Kimberly VS. Secretary of Labor The CBA executed between Kimberly-Clark (Phils.), Inc.

, and United Kimberly-Clark Employees UnionPhilippine Transport and General Workers Organization (UKCEO-PTGWO) has expired. Within the freedom period, KILUSAN-OLALIA, then a newly-formed labor organization, challenged the incumbency of UKCEOPTGWO, by filing a petition for certification election. A certification election was conducted with UKCEOPTGWO winning by a margin of 20 votes over KILUSAN-OLALIA. Remaining as uncounted were 64 challenged ballots cast by 64 casual workers whose regularization was in question. UKCEO-PTGWO was then declared as the exclusive bargaining representative of Kimberlys employees, having garnered the highest number of votes in the certification election. Olalia filed a protest to NLRC on the result of the election. During the pendency of the case Kimberly dismissed from service several employees and refused to heed the workers grievances, impelling KILUSAN-OLALIA to stage a strike. On the decision NLRC ordered KIMBERLY to pay workers who were dismissed and who have been regularized to all the corresponding benefits available to them. ISSUE: Whether or not employees of KIMBERLY have attain status of a regular employee and entitled to all benefits available to that of regular employee. RULLING: The individual petitioners herein who have been adjudged to be regular employees fall under Article 280 of the Labor Code which provides 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. While the actual regularization of these employees entails the mechanical act of issuing regular appointment papers and compliance with such other operating procedures as may be adopted by the employer, it is more in keeping with the intent and spirit of the law to rule that the status of regular employment attaches to the casual worker on the day immediately after the end of his first year of service.

TAN VS. LAGRAMA and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS Rolando Tan is the Pres. of Supreme Theater Corporation and the Gen Manager of Crown and Empire Theaters in Butuan City. Respondent Leovigildo Lagrama is a painter, making ad billboards and murals for the motion pictures shown at the Empress, Supreme, and Crown Theaters for more than 10 years, from September 1, 1988 to October 17, 1998. On October 17, 1998, Lagrama was summoned by Tan and upbraided: You again urinated inside your work area. When Lagrama asked what Tan was saying, Tan told him Dont say anything further. I dont want you to draw anymore. From now on, no more drawing. Get out. Lagrama denied the charge against him he filed a complaint with Sub-Regional Arbitration in Butuan City alleging that he is illegally dismissed. Tan denied that Lagrama was his employee. He asserted that Lagrama was an independent contractor. The Labor Arbiter rule in favor of Lagarma, but then reversed by the NLRC. Lagrama appealed to CA and affirm the decision of the labor Arbiter. Tan then appeal to Supreme Court. ISSUE: Whether or not Leovigildo Lagrama is employee of Tan and was he illegally dismissed? RULLINGg: Leovigildo Lagrama is declared to be employee of Tan for applying the four-fold test, to wit: (1) power of selection and engagement of employees; 2 power to control of the employee with respect to the means and methods by which work is to be accomplished; (3) power to dismiss; and (4) whether the employee was paid wages. These elements of the employer-employee relationship are present in this case. On the issue of illegal dismissal of Lagrama the court ruled that. Lagrama had been employed by petitioner since 1988. Under the law, therefore, he is deemed a regular employee and is thus entitled to security of tenure, as provided in Art. 279 of Labor Code.

BRENT SCHOOL, INC., and REV. GABRIEL DIMACHE VS. RONALDO ZAMORA, the Presidential Assistant for Legal Affairs, Office of the President, and DOROTEO R. ALEGRE Doroteo R. Alegre was engaged as athletic director by Brent School, Inc. They have executed a 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. Subsequent subsidiary agreements dated March 15, 1973, August 28, 1973, and September 14, 1974 reiterated the same terms and conditions, including the expiry date, as those contained in the original contract of July 18, 1971. 5 On April 20,1976, 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. The stated ground for the termination was "completion of contract, expiration of the definite period of employment." At the investigation conducted by a Labor Conciliator of said report of termination of his services, Alegre protested the announced termination of his employment. He argued that 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. ISSUE: Whether or not fixed term contract entered into by Alegre and Brent School is valid or not. RULLING: 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. Civil Code of the Philippines provides that no prohibition against term-or fixed-period employment is contained in any of its articles or is otherwise deducible there from. And It is plain then that when the employment contract was signed between Brent School and Alegre on July 18, 1971, 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. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL OIL COMPANY-ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION/FRANCIS PALAFOX, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and FRANCISCO MATA, On November 11, 1980, petitioners hired Francisco Mata as Service Driver on a daily wage of P39.74. Assigned to the PNOC-EDA Bacon-Manito Geothermal Project in Bonga, Sorsogon, Sorsogon, he worked there until September 1, 1985. His employment was terminated through a letter advice dated September 1, 1985, signed by his supervisor, B.B. Balista, allegedly for contract expiration even when the project was still a continuing one. On November 8, 1985, Mata complained of illegal dismissal, and accused petitioners of withholding his backwages, overtime pay, and separation pay. A dismissal of the complaint was sought on jurisdictional ground, Petitioner Company asserting that it is a government-owned and controlled corporation; hence, its employees must be governed by the Civil Service Law and not by the Labor Code. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision saying that Mata is a regular employee. ISSUE: Whether or not Francisco Mata was (a) a regular employee and (b) that he was illegally terminated; and (c) when it awarded Francisco Mata backwages and separation pay. RULLING: It is clear that private respondent Mata is a project employee considering that he does not belong to a "work pool" from which petitioner PNOC would draw workers for assignment to other projects at its discretion. It is likewise apparent from the facts of the case that private respondent Mata was utilized only for one particular project, the well-completion project which was part of the exploration stage of the PNOC Bacon-Manito Geothermal Project. Hence, private respondent Mata can be dismissed upon the termination of

the projects as there would be no need for his services. We should not expect petitioner to continue on hiring private respondent in the other phases of the project when his services will no longer be needed. As a project employee, was he legally terminated? Respondent corporation should have filed as many reports of termination as there were construction projects actually finished, considering that petitioner had been hired since 1980 up to 1985. Not a single report was submitted by the respondent company. This failure to submit reports of termination convinced Us more that petitioner was indeed a regular employee. The records do not show that petitioners obtained the necessary written clearance to terminate the contract of employment of private respondent Mata. The latter is. therefore, entitled to reinstatement with backwages. Considering, however, that the Bacon-Manito project has already been completed and reinstatement is no longer feasible or advisable He is, however, entitled to backwages and separation pay due to the fact that petitioners did not secure the necessary written clearance from the Secretary of Labor in terminating private respondent Mata.