35. Industrial-Commercial-Agricultural Workers Organization (ICAWO) v.

CIR 16 SCRA 562,

March 31, 1966.
The seasonal stoppage of work does not, therefore, negate the reasonable expectation of the
laborers to be subsequently allowed to resume work unless there be other justifiable reasons for
acting otherwise.

36. Visayan Stevedore Transportation Company v. CIR. 19 SCRA 426, February 25, 1967
1. LABOR LAW; EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP; CASE AT BAR. In the performance of their duties,
complainants worked under the direction and control of the officers of the company, whose paymaster or
disbursing officer paid the corresponding compensation directly to said complainants, who in turn
acknowledged receipt in payrolls of the company.
RELATIONSHIP CONTINUES EVEN AT CONCLUSION OF MILLING SEASON. As regards the alleged
termination of employer-employee relationship between the company and the complainants at the
conclusion of each milling season, it is settled that the workers concerned are considered, not separated
from the service, but merely on leave of absence, without pay, during the off-season, their employeremployee relationship being merely deemed suspended, not severed in the meanwhile
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE; CASE AT BAR. Where, as in the case at bar, the workers not admitted to work
beginning from Nov. 1955, were precisely those belonging to the union, and the company branch manager
had told them point blank that severance of their connection with the union was the remedy if they wanted
to continue working with the company, there was unfair labor practice.
BACK WAGES; PAYMENT OF BACK WAGES ON REINSTATEMENT DISCRETIONARY WITH COURT OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS. The law explicitly vests in the Court of Industrial Relations discretion to order
the reinstatement with backpay of laborers dismissed due to union activities

37. Bacolod-Murcia Milling Co, Inc. v. NLRC, 204 SCRA 155, 158, November 21, 1991
seasonal laborer cannot enjoy the same retirement privileges as the regular worker. The seasonal
laborer works only for a fraction of year. And more often than not, he is allowed by his employer to
seek employment elsewhere during off-season or temporary lay-off for economic necessity.

38. Gaco v. NLRC . 230 SCRA 260, Febuary 23, 1994

we shall not follow Article 279 of the Labor Code to the letter regarding the period of backwages in
view of the peculiar circumstances of the present case, namely, "there is now a strained relationship
between (petitioner) and (private respondent) and (petitioner) prays for payment of separation pay in
lieu of reinstatement." 13 Instead, the period thereof shall be reckoned from the time her compensation
was withheld from her, or in April, 1990 up to the finality of our decision.

39. Magcalas vs NLRC : 100333 : March 13, 1997

Regular employees cannot at the same time be project employees. Article 280 of the Labor
Code states that regular employees are those whose work is necessary or desirable to the
usual business of the employer. The two exceptions following the general description of regular
employees refer to either project or seasonal employees. The employment of seasonal
employees, on the other hand, legally ends upon completion of the project or the season
As regular employees, petitioners' employment cannot be terminated at the whim of the
employer. For a dismissal of an employee to be valid, two requisites must be met: (1) the
employee is afforded due process, meaning, he is given notice of the cause of his dismissal and
an adequate opportunity to be heard and to defend himself; and (2) the dismissal is for a valid
cause as indicated in Article 282[35] of the Labor Code.[36] The services of petitioners
were purportedly terminated at the end of the ADB and Interbank projects, but this could not
have been a valid cause for, as discussed above, they were regular and not project
employees. Thus, the Court does not hesitate to conclude that petitioners were illegally
dismissed.

40. Abasolo v. NLRC G.R. No. 118475, 29 November 2000, 346 SCRA 293.

The amount of separation pay is based on two factors: the amount of monthly
salary and the number of years of service. Although the Labor Code provides
different definitions as to what constitutes one year of service, Book
Six does not specifically define one year of service for purposes of
[31]

computing separation pay. However, Articles 283 and 284 both state in
connection with separation pay that a fraction of at least six months shall be
considered one whole year. Applying this case at bar, we hold that the
amount of separation pay which respondent members xxx should receive is
one-half (1/2) their respective average monthly pay during the last season
they worked multiplied by the number of years they actually rendered service,
provided that they worked for at least six months during a given year.
41. Philippine Tobacco Flue-Curing & Redrying Corporation v. NLRC G.R. No. 127395, 10
December 1998, 300 SCRA 37.
The formula that petitioner proposes, wherein a year of work is equivalent to actual
work rendered for 303 days, is both unfair and inapplicable, considering that Articles
283 and 284 provide that in connection with separation pay, a fraction of at least six
months shall be considered one whole year. Under these provisions, an employee
who worked for only six months in a given year -- which is certainly less than 303
days -- is considered to have worked for one whole year.

