1 UNIVERSAL ROBINA SUGAR MILLING CORP.

v ACIBO  Accordingly, the complainants were not entitled to the benefits granted under
G.R. NO. 186439 the CBA that, as provided, covered only the regular employees of URSUMCO.
JANUARY 15, 2014
NLRC: Reversed the LA’s ruling
TOPIC: 5.3 Kinds of Employment; Regular  It declared the complainants as regular URSUMCO employees and granted
PETITIONERS: Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corp. and Rene Cabati their monetary claims under the CBA.
RESPONDENTS: Ferdinand Acibo, et. al.  The NLRC pointed out that the complainants performed activities which were
PONENTE: Brion, J. usually necessary and desirable in the usual trade or business of URSUMCO,
and had been repeatedly hired for the same undertaking every season.
SUMMARY:  Thus, pursuant to Article 280 of the Labor Code, the NLRC declared that the
complainants were regular employees. As regular employees, the NLRC held
DOCTRINE: Primary standard that determines regular employment is the that the complainants were entitled to the benefits granted, under the CBA, to
reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee the regular URSUMCO employees.
and the usual trade or business of the employer, emphasizing on the necessity or  MR: Denied.
desirability of the employee’s activity.
Court of Appeals: the CA granted in part the petition.
FACTS:  It affirmed the NLRC's ruling finding the complainants to be regular employees
of URSUMCO, but deleted the grant of monetary benefits under the CBA.
Nature of the Case: The case is a petition for review on certiorari, challenging the
decision and resolution of the CA. The CA affirmed with modification the decision and ISSUE[S]:
resolution of the NLRC, which reversed the decision of LA. The decision of LA 1. WON respondents are regular seasonal employees of URSUMCO? YES.
dismissed the complaint filed by the complainants, against petitioners.
HELD/RATIO:
How the Case Started 1. YES. Respondents are regular seasonal employees of URSUMCO.
 URSUMCO is a domestic corporation engaged in the sugar cane milling  Article 280 of the Labor Code provides for three kinds of employment
business; Cabati is URSUMCO's Business Unit General Manager. arrangements, namely: regular, project/seasonal and casual.
 The complainants were employees of URSUMCO. They were hired on various
dates (between February 1988 and April 1996) and on different capacities, Regular Employees
i.e., drivers, crane operators, bucket hookers, welders, mechanics, laboratory  Regular employment refers to that arrangement whereby the employee "has
attendants and aides, steel workers, laborers, carpenters and masons, among been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable
others. in the usual business or trade of the employer[.]"
 At the start of their respective engagements, the complainants signed  Under the definition, the primary standard that determines regular
contracts of employment for a period of one (1) month or for a given season. employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity
o URSUMCO repeatedly hired the complainants to perform the same performed by the employee and the usual business or trade of the employer;
duties and, for every engagement, required the latter to sign new the emphasis is on the necessity or desirability of the employee's activity.
employment contracts for the same duration of one month or a given  GR: when the employee performs activities considered necessary and
season. desirable to the overall business scheme of the employer, the law regards the
 The complainants filed before the LA complaints for regularization, entitlement employee as regular.
to the benefits under the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), and  XPN: Article 280 [par. 2] of the Labor Code also considers regular a casual
attorney's fees. employment arrangement when the casual employee's engagement has
lasted for at least one year, regardless of the engagement's continuity. The
Labor Arbiter: Dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. controlling test in this arrangement is the length of time during which the
 It was held that the complainants were seasonal or project workers and not employee is engaged.
regular employees of URSUMCO.
 The LA pointed out that the complainants were required to perform, for a Project Employment
definite period, phases of URSUMCO's several projects that were not at all  Definition: Contemplates on arrangement whereby "the employment has
directly related to the latter's main operations. been fixed for a specific project or undertaking whose completion or
 As the complainants were project employees, they could not be regularized termination has been determined at the time of the engagement of the
since their respective employments were coterminous with the phase of the employee[.]"
work or special project to which they were assigned and which employments
end upon the completion of each project.
  The services of the project employees are legally and automatically How to Determine the Nature of Employment
terminated upon the end or completion of the project as the employee's  The nature of the employment does not depend solely on the will or word of
services are coterminous with the project. the employer or on the procedure for hiring and the manner of designating the
employee.
Two Requirements of Project Employment:  Rather, the nature of the employment depends on the nature of the activities
(1) Designation of a specific project or undertaking for which the employee is to be performed by the employee, considering the nature of the employer's
hired; and business, the duration and scope to be done, and, in some cases, even the
(2) Clear determination of the completion or termination of the project at the time length of time of the performance and its continued existence.
of the employee's engagement.
In the Case at Hand
Length of Time  In light of the above legal parameters laid down by the law and applicable
 Unlike in a regular employment under Article 280 of the Labor Code, however, jurisprudence, the respondents are neither project, seasonal nor fixed-term
the length of time of the asserted "project" employee's engagement is not employees, but regular seasonal workers of URSUMCO.
controlling as the employment may, in fact, last for more than a year,  First: the respondents were made to perform various tasks that did not at all
depending on the needs or circumstances of the project. pertain to any specific phase of URSUMCO's strict milling operations that
 Nevertheless, this length of time (or the continuous rehiring of the employee would ultimately cease upon completion of a particular phase in the milling of
even after the cessation of the project) may serve as a badge of regular sugar rather, they were tasked to perform duties regularly and habitually
employment when the activities performed by the purported "project" needed in URSUMCO's operations during the milling season.
employee are necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of  Second: the respondents were regularly and repeatedly hired to perform the
the employer. same tasks year after year.
 In this latter case, the law will regard the arrangement as regular employment.  Third: while the petitioners assert that the respondents were free to work
elsewhere during the off-season, the records do not support this assertion.
Seasonal Employment There is no evidence on record showing that after the completion of their tasks
 Seasonal employment operates much in the same way as project at URSUMCO, the respondents sought and obtained employment elsewhere.
employment, albeit it involves work or service that is seasonal in nature or
lasting for the duration of the season. Note: SC ruled that the respondents are seasonal regular employees, thus, NLRC and
 Involves work that is seasonal or periodic in nature, the employment itself is CA gravely abused its discretion in deciding that respondents are regular employees.
not automatically considered seasonal so as to prevent the employee from Under the CBA, only regular employees are entitled to the benefits.
attaining regular status.
 Hence, when the "seasonal" workers are continuously and repeatedly hired to DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is PARTIALLY
perform the same tasks or activities for several seasons or even after the GRANTED . Except for the denial of the respondents' claim for CBA benefits, the
cessation of the season, this length of time may likewise serve as badge of November 29, 2007 decision and the January 22, 2009 resolution of the Court of
regular employment. Appeals are SET ASIDE. The complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO
 In fact, even though denominated as "seasonal workers," if these workers are ORDERED.
called to work from time to time and are only temporarily laid off during the off-
season, the law does not consider them separated from the service during the
off-season period.
 The law simply considers these seasonal workers on leave until re-employed.

