TYPES OF EMPLOYMENT

There are five different types of employment in the Philippines and they are determined by the nature
and/or existence of activities that an employee is required to perform. The employer establishes the
terms and conditions of the employment contract, which should be structured according to the legal
provisions set by Philippine labor laws and regulations.

 Regular or Permanent Employment

Regular or Permanent Employment is when an employee performs activities that are
usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer.

Explanation:

The regular or permanent employees enjoy the benefit of security of tenure provided by
the Philippine Constitution and cannot be terminated for causes other than those provided by
law and only after due process is given to them.
However, some employers can require their new employees to undergo probationary
employment before they can be qualified for regular employment. Although probationary
employment is not a formal type of employment in the Philippines, it is widely practiced to help
employers observe the skills, competence, and performance of new employees and determine if
they are able to meet the reasonable standards to become permanent employees.
Under Article 281 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, the maximum length of
probationary employment shall be six (6) months, and is counted from the date an employee
started working. When the employment is not terminated after the six-month probationary
period, it shall then be considered regular employment. It is important to note that the
employer must notify the employee of the probationary period and the standards they must
satisfy on or before the end of the probationary employment. If the employee is not properly
notified of the arrangement, then they are prescribed by law to be classified as a regular
employee from the time they started working for the company.

 Term or Fixed Employment

Term or Fixed-Term Employment is when the employee renders service for a definite
period of time and the employment contract must be terminated after such period expires.

Explanation:

This type of employment is determined not by the activities that the employee is
expected to perform but by the commencement and termination of the employment
relationship.
Fixed-term employment is highly regulated and is subject to the following criteria:
  be voluntarily and knowingly agreed upon by the parties without any force,
duress or improper pressure being brought to bear upon the employee and
absent any vices of consent; or
 it satisfactorily appears that the employer and the employee dealt with each
other on more or less equal terms with no dominance exercised by the former
over the latter.

 Project Employment
Project Employment is defined when an employee is hired for a specific project or
undertaking and the employment duration is specified by the scope of work and/or length of the
project.

Explanation:

A project employee may acquire the status of a regular employee when they are
continuously rehired after the completion of the project or when the tasks they perform are
vital, necessary, and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer.

 Seasonal Employment
Seasonal Employment is when the work to be performed is only for a certain time or
season of the year and the employment is only for that duration.

Explanation:

This type is common practice to Retail, Food and Beverage, Hospitality and other related
industries as augmentation to their workforce to cover for the demand during peak seasons. A
common practice for some employers is to hire “regular seasonal employees” who are called to
work during peak seasons (e.g. Christmas season) and are temporarily suspended during off-
seasons. These employees are not separated from service but are only considered on Leave of
Absence (LOA) without pay until re-employed.

 Casual Employment
There is Casual Employment when an employee performs work that is not usually
necessary or primarily related to the employer’s business or trade.

Explanation:

The definite period of employment should be made known to the employee at the time
they started rendering service.
If the employee has rendered service for at least one (1) year in the same company,
whether the casual employment is continuous or not, they shall be considered a regular
employee with respect to the activity they are employed and will continue rendering service
while such activity exists.
G.R. No. 75112

FILAMER CHRISTIAN INSTITUTE, petitioner,

vs.

HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HONORABLE ENRIQUE P. SUPLICO, in his capacity as Judge of the
Regional Trial Court,. Branch XIV, Roxas City and the late POTENCIANO KAPUNAN, SR., as substituted by
his heirs, namely: LEONA KAPUNAN TIANGCO, CICERO KAPUNAN, JESUS KAPUNAN, SANTIAGO
KAPUNAN, POTENCIANO KAPUNAN, JR., PAZ KAPUNAN PUBLICO, SUSA KAPUNAN GENUINO and
ERLINDA KAPUNAN TESORO, respondents.

FACTS:

Kapunan, Sr. an 82 year old retired teacher, was struck by a jeepney owned by Filamer Christian
Institute and driven by its alleged employee, Funtecha. Kapunan was hospitalized for 20 days. He thus
instituted a criminal case against Funtecha alone, who was convicted for serious physical injuries
through reckless imprudence.

Thereafter, pursuant to his reservation, Kapunan instituted a civil case for damages against
Funtecha and Filamer and its president. The RTC and the CA found Filamer, the school, liable for
damages. Hence, this petition.

Filamer contends that it is not civilly liable because Funtecha was not its employee, as he was
only a working scholar assigned to clean the school premises for only two (2) hours in the morning of
each school day. Filamer anchors its contention on Section 14, Rule X of Book III of the Labor Code,,
which excludes working scholars from the employment coverage as far as substantive labor provisions
on working conditions, rest periods, and wages is concerned.

ISSUE:

Is Funtecha an employee of Filamer?

RULING:

YES. Funtecha is an employee of Filamer.

Explanation:

It is undisputed that Funtecha was a working student, being a part-time janitor and a scholar of
petitioner Filamer. He was, in relation to the school, an employee even if he was assigned to clean the
school premises for only two (2) hours in the morning of each school day.

In learning how to drive while taking the vehicle home in the direction of Allan’s house,
Funtecha definitely was not having a joy ride. Funtecha was not driving for the purpose of his enjoyment
or for a “frolic of his own” but ultimately, for the service for which the jeep was intended by the
petitioner school. Therefore, the Court is constrained to conclude that the act of Funtecha in taking over
the steering wheel was one done for and in behalf of his employer for which act the petitioner-school
cannot deny any responsibility by arguing that it was done beyond the scope of his janitorial duties.

Section 14, Rule X, Book III of the Rules implementing the Labor Code, on which the petitioner
anchors its defense, was promulgated by the Secretary of Labor and Employment only for the purpose
of administering and enforcing the provisions of the Labor Code on conditions of employment.
Particularly, Rule X of Book III provides guidelines on the manner by which the powers of the Labor
Secretary shall be exercised; on what records should be kept; maintained and preserved; on payroll; and
on the exclusion of working scholars from, and inclusion of resident physicians in the employment
coverage as far as compliance with the substantive labor provisions on working conditions, rest periods,
and wages, is concerned.

In other words, Rule X is merely a guide to the enforcement of the substantive law on labor. The
Court, thus, makes the distinction and so holds that Section 14, Rule X, Book III of the Rules is not the
decisive law in a civil suit for damages instituted by an injured person during a vehicular accident against
a working student of a school and against the school itself.

The present case does not deal with a labor dispute on conditions of employment between an
alleged employee and an alleged employer. It invokes a claim brought by one for damages for injury
caused by the patently negligent acts of a person, against both doer-employee and his employer. Hence,
the reliance on the implementing rule on labor to disregard the primary liability of an employer under
Article 2180 of the Civil Code is misplaced. An implementing rule on labor cannot be used by an
employer as a shield to avoid liability under the substantive provisions of the Civil Code.