42. Rowell Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 167714 March 7, 2007

Well-established is the rule that regular employees enjoy

security of tenure and they can only be dismissed for just cause
and with due process, notice and hearing. [24] And in case of
employees dismissal, the burden is on the employer to prove
that the dismissal was legal. Thus, respondent Taripes
summary dismissal, not being based on any of the just or
authorized causes enumerated under Articles 282, [25] 283,
[26]
and 284[27] of the Labor Code, as amended, is illegal.
43. Robinsons Galleria/Robinsons Supermarket Corporation and/or Jess Manuel v. Ranchez,
G.R. No. 177937, January 19, 2011, 640 SCRA 142

Well-established is the rule that regular employees enjoy

security of tenure and they can only be dismissed for just cause
and with due process, notice and hearing. [24] And in case of
employees dismissal, the burden is on the employer to prove
that the dismissal was legal. Thus, respondent Taripes
summary dismissal, not being based on any of the just or
authorized causes enumerated under Articles 282, [25] 283,
[26]
and 284[27] of the Labor Code, as amended, is illegal.
44. Magis Young Achievers Learning Center v. Manalo, G.R. No. 178835, February 13, 2009,
579 SCRA 421, 431-432

probationary employees enjoy security of tenure during the

term of their probationary employment such that they may only
be terminated for cause as provided for by law, or if at the end
of the probationary period, the employee failed to meet the

reasonable standards set by the employer at the time of the

employees engagement.
in the absence of an express period of probation for private
school teachers, the three-year probationary period provided by
the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools must apply
likewise to the case of respondent. In other words, absent any
concrete and competent proof that her performance as a
teacher was unsatisfactory from her hiring on April 18, 2002 up
to March 31, 2003, respondent is entitled to continue her threeyear period of probationary period, such that from March 31,
2003, her probationary employment is deemed renewed for the
following two school years.[47]
45. Buiser, et al., v.. Hon. Leogardo, etc., et al., G.R. No. L-63316 July 31, 1984
the probationary period of employment is limited to six (6) months. The exception to this general rule
is When the parties to an employment contract may agree otherwise, such as when the same is
established by company policy or when the same is required by the nature of work to be performed
by the employee. In the latter case, there is recognition of the exercise of managerial prerogatives in
requiring a longer period of probationary employment, such as in the present case where the
probationary period was set for eighteen (18) months, i.e. from May, 1980 to October, 1981
inclusive, especially where the employee must learn a particular kind of work such as selling, or
when the job requires certain qualifications, skills, experience or training.

46. Miguel Corporation vs. Del Rosario, G.R. Nos. 168194 & 168603, December 13, 2005

Considering that respondent was illegally dismissed, she is entitled not only
to reinstatement but also to payment of full backwages, computed from the time
her compensation was actually withheld from her on March 13, 2001, up to her
actual reinstatement. As a regular employee of petitioner from the date of her
employment on April 17, 2000, she is likewise entitled to other benefits, i.e.,
service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay computed from such date also up to
her actual reinstatement.
Respondent is not, however, entitled to holiday pay because the records
reveal that she is a monthly paid regular employee. Under Section 2, Rule IV,
Book III of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, employees who are
uniformly paid by the month, irrespective of the number of working days therein,
shall be presumed to be paid for all the days in the month whether worked or not.
47. Octaviano vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 88636 October 3, 1991
The fact that the petitioner
received separation pay should not be taken against her for it is but
natural for her to accept whatever amounts the company would give

her. Her receipt of separation pay does not relieve the company of its
obligations under the law. Backwages and separation pay are reliefs
distinct and separate from each other. Payment of backwages in the
form of relief that restores the income that was lost by reason of
unlawful dismissal is distinguished from separation pay which
provides the employee money during the period in which he is
locating a new job.[16] We have moreover held that a quitclaim will not
stop a dismissed employee from complaining to the authorities.
48. Cebu Royal PIants (SMC) vs. The Honorable Deputy Minister of Labor and 144.
Employment, et al., G.R. No. 58639, August 12, 1987, 153 SCRA 11
there was here an attempt to circumvent the law by separating the employee after five months'
service to prevent him from becoming a regular employee, and then rehiring him on probation, again
without security of tenure. We cannot permit this subterfuge if we are to be true to the spirit and
mandate of social justice. On the other hand, we have also the health of the public and of the
dismissed employee himself to consider. Hence, although we must rule in favor of his reinstatement,
this must be conditioned on his fitness to resume his work, as certified by competent authority.

