You are on page 1of 4

Case #2 Termination

G.R. No. 70705 August 21, 1989


MOI! "! #!ON, petitioner,
vs.
NATIONA# #A$OR R!#ATION COMMIION an% #A TON"!&A
INC., respondents.
'ACT(
Petitioner Moises de Leon was employed by the private respondent at the
Maintenance Section of its Engineering Department doing painting works on
company buildings and euipments as well as other odd !obs relating to
maintenance. "fter more than one year of service to the company, petitioner
reuested private respondent that he be included in the payroll of regular
worker instead of being paid through petty cash voucher. #n response to the
reuest, respondent distillery company dismissed petitioner de Leon. $he
latter demanded for his reinstatement but it was repeatedly refused. %or this
reason, Moises de Leon &led a complaint of #llegal Dismissal, reinstatement
and payment of back wages before the '(ce of the Labor "rbiter.
Labor "rbiter )ienvenido *ernande+ &nds the complaint meritorious and
rendered a decision in favor of Moises De Leon. #t ruled that the dismissal
was illegal and orders respondent company to reinstate the petitioner with
full back wages and other bene&ts. $he Labor "rbiter concluded that the
dismissal of the petitioner from service to the company after it reuested to
be treated as a regular employee is an attempt to circumvent the legal
obligations of the employer towards a regular employee
'n appeal, ,L-. reversed the decision of the labor "rbiter was -E/E-SED by
ma!ority decision. Motion for -econsideration was denied.
$he Solicitor 0eneral recommends that the petition which seeks to annul and
set aside 1a2 the ma!ority decision of the ,L-.3 and 1b2 the -esolution
denying the Motion for -econsideration.
)etitioner*s Argument( $he .ommission erred and gravely abused its
discretion in reversing the decision of L.". the commission did not consider
the fact that the tasks performed included not only painting but maintenance
work necessary and desirable in the usual business of the respondent. *is
dismissal violates the .onstitutional and statutory protection of labor.
Res+on%ents Argument( Petitioner was hired only to repaint a building
speci&cally Mama -osa building which task of repainting is not part of their
main business and he was informed that his engagement on the task is on
casual basis.
I,!( 4hether or not respondent is a regular employee hence the
dismissal of the respondent by the company is #llegal.
-!#"( .!. "rticle 567 of the Labor .ode de&nes regular and casual
employment as follows8
Art. 281. Regu/ar an% 0asua/ em+/o1ment. The provisions
of a written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and
regardless of the oral agreements of the parties, an
employment shall be deemed to be regular where the
employee has been engaged to perform activities which are
usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of
the employer, except where the employment has been fxed
for a specifc project or undertaking the completion or
termination of which has been determined at the time of the
engagement of the employee or where the work or services to
be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for
the duration of the season.
An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not
covered by the preceding paragraph: rovided, 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 actually exists
$he provision reinforces .onstitutional mandate for protection of labor, it
manifests the tenurial interest of the worker who may be denied the rights
and bene&ts due a regular employee by virtue of lopsided agreements with
the economically powerful employer who can maneuver to keep an
employee on a casual status for as long as convenient.
#n the case at bar, the respondent company, which is engaged in the
business of manufacture and distillery of wines and liuors, claims that
petitioner was contracted on a casual basis speci&cally to paint a certain
company building and that its completion rendered petitioner9s employment
terminated. $his may have been true at the beginning, and had it been
shown that petitioner9s activity was e:clusively limited to painting that
certain building, respondent company9s theory of casual employment would
have been worthy of consideration.
*owever, during petitioner9s period of employment, the records reveal that
the tasks assigned to him included not only painting of company buildings,
euipment and tools but also cleaning and oiling machines, even operating
a drilling machine, and other odd !obs assigned to him when he had no
painting !ob.
#t is not tenable to argue that the painting and maintenance work of
petitioner are not necessary in respondent9s business of manufacturing
liuors and wines, !ust as it cannot be said that only those who are directly
involved in the process of producing wines and liuors may be considered as
necessary employees. 'therwise, there would have been no need for the
regular Maintenance Section of respondent company9s Engineering
Department, manned by regular employees like Emiliano $anue ;r., whom
petitioner often worked with.
%urthermore, the petitioner performed his work of painting and maintenance
activities during his employment in respondent9s business which lasted for
more than one year, until early ;anuary, 7<6= when he demanded to be
regulari+ed and was subseuently dismissed. .ertainly, by this fact alone he
is entitled by law to be considered a regular employee. "nd considering
further that weeks after his dismissal, petitioner was rehired by the company
through a labor agency and was returned to his post in the Maintenance
Section and made to perform the same activities that he used to do, it
cannot be denied that as activities as a regular painter and maintenance
man still e:ist.
$he law overrides such conditions which are pre!udicial to the interest of the
worker whose weak bargaining position needs the support of the State. $hat
determines whether a certain employment is regular or casual is not the will
and word of the employer, to which the desperate worker often accedes,
much less the procedure of hiring the employee or the manner of paying his
salary. #t is the nature of the activities performed in relation to the particular
business or trade considering all circumstances, and in some cases the
length of time of its performance and its continued e:istence.
"I)OITION( 4*E-E%'-E, the petition is 0-",$ED. $he assailed Decision
and -esolution of the ,ational Labor -elations .ommission are hereby
annulled and set aside. $he 'rder of Labor arbiter )ienvenido S. *ernande+
dated "pril >, 7<6? is reinstated. Private respondent is ordered to reinstate
petitioner as a regular maintenance man and to pay petitioner 72 backwages
euivalent to three years from ;anuary 7>,7<6=, in accordance with the
"luminum 4age 'rders in e@ect for the period covered, 52 E.'L" =2 7=th
Month Pay, ?2 and other bene&ts under pertinent .ollective )argaining
"greements, if any.

You might also like