LABOR RELATIONS REPORT

LABOR ARBITER A. VILLANUEVA

MONDAY / 6-9 PM

GROUP FIVE (5)

Ma. Flor Iris F. Batiller
Charo Bayani
Maolen Tolentino
SEASONAL EMPLOYMENT
FORTUNATO MERCADO vs.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC)
FACTS: Petitioners alleged in their complaint that they were agricultural workers utilized by private
respondents and that they were all allegedly dismissed from their employment. Private respondent averred
that she engaged their services of mandarols", that is, persons who take charge in supplying the number
of workers needed by owners of various farms, but only to do a particular phase of agricultural work
necessary in rice production and/or sugar cane production, after which they would be free to render
services to other farm owners who need their services.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners are regular and permanent farm workers and entitled to the benefits
which they pray for.
HELD: NO. A project employee has been defined to be one whose employment has been fixed for a
specific 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 service to be performed is seasonal in nature and
the employment is for the duration of the season as in the present case.
TACLOBAN SAGKAHAN RICE and CORN MILLS, CO. vs. NLRC
FACTS: Private respondents, before their termination on, were all regular employees of petitioners. July
25, 1983, petitioner Tan Cheng Pian alias "Piana" told private respondents "to look for another job" without
giving any reason.Private respondents thus filed their complaint for illegal dismissal.
ISSUE: Whether or not private respondents are regular employees. Hence, illegally dismissed.
HELD: The services performed or to be performed by private respondents are not seasonal in nature.
While it may be true that the harvest of palay is seasonal, the milling operations which is the main
business of petitioners are not seasonal. The fact is that big rice mills such as the one owned by petitioners
continue to operate and do business throughout the year even if there are only two or three harvest
seasons within the year. It is a common practice among farmers and rice dealers to store their palay and to
have the same milled as the need arises. Thus, the milling operations have no let-up.
HACIENDA FATIMA vs. NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUGARCANE WORKERS-FOOD AND GENERAL
TRADE, respondents.
FACTS: In the course of a labor dispute between the petitioner and respondent union, the union members
were not given work for more than one month. In protest, complainants staged a strike which was however
settled upon the signing of a Memorandum of Agreement.
ISSUE: Whether or not the seasonal employees have become regular employees.
HELD: NO. The SC held that for respondents to be excluded from those classified as regular employees, it
is not enough that they perform work or services that are seasonal in nature. They must have also been
employed only for the duration of one season. The evidence proves the existence of the first, but not of the
second, condition. Evidently, petitioners employed respondents for more than one season. Therefore, the
general rule of regular employment is applicable.
ELVIRA ABASOLO vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
FACTS: Private respondent La Union Tobacco Redrying Corporation (LUTORCO), which is owned by private
respondent See Lin Chan, is engaged in the business of buying, selling, redrying and processing of tobacco
leaves and its by-products. Petitioners have been under the employ of LUTORCO for several years until
their employment with LUTORCO was abruptly interrupted when Compania General de Tabaccos de
Filipinas (also known as TABACALERA) took over LUTORCOs tobacco operations.
ISSUE: Whether or not NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that petitioners are not regular
employees and therefore not illegally terminated.
HELD: YES. The test of whether or not an employee is a regular employee has been laid down in De Leon
v. NLRC. The test is whether the former is usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of
the employer. The connection can be determined by considering the nature of the work performed and its
relation to the scheme of the particular business or trade in its entirety. Also if the employee has been
performing the job for at least a year, even if the performance is not continuous and merely intermittent,
the law deems repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity if
not indispensability of that activity to the business. Hence, the employment is considered regular, but only
with respect to such activity, and while such activity exists.
CASUAL EMPLOYMENT
KIMBERLY-CLARK PHIL., INC. (KIMBERLY) VS. SEC. OF LABOR ET. AL. GR # 156668
FACTS: KIMBERLY executed a CBA with UKCEO-PTGWO. Within the 60-day freedom period prior to the
expiration of the CBA, some members of the bargaining unit formed another union called KILUSAN-OLALIA.
KILUSAN-OLALIA filed a petition for certification election. KIMBERLY and UKCEO-PTGWO did not object to
the holding of a certification election but objected to the inclusion of the so-called contractual workers
whose employment with KIMBERLY was coursed through an independent contractor, Rank Manpower
Company (RANK) as among the qualified voters. 64 casual workers were challenged by KIMBERLY and
UKCEO-PTGWO on the ground that they are not employees of KIMBERLY but of RANK. It was agreed by all
the parties that the 64 voters shall be allowed to cast their votes but that their ballots shall be segregated
and subject to challenge proceedings.
ISSUE: WON the 64 casual employees needs no appointment paper to be a regular employee after one (1)
year of service

