Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Facts:
On July 30, 2001, the Labor Arbiter rendered judgment in favor of the respondents,
and declared that they were regular employees of petitioner; as such, they were
awarded monetary benefits. On appeal to the NLRC, it ruled that respondents were
entitled to the benefits under the CBA because they were regular employees who
contributed to the profits of petitioner through their labor. Petitioner thus filed a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA, raising both
procedural and substantive issues. CA Affirmed the ruling of the NLRC.
ISSUE
Whether the appellate court committed palpable and serious error of law when it
affirmed the rulings of the NLRC, and entertained respondents appeal from the
decision of the Labor Arbiter despite the admitted lapse of the reglementary period
within which to perfect the appeal.
HELD
We agree with petitioners contention that the perfection of an appeal within the
statutory or reglementary period is not only mandatory, but also jurisdictional;
failure to do so renders the assailed decision final and executory and deprives the
appellate court or body of the legal authority to alter the final judgment, much less
entertain the appeal. However, this Court has time and again ruled that in
exceptional cases, a belated appeal may be given due course if greater injustice
may occur if an appeal is not given due course than if the reglementary period to
appeal were strictly followed. The Court resorted to this extraordinary measure even
at the expense of sacrificing order and efficiency if only to serve the greater
principles of substantial justice and equity.
In the case at bar, the NLRC did not commit a grave abuse of its discretion in giving
Article 223 of the Labor Code a liberal application to prevent the miscarriage of
justice. Technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of equitably and
completely resolving the rights and obligations of the parties. We have held in a
catena of cases that technical rules are not binding in labor cases and are not to be
applied strictly if the result would be detrimental to the workingman.
FABELA vs SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION Case Digest
[G.R. No. 150658 February 9, 2007]
FACTS: Petitioners were hired by respondent San Miguel Corporation (SMC) as Relief
Salesmen for the Greater Manila Area (GMA) under separate but almost similarly
worded Contracts of Employment with Fixed Period. After having entered into
successive contracts of the same nature with SMC, the services of petitioners were
terminated after SMC no longer agreed to forge another contract with them.
Respondent SMC claimed that the hiring of petitioners was not intended to be
permanent, as the same was merely occasioned by the need to fill in a vacuum arising
from SMCs gradual transition to a new system of selling and delivering its products.
Respondents explained that SMC previously operated under the Route System, but
began implementing in 1993 the Pre-Selling System in which the salesmen under the
earlier system would be replaced by Accounts Specialists which called for upgraded
qualifications. While some of the qualified regular salesmen were readily upgraded to
the position of Accounts Specialist, respondents claimed that SMC still had to sell its
beer products using the conventional routing system during the transition stage, thus
giving rise to the need for temporary employees; and the members of the regular Route
Crew then existing were required to undergo a training program to determine whether
they possessed or could be trained for the necessary attitude and aptitude required of
an Accounts Specialist, hence, the hiring of petitioners and others for a fixed period, co-
terminus with the completion of the transition period and Training Program for all
prospective Accounts Specialists.
Claiming that they were illegally dismissed, petitioners filed complaints for illegal
dismissal against respondents.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners were validly hired for a fixed period.
HELD: The SC held that under article 280 of the Labor Code, there are two kinds of
regular employees, namely: (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. Article 280 also
recognizes project employees, those whose employment has been fixed for a specific
project or undertaking.
Unfortunately, respondents contention that there are fixed periods stated in the
contracts of employment does not lie. Brent instructs that a contract of employment
stipulating a fixed-term, even if clear as regards the existence of a period, is invalid if it
can be shown that the same was executed with the intention of circumventing security
of tenure, and should thus be ignored.
