural due process notice
LA
-in favor of Sykes (petitioners are merely project-based) – contracts provided for duration, term and project assigned
NLRC
-petitioners are REGULAR but VALIDLY TERMINATED due to redundancy
- IT WAS NEITHER DETERMINED NOR MADE KNOWN TO PETITIONERS, AT THE TIME OF HIRING, WHEN SAID PROJECT WOULD END, BE TERMINATED/ BE
COMPLETED
CA
-annulled NLRC ruling – PROJECT BASED (contracts need not state an actual date as to when their employment would end, enough that date is determinable)

2 requisites to be considered as project

based:
1. employee was assigned to carry out a
specific project/ undertaking (ALLTEL
PROJECT)
2. duration & scope of which were specified at
the time they were engaged for such project
(CO-TERMINUS WITH PROJECT)
à “determinable times” simply means capable
of being determined/ fixed
DM Consunji v. Gobres
Project employees
PRIOR/ ADVANCE NOTICE OF TERMINATION
IS NOT PART OF PROCEDURAL DUE
PROCESS IF TERMINATION IS BROUGHT
ABOUT BY COMPLETION OF CONTRACT/
PHASE THEREOF FOR WHICH THE
EMPLOYEE WAS ENGAGED.
- DM CONSUNJI DID NOT VIOLATE
REQUIREMENT OF PROCEDURAL DUE
PROCESS, THUS NO BASIS FOR PAYMENT
OF NOMINAL DAMAGES
-Termination governed by Sec 1(c) and Sec
2, Rule XXIII, Book V of Omnibus Rules
Implementing Labor Code
-requirements of due process/ prior notice
when dismissed for just/ authorized cause
prior to completion of projects DO NOT
APPLY IN THIS CASE (Art 282 & 283)
Award for nominal damages deleted
LA, NLRC, CA
-found respondents as project employees
(validly terminated) but CA held entitled to
nominal damages
Agabon not applicable
-although dismissal was for a cause, employer
therein was required to observe the standard
of due process for termination of employment
based on just causes under Art 282, Labor
Code, which procedural due process
requirements are enumerated in Omnibus
Rules Implementing the Labor Code
In the case at bar
- respondents not terminated for just cause;
terminated due to completion of phases of
work for which they were engaged
Dismissal based on just causes
-contemplate acts/ omissions attributable
to the employee
DM Consunji
- construction company
Gobres, et al (Respondents)
- worked as carpenters in construction projects of petitioner DM Consunji on several occasions and/or at various times
-termination from employment for each project was reported to DOLE
-last assignment: Quad 4-Project in Glorietta, Ayala, Makati – started working on Sept 1 1998
-Oct 14 1998 – saw their names included in Notice of Termination posted on bulletin board at the project premises
-filed complaint with Arbitration Branch of NLRC against DM Consunji – ILLEGAL DISMISSAL & non payment of 13th month pay
DM Consunji & David Consunji
-countered respondents – PROJECT EMPLOYEES (covered by Policy Instruction 20, as superseded by Dept Order 19 with respect to separation/ dismissal)
-employed per project and within varying estimated periods indicated in respective project employment contracts
-services terminated when their phases of work for which their service were engaged were completed/ when the projects themselves were completed
Gobres et al
-Quad 4-Project was estimated to take 2 years to finish, but they were dismissed within 2 year period
-they had no prior notice of their termination
-granting they were project employees, they were still illegally dismissed for non-observance of procedural due process
LA
-Gobres et al were PROJECT EMPLOYEES (dismissed from last project they were assigned to when their respective phases of work are completed)
NLRC
-affirmed LA
CA
-PROJECT EMPLOYEES (but entitled to know the reason for their dismissal and to be heard on whatever claims they might have) – lack of advance notice of termina
-affirmed with modification – pay nominal damages for non compliance with statutory due process
-cited Agabon v. NLRC – dismissal is for a just cause, the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the dismissal but employer should indemnify employee for
violation of statutory rights
DM Consunji
-under DO 19 (construction industry’s governing law)-no provision requiring admin hearing/ investigation before a project employee may be terminated on account of
completion of phase of work/ project itself)
-notice of termination not required and Agabon not applicable here
-“if the termination is brought about by the completion of contract/ phase thereof, no prior notice is required” –Omnibus Rules Implementing Labor Code
CA
-denied partial MR; Agabon is controlling