RULING: Yes. The law provides for 2 kinds of regular employees (1) those who are engaged to perform
activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual trade or business of the employer, and (2)
those who have rendered at least 1 year of service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the
activity in which they are employed.
TAN VS. LAGRAMA AND CA GR # 151228
FACTS: Petitioner Rolando Tan is the president of Supreme Theater Corporation and the general manager
of Crown and Empire Theaters. Private respondent 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.
Private respondent was summoned and dismissed by Tan for urinating inside the work area. Lagrama
denied the charge against him. Lagrama filed a complaint with the NLRC.
ISSUE: WON the repeated rehiring of Tan as causal employee makes him a regular employee
RULING: Yes. In determining whether there is an employer-employee relationship, Courts have applied a
"four-fold test," to wit: (1) whether the alleged employer has the power of selection and engagement of
employees; (2) whether he has control of the employee with respect to the means and methods by which
work is to be accomplished; (3) whether he has the power to dismiss; and (4) whether the employee was
paid wages.7 These elements of the employer-employee relationship are present in this case.
FIXED TERM EMPLOYMENT
BRENT SCHOOL, INC. vs. ZAMORA
GR#48494 Feb 5, 1990
FACTS: Alegre was engaged as athletic director by Brent School. The contract fixed a specific term for its
existence, which is for five years. When the employment was signed between Brent School and Alegre, on
July 18, 1871 before the labor code was passed, it was perfectly legitimate for them to include in it a
stipulation fixing the duration thereof. Three months before the expiration of the contract, he was advised
of the termination of his services. The stated ground for termination is the completion of contract,
expiration of the definite period of employment.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent was illegally dismissed
RULING: The court explained that Article 280 of the Labor Code, under a narrow and literal interpretation,
not only fails to exhaust the gamut of employment contracts to which the lack of a fixed period would be
an anomaly, but would also appear to restrict, without reasonable distinctions, the right of an employee to
freely stipulate with his employer the duration of his engagement, it logically follows that such a literal
interpretation should be eschewed or avoided. The law must be given a reasonable interpretation, to
preclude absurdity in its application.
AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE, PARAAQUE versus ROLANDO A. AUSTRIA, G.R. No. 164078
FACTS: Austria was hired by AMA on probationary employment as a college dean which was subsequently
confirmed by AMAs Officer-in-Charge in his Memorandum. Respondent was charged with violating AMAs
Employees Conduct and Discipline provided in its Orientation Handbook . Thereafter, respondent was
placed on preventive suspension and eventually was informed of his dismissal.
ISSUE: Was the dismissal valid and lawful?
HELD: YES. The SC held that Article 280 of the Labor Code does not proscribe or prohibit an employment
contract with a fixed period. Even if the duties of the employee consist of activities necessary or desirable
in the usual business of the employer, the parties are free to agree on a fixed period of time for the
performance of such activities. There is nothing essentially contradictory between a definite period of
employment and the nature of the employees duties.
PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS, INC. vs.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION G.R. No.
106654 December 16, 1994
FACTS: Private respondent Peronila was employed as a driver of Pantranco North Express, Inc., a domestic
corporation engaged in the public transportation business as a common carrier, and of which its copetitioner Abelardo de Leon is a manager. Peronila was dismissed due to unauthorized absences. Fifteen
years after such termination of his employment, Peronila reappeared and implored petitioner to reconsider
his dismissal, which plea was initially denied by petitioner. However, due to his insistent appeals, petitioner
eventually acceded and hired him as a driver, but on a contractual basis for a fixed period of one
month. Barely fifteen days from such employment as a contractual driver private respondent was involved
in a vehicular mishap and his employment contract was terminated and was no longer renewed thereafter.
ISSUE: Whether or not the employment contract which stipulates that there is no employer-employee
relationship between petitioner and Peronila is valid.
HELD: YES. What said Article 280 seeks to prevent is the practice of some unscrupulous and covetous
employers who wish to circumvent the law that protects lowly workers from capricious dismissal from their
employment. The aforesaid provision, however, should not be interpreted in such a way as to deprive
employers of the right and prerogative to choose their own workers if they have sufficient basis to refuse
an employee a regular status. Management has rights which should also be protected.
CAPAROSO VS. CA ET.AL GR 155505
FACTS: Composite Enterprises Incorporated is engaged in the distribution and supply of confectioneries to
various retail establishments within the Philippines. Emilio M. Caparoso (Caparoso) and Joeve P. Quindipan
(Quindipan) were Composites deliverymen. Caparoso alleged that he was hired on 8 November 1998 while
Quindipan alleged that he was hired on intermittent basis since 1997. Quindipan further alleged that he
had been working continuously with Composite since August 1998. Caparoso and Quindipan (petitioners)
were dismissed from the service.
ISSUE: WON Caparoso and Quindipan are regular employees
RULING: No. Article 280 provides for 2 kinds of regular employees (1) those who are engaged to perform
activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual trade or business of the employer, and (2)
those who have rendered at least 1 year of service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the
activity in which they are employed. However, even if an employee is engaged to perform activities that
are necessary or desirable in the usual trade or business of the employer, it does not preclude the fixing of
employment for a definite period.
PUREFOODS VS. NLRC GR 122653