Indeed, substantial evidence exists in the present case showing that the subject
contracts were utilized to deprive petitioners of their security of tenure.The contract of
employment of petitioner Fabela, for instance, states that the transition period from the
Route System to the Pre-Selling System would be twelve (12) months from April 4,
1995. It bears noting, however, that petitioner Fabela, besides being hired again for
another fixed period of four (4) months after the lapse in April 1996 of the one-year
contract, had already been working for respondent SMC on a fixed-term basis as early
as 1992, or one year before respondent SMC even began its shift to the Pre-selling
System in 1993.
Thus, there is sufficient basis to believe that the shift of SMC to the Pre-Selling System
was not the real basis for the forging of fixed-term contracts of employment with
petitioners and that the periods were fixed only as a means to preclude petitioners from
acquiring security of tenure.
A fixed-term employment is valid only under certain circumstances, such as when the
employee himself insists upon the period, or where the nature of the engagement is
such that, without being seasonal or for a specific project, a definite date of termination
is a sine qua non.
Petition is granted.
G.R. No. 70705 August 21, 1989
vs.
Facts:
In the early part of January, 1983, after a service of more than one (1) year,
petitioner requested from respondent company that he be included in the payroll of
regular workers, instead of being paid through petty cash vouchers. Private
respondent's response to this request was to dismiss petitioner from his
employment on January 16, 1983. Having been refused reinstatement despite
repeated demands, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, reinstatement
and payment of backwages before the Office of the Labor Arbiter of the then
Ministry now Department of Labor and Employment.
Issue:
Whether or not a casual employee who perform odd jobs from time to time as
assigned aside from the performing his original task in for being employed for more
one year can be considered as regular employee?
Held:
The Court held, the law on the matter is Article 281 of the Labor Code which
defines regular and casual employment as follows:
Art. 281. Regular and casual employment. 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 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
services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the
duration of the season.
This provision reinforces the Constitutional mandate to protect the interest of labor.
Its language evidently manifests the intent to safeguard the tenurial interest of the
worker who may be denied the rights and benefits 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. Thus,
contrary agreements notwithstanding, an employment is deemed regular when the
activities performed by the employee are usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer. Not considered regular are the so-called "project
employment" the completion or termination of which is more or less determinable
at the time of employment, such as those employed in connection with a particular
construction project and seasonal employment which by its nature is only desirable
for a limited period of time. However, any employee who has rendered at least one
year of service, whether continuous or intermittent, is deemed regular with respect
to the activity he performed and while such activity actually exists.
In the case at bar, the respondent company, which is engaged in the business of
manufacture and distillery of wines and liquors, claims that petitioner was
contracted on a casual basis specifically to paint a certain company building and
that its completion rendered petitioner's employment terminated. This may have
been true at the beginning, and had it been shown that petitioner's activity was
exclusively limited to painting that certain building, respondent company's theory of
casual employment would have been worthy of consideration.
However, during petitioner's period of employment, the records reveal that the
tasks assigned to him included not only painting of company buildings, equipment
and tools but also cleaning and oiling machines, even operating a drilling machine,
and other odd jobs assigned to him when he had no painting job. A regular
employee of respondent company, Emiliano Tanque Jr., attested in his affidavit that
petitioner worked with him as a maintenance man when there was no painting job.
Facts:
Respondent union was certified as the collective bargaining representative in the certification elections,
petitioner under the pretext that the result was on appeal, refused to sit down with the union for the
purpose of entering into a collective bargaining agreement. Moreover, the workers 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.
Later the company alleged that the complainants failed to load the fifteen wagons so it reneged on its
commitment to sit down and bargain collectively. Instead, it employed all means including the use of
private armed guards to prevent the organizers from entering the premises.Moreover, starting September
1991, respondents did not any more give work assignments to the complainants forcing the union to
stage a strike on January 2, 1992.But due to the conciliation efforts by the DOLE, another Memorandum
of Agreement was signed by the complainants and respondents which states that in case conflict or
disagreement arises in the determination of the status of the particular hacienda workers, it shall be
submitted to voluntary arbitration. The company reinstated the workers upon availability of work except
for Rombo, Ramona Rombo, BobongAbrega, and Boboy Silva who were not recognized as company
employees because they are seasonal workers accordingly.