49. Beta Electric Company vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al., G.R. No. 86408,
February 15, 1990,182 SCRA 384 12
a probationary employee is "considered a regular employee" if he has been "allowed
to work after [the] probationary period." [11] The fact that her employment has
been a contract-to-contract basis cannot alter the character of employment,
because contracts cannot override the mandate of law. Hence, by operation of law,
she has become a regular employee.

50. Aliling vs. Feliciano, G.R. No. 185829, April 25,2012

The normal consequences of respondents illegal dismissal, then, are reinstatement
without loss of seniority rights, and payment of backwages computed from the time
compensation was withheld up to the date of actual reinstatement. Where
reinstatement is no longer viable as an option, separation pay equivalent to one (1)
month salary for every year of service should be awarded as an alternative. The
payment of separation pay is in addition to payment of backwages.

51. Mercado vs. AMA Computer College - Paraaque City, Inc. G.R. No. 183572 April 13, 2010

The fixed-term character of employment essentially refers to

the period agreed upon between the employer and the
employee; employment exists only for the duration of the term
and ends on its own when the term expires. In a sense,
employment on probationary status also refers to a period
because of the technical meaning probation carries in
Philippine labor law a maximum period of six months, or in
the academe, a period of three years for those engaged in
teaching jobs. Their similarity ends there, however, because of
the
overriding
meaning
that
being
on
probation
connotes, i.e., a process of testing and observing the character
or abilities of a person who is new to a role or job

52. Magis Young Achievers Learning Center v. Adelaida P. Manalo, G.R. No. 178835, February
13, 2009, 579 SCRA 421, 431-438

probationary employees enjoy security of tenure during the

term of their probationary employment such that they may only
be terminated for cause as provided for by law, or if at the end
of the probationary period, the employee failed to meet the
reasonable standards set by the employer at the time of the
employees engagement. Undeniably, respondent was hired as
a probationary teacher and, as such, it was incumbent upon
petitioner to show by competent evidence that she did not
meet the standards set by the school. This requirement,
petitioner failed to discharge. To note, the termination of
respondent was effected by that letter stating that she was
being relieved from employment because the school authorities
allegedly decided, as a cost-cutting measure, that the position
of Principal was to be abolished. Nowhere in that letter was
respondent informed that her performance as a school teacher
was less than satisfactory.
53. Petroleum Shipping Limited (formerly Esso International Shipping (Bahamas) Co., Ltd.) vs.
NLRC, June 16,2006, G.R. No. 148130

Court traced its ruling in a number of cases that seafarers are

contractual, not regular, employees. Thus, inBrent School,
Inc. v. Zamora,[15] the Court cited overseas employment
contract as an example of contracts where the concept of
regular employment does not apply, whatever the nature of the
engagement and despite the provisions of Article 280 of the
Labor Code. In Coyoca v. NLRC,[16] the Court held that the
agency is liable for payment of a seamans medical and
disability benefits in the event that the principal fails or refuses
to pay the benefits or wages due the seaman although the
seaman may not be a regular employee of the agency.
54. Millares v. NLRC 434 Phil. 524 (2002).

Accordingly, and since the entire purpose behind the

development of legislation culminating in the present Article
280 of the Labor code clearly appears to have been, as
already observed, to prevent circumvention of the
employees right to be secure in his tenure, the clause in
said article indiscriminately and completely ruling out all
written or oral agreements conflicting with the concept of

regular employment as defined therein should be construed

to refer to the substantive evil that the Code itself has
singled out; agreements entered into precisely to
circumvent security of tenure. It should have no application
to instances where a fixed period of employment was agreed
upon knowingly and voluntarily by the parties, without any
force, duress or improper pressure being brought to bear
upon the employee and absent any other circumstances
vitiating his consent, or where it satisfactorily appears that
the employer and employee dealt with each other on more
or less equal terms with no moral dominance whatever being
exercised by the former over the latter.
As a Filipino seaman, petitioner is governed by the Rules
and Regulations Governing Overseas Employment and the
said Rules do not provide for separation or termination pay.
55. Gu-Miro v. Adorable G.R. No. 160952, 20 August 2004, 437 SCRA 162.

Clearly, petitioner cannot be considered as a regular employee

notwithstanding that the work he performs is necessary and desirable in the
business of respondent company. As expounded in the abovementioned Millares Resolution, an exception is made in the situation of
seafarers. The exigencies of their work necessitates that they be employed
on a contractual basis.
Thus, even with the continued re-hiring by respondent company of
petitioner to serve as Radio Officer onboard Bergesens different vessels, this
should be interpreted not as a basis for regularization but rather a series of
contract renewals sanctioned under the doctrine set down by the
second Millares case. If at all, petitioner was preferred because of practical
considerationsnamely, his experience and qualifications. However, this
does not alter the status of his employment from being contractual.