FACTS: The private respondents (numbering 906) were hired by petitioner Pure Foods Corporation to work
for a fixed period of five months at its tuna cannery. After the expiration of their respective contracts of
employment, their services were terminated. They forthwith executed a "Release and Quitclaim" stating
that they had no claim whatsoever against the petitioner. NLRC sets aside its former decision and rendered
another decision holding that the private respondent and their co-complainants were regular employees
and their dismissal on account of the expiration of their respective contracts was illegal.
ISSUE: WON employees hired for a definite period and whose services are necessary and desirable in the
usual business or trade of employer are regular employees.
RULING: Yes. Article 280 provides for two kinds of regular employees are (1) those who are engaged to
perform activities which are necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer; and (2)
those casual employees who have rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken,
with respect to the activity in which they are employed. In the instant case, the private respondents'
activities consisted in the receiving, skinning, loining, packing, and casing-up of tuna fish which were then
exported by the petitioner. Indisputably, they were performing activities which were necessary and
desirable in petitioner's business or trade.
UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORP. VS. CATAPANG, ET. AL GR 164736
FACTS: The respondents were hired by the petitioner company on various dates from 1991 to 1993 to
work at its duck farm. The respondents were hired under an employment contract which provided for a
five-month period. After the expiration of the said employment contracts, the petitioner company would
renew them and re-employ the respondents. This practice continued until sometime in 1996, when the
petitioners informed the respondents that they were no longer renewing their employment contracts. The
respondents, then, filed separate complaints for illegal dismissal, reinstatement, back wages, damages
and attorneys fees against the petitioners.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondents are regular employees of petitioners corporation.
RULING: Yes. The primary standard of determining regular employment is the reasonable connection
between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual trade or business of the
employer. The test is whether the former is usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of
the employer. The connection can be determined by considering the nature of work performed and its
relation to the scheme of the particular business or trade in its entirety. Also, if the employee has been
performing the job for at least a year, even if the performance is not continuous and merely intermittent,
the law deems repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity if
not indispensability of that activity to the business. Hence, the employment is considered regular, but only
with respect to such activity and while such activity exists.
JAMES VIERNES vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 108405. April 4, 2003
FACTS: Complainants services as meter readers were contracted for hardly a months duration, or from
October 8 to 31, 1990. The said term notwithstanding, the complainants were allowed to work beyond
October 31, 1990, or until January 2, 1991. On January 3, 1991, they were each served their identical
notices of termination dated December 29, 1990.
ISSUE: Whether or not complainants were probationary or regular employees.
RULING: The Supreme Court held that, that petitioners have never been probationary employees as per
the records. There is nothing in the letter of appointment, to indicate that their employment as meter
readers was on a probationary basis. It was not shown that petitioners were informed by the private
respondent, at the time of the latters employment, of the reasonable standards under which they could
qualify as regular employees. Instead, petitioners were initially engaged to perform their job for a limited