When petitioner company again reneged on its commitment; complainants filed a complaint before the
Labor Arbiter.The company in its defense accused the workers of 'refusing to work and being choosy in
the kind of work they have to perform. Labor Arbiter decided in favor of company but when it was
appealed to NLRC it was reversed and set aside. It was escalated to CA which likewise concurred with
NLRC. It rendered a decision considering the 4 seasonal workers as employees of the company who are
entitled to security of tenure. It then found company guilty of illegal dismissal or ULP.
Issue:
Whether or not the seasonal workers are considered regular employees from the definition under Article
280.
Held:
Yes. 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. The fact that respondents with the exception of Luisa Rombo, Ramona Rombo,
BobongAbriga and Boboy Silva repeatedly worked as sugarcane workers for petitioners for several
years is not denied by the latter. Evidently, petitioners employed respondents for more than one season.
Therefore, the general rule of regular employment is applicable.
"Art. 280. Regular and Casual Employment. The provisions of written agreement to the contrary
notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement 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 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 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: Provided,
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 exist."
CONTI VS NLRC
FACTS:
Petitioner Amor Conti was employed by respondent Corfarm as cashier. Petitioner
Leopoldo Cruz was employed by the same respondent corporation as a
warehouseman. Both Conti and Cruz were subsequently promoted to the positions
of Head of Commissary and Store Supervisor, respectively. In their respective
employment contracts with Corfarm, it was stipulated that their employment shall
be coterminous with the effectivity of the contract executed by and
between Corfarm and MERALCO for the management of the latter's commissary.
Said management contract expired. However, Corfarm continued to operate
the MERALCO commissary despite the non-renewal of said contract.
Petitioners filed with the arbitration branch of the NLRC a complaint for illegal
dismissal against private respondents. The Labor rendered a decision declaring the
complainants to have been illegally dismissed and the respondents ordered to
reinstate them immediately to their former or substantially equivalent positions so
ordered. Private respondents appealed. The NLRC promulgated a decision setting
aside the labor arbiter's order and dismissing herein petitioners' complaint for lack
of merit. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC decision, which
motion was denied.
ISSUE:
-WON NLRC gravely abused its discretion in reversing the labor arbiter's decision
finding the petitioners' dismissal to have been illegal for lack of due notice and
hearing as required by law.
HELD:
-YES. The settled rule is that factual findings of labor officials are conclusive and
binding on the Supreme Court when supported by substantial evidence. Here, the
labor arbiter relied not only on documentary evidence, but on the testimonies of
witnesses taken during the formal hearings; and since he had the advantage of
personally observing the deportment of witnesses while they were testifying, his
findings thereon should not only be accorded great respect, but also given the
stamp of finality absent any arbitrariness in the process of their deduction from the
evidence adduced.
-YES. Petitioners had been employed with private respondent Corfarm since
1991. They had been discharging their functions as head of commissary and store
supervisor, respectively, for more than one (1) year. Under the law therefore, they
are deemed regular employees and thus entitled to security of tenure, as provided
in Article 279 of the Labor Code:
Art. 279 - Security of Tenure In cases of regular employment, the employer
shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when
authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be
entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to
his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their
monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from
him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.
Under the above provision, the private respondents may not terminate the services
of petitioners except for just cause or when authorized under the Labor Code. This
Court has held that it is not difficult to see that to uphold, in all cases, the
contractual arrangement between the employer and the employee would in effect
be to permit employers to avoid the necessity of hiring regular or permanent
employees indefinitely, by hiring them on a temporary or casual status, thus
denying them security of tenure in their jobs.
