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.