duration, their employment being fixed for a definite period, from October 8 to 31, 1990. Hence, private
respondents reliance to Brent doctrine is misplaced.
MEGASCOPE GENERAL SERVICES vs. NLRC
G.R. No. 109224. June 19, 1997
FACTS: This case is about the Petitioners questions on the award of separation pay to respondent workers
after their employment was terminated when the company ceased operations. Private respondents filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of salaries, nonpayment of five-day service incentive leave
credits and holiday pay against petitioner and Andres M. David
ISSUE: Whether or not private respondents were regular employees of petitioner.
RULING: YES. Undeniably, private respondents had been performing activities which were necessary or
desirable in the usual trade or business of petitioner. Their services as gardeners, helpers and
maintenance workers were continuously availed of by petitioner in the conduct of its business as supplier
of such services to clients. Thus, even if there were a contrary agreement between the parties, if the
worker has worked for more than a year and there is a reasonable connection between the particular
activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer, an
employer-employee relationship is deemed to exist between the parties.
AGUSAN DEL NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC vs. JOEL CAGAMPANG
FACTS: Respondents Joel Cagampang and Glenn Garzon started working as linemen for petitioner Agusan
del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ANECO) under an employment contract which was for a period not
exceeding three months. When the contract expired, the two were laid-off for one to five days and then
ordered to report back to work but on the basis of job orders. After several renewals of their job contracts
in the form of job orders for similar employment periods of about three months each, the said contracts
eventually expired. Respondents' contracts were no longer renewed, resulting in their loss of employment.
Respondents then filed an illegal dismissal against the petitioner.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondents were illegally dismissed.
RULING:YES.The test to determine whether employment is regular or not is the reasonable connection
between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the
employer. Also, if the employee has been performing the job for at least one year, even if the performance
is not continuous or merely intermittent, the law deems the repeated and continuing need for its
performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity, if not indispensability of that activity to the business.
Thus, we held that 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 and are
considered regular employees.

PHILIPS SEMICONDUCTORS (PHILS.), INC. vs. ELOISA FADRIQUELA G.R. No. 141717. April 14,
2004
FACTS: The petitioner Philips Semiconductors (Phils.), Inc. is a domestic corporation engaged in the
production and assembly of semiconductors. Respondent Eloisa Fadriquela executed a Contract of
Employment with the petitioner in which she was hired as a production operator. Her initial contract was
for a period of three months but was extended for two months. Her contract was again renewed for two
months. After the expiration of her third contract, it was extended anew, for three months. After garnering
a performance rating of 3.4, the respondents contract was extended for another three months. She,
however, incurred absences and as a consequence of which her performance rating declined to 2.8. It was
recommended to the petitioner that the respondents employment be terminated due to habitual
absenteeism, in accordance with the Company Rules and Regulations. Thus, the respondents contract of
employment was no longer renewed.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is a regular employee and her dismissal illegal.
RULING: YES. The court concludes that petitioners dismissal is illegal because, first, she was dismissed in
the absence of a just cause, and second, she was not afforded procedural due process.