CASUAL EMPLOYEES: GR 154072 PAGUIO vs. PLDT
Title:
Facts:
Petitioner Alfredo S. Paguio (Paguio) was appointed Head of PLDTs oldest plant, Garnet Exchange. He reported to one
of the respondents, Rodolfo R. Santos (Santos). PLDT implemented a performance assessment program among its
division. Paguio criticized this performance ranking because a division with a newly-installed facility has less trouble and
requires less manpower than an old facility, as a result of which divisions operating on newly installed facilities would
appear to have performed better than divisions with old facilities, thereby causing inequality between these two in their
performance rating. Santos reassigned Paguio to a position in the Head Office for Special Assignments, to which the latter
protested. Ferido, another respondent, affirmed the action of Santos transferring Paguio to any group in the company that
may need his services. Ferido further indicated that the reassignment is based on the conclusion that Paguio was not a team
player and cannot accept decisions of management already arrived at, short of insubordination. Perez (another respondent)
affirmed the action taken by respondent Ferido and explained to Paguio that his transfer was not in the nature of a
disciplinary action that required compliance with the process of "investigation, confrontation, and evaluation" before it can
be implemented and that the same was not done in bad faith. As a result, Paguio filed a complaint for illegal demotion and
damages. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint on the ground that petitioners transfer was an exercise of a
management prerogative and there was no showing that the same amounted to a demotion in rank and privileges. The LA
pointed out that in the operation of its business, PLDT possessed the prerogative to move around its employees in such
manner as the company might deem beneficial to its business, subject to the limitation that such action be in good faith.
Paguio contended that by his transfer, he had suffered a demotion in rank and privileges. However, the LA found that
Paguio maintained his previous salary and status as Manager. The LA further ruled that in regard to salary increases, even
in his previous position, Paguio did not have any demandable right thereto as the same was, as he himself admitted,
dependent on the general standards of performance and efficiency.
Issues:
a Whether or not Paguios transfer on the ground of his oppositions on company business decisions is valid.
b Whether or not his transfer involves a diminution of his salary, benefits and other privileges.
Held:
a No. The ground, that Mr. Paguios opposition to company business decision in his submitted Comment on the
performance rating of his division, is not just. The truth of the matter is that he was just presenting in good faith
his criticism on the way the performance of his division was rated and ranked. His purpose in doing so was just
to help his team see its deficiencies and point the way to improvement. Thus, he was then building teammanship,
not destroying it.
b Yes. His transfer involves a diminution of his salary, benefits and other privileges because on account of his
transfer, he was assigned a functionless position. While it is true that Paguios re-assignment did not involve a
diminution of salary, however, he was actually placed on a "frozen status," as he was assigned to a functionless
position, with no office and staff, and without any opportunity to get any promotion or wage increase as he does
not have any performance to speak of because there is no work assigned to him.
Baguio Country Club vs. NLRC and Jimmy Calamba
FACTS:
The Executive Labor Arbiter Sotero L. Tumang rendered a decision on declaring private
respondent Calamba as a regular employee and ordering petitioner to reinstate private
respondent to the position of gardener without loss of seniority and with full backwages,
benefits and privileges from the time of his dismissal up to reinstatement including 13th
month pay.
Petitioner appealed to NLRC arguing that private respondent Calamba was a contractual
employee whose employment was for a fixed and specific period as set forth and evidenced
by the private respondent's contracts of employment. Employment contract states that his
employment is on a day to day basis for a temporary period and he can be terminated
anytime by the Petitioner corporation.
NLRC decided that respondent Calamba is a regular employee at the time he was
terminated , having rendered services as laborer, gardener and dishwasher for more than
one (1) year and that the nature of his job is necessary or desirable in the usual business of
petitioner as a recreational establishment.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the private respondent Jimmy Calamba has acquired the status of a regular
employee at the time his employment was terminated.
HELD:
Yes. The private respondent was repeatedly re-hired to perform tasks ranging from
dishwashing and gardening, aside from performing maintenance work.Such repeated
rehiring and the continuing need for his service are sufficient evidence of the necessity and
indispensability of his service to the petitioner's business or trade.Furthermore, the private
respondent performed the said tasks which lasted for more than one year, until early
January, 1981 when he was terminated. Certainly, by this fact alone he is entitled by law to
be considered a regular employee.
It is noteworthy that what 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. It 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
existence.
Statement of the case: Due to this factual scenario, Esther filed with the
NLRC 2nd division, a complaint for "unfair labor practice based on harrassment,
illegal dismissal, 13th month pay, allowances, removal of desk and chair form
place of work, and refusal to communicate, moral and exemplary damages."
On due proceedings, the Labor Arbiter declared the dismissal illegal and
ordered the reinstatement of the employee and the right to have full backwages
from the time of dismissal.
On Appeal to NLRC NCR, it reversed the decision of the LA and declared the
separation of Esther Reyes from service legal and valid.
Due to the failure of Esther to file a timely appeal, the decision of NLRC NCR
reached its finality.
HELD: Article 280 of the Labor Code does not proscribe or prohibit an
employment contract with a fixed period provided the same is entered into by
the parties, without any force, duress or improper pressure being brought to
bear upon the employee and absent any other circumstance vitiating consent. It
does not necessarily follow that where the duties of the employee consist of
activities usually necessary or desirable in the usual business of the employer,
the parties are forbidden from agreeing on a period of time for the performance
of such activities. There is thus nothing essentially contradictory between a
definite period of employment and the nature of the employee's duties.
It bears stressing that private teachers are subject to special rules with respect
to requisites for their permanent employment and security of tenure, to wit:
This is in accord with the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools issued by the
then Department of Education.
Zel T. Zafra was hired by PLDT on October 1, 1984 as Operations Analyst II while
Edwin B. Ecarma was hired as Junior Operations Analyst I. In March 1995, petitioners
were chosen for the OMC Specialist and System Software Acceptance Training
Program in Germany in preparation for ALCATEL 1000 S12, a World Bank-financed
PLDT project in line with its Zero Backlog Program. ALCATEL, the foreign supplier,
shouldered the cost of their training and travel expenses. Petitioners left for Germany
on April 10, 1995 and stayed there until July 21, 1995.
On July 12, 1995, while petitioners were in Germany, Mr. R. Relucio, SwitchNet
Division Manager, requested advice, through an inter-office memorandum, from the
Cebu and Davao Provincial Managers if any of the training participants were interested
to transfer to the Sampaloc ROMCC to address the operational requirements
therein. The transfer was to be made before the ALCATEL exchanges and operations
and maintenance center in Sampaloc would become operational.
Upon petitioners return from Germany, a certain Mr. W.P. Acantillado, Senior
Manager of the PLDT Cebu Plant, informed them about the memorandum. They balked
at the idea, but PLDT, through an inter-office memorandum dated December 21, 1995,
proceeded to transfer petitioners to the Sampaloc ROMCC effective January 3, 1996.
ISSUE:
RULING:
Needless to say, had they known about their pre-planned reassignments, petitioners
could have declined the foreign training intended for personnel assigned to the Manila
office. The lure of a foreign trip is fleeting while a reassignment from Cebu to Manila
entails major and permanent readjustments for petitioners and their families.
We are not unaware that the transfer of an employee ordinarily lies within the ambit
of management prerogatives. However, a transfer amounts to constructive dismissal
when the transfer is unreasonable, inconvenient, or prejudicial to the employee, and
involves a demotion in rank or diminution of salaries, benefits, and other privileges. In
the present case, petitioners were unceremoniously transferred, necessitating their
families relocation from Cebu to Manila. This act of management appears to be
arbitrary without the usual notice that should have been done even prior to their training
abroad. From the employees viewpoint, such actions affecting their families are
burdensome, economically and emotionally. It is no exaggeration to say that their
forced transfer is not only unreasonable, inconvenient, and prejudicial, but to our mind,
also in defiance of basic due process and fair play in employment relations.