Requirements of Seasonal Employment

(1) The employee must be performing work or services that are seasonal in
nature; and
(2) He had been employed for the duration of the season.

Casual Employment
 Refers to any other employment arrangement that does not fall under any of
the first two categories, i.e., regular or project/seasonal.
 2 PNOC-ENERGY v NLRC o Thus, the dismissals made under the pretext of project
G.R. NO. 169353 completion were illegal, being founded on an invalid, unjust
APRIL 13, 2007 and unauthorized cause.
 CA: Affirmed NLRC’s decision holding that respondents were
TOPIC: Project Employment performing activities necessary and desirable in the normal operations
PETITIONER: PNOC-Energy Dev. Corp. Southern Geothermal Project of the business of PNOC.
RESPONDENTS: NLRC, 4th Division, Cebu City and PNOC-EDC, et. al. o It further explained that the repeated re-hiring and the
PONENTE: Callejo, Sr., J. continuing need for the services of the project employees over
a span of time had made them regular employees.
DOCTRINE: Project employees are those workers hired: (1) for a specific
project or undertaking, and (2) the completion or termination of such project ISSUE:
or undertaking has been determined at the time of the engagement of the 1. WON respondents were project employees or regular employees?
employee. HELD/RATIO:
1. The Respondents were regular employees.
Further, length of service of a project employee is not the controlling test of
employment of tenure. Test Whether an Employment should be considered Regular or Non-Regular
 Grandspan Dev. Corp. v. Bernardo: The principal test for
FACTS: determining whether particular employees are properly characterized
 PNOC-Energy Development Corporation is a government-owned and as "project employees," as distinguished from "regular employees," is
controlled corporation engaged in the exploration, development and whether or not the project employees were assigned to carry out a
utilization of energy. It undertakes several projects in areas where "specific project or undertaking," the duration and scope of which were
geothermal energy has been discovered. specified at the time the employees were engaged for that project.
o One of its projects is the Palipinpinon II (PAL II), which for its
development, it was necessary to augment the manpower Project Employees
requirement due to increased activities, PNOC hired  Project employees are those workers hired:
employees including private respondents in the o (1) for a specific project or undertaking, and
Administration and Maintenance Section. o (2) the completion or termination of such project or
 The termination/expiration of their respective employment was undertaking has been determined at the time of the
specified in their initial employment contracts, which, however, were engagement of the employee.
renewed and extended on their respective expiry dates.
 Prior to the termination of respondent, PNOC submitted to the DOLE In the Case at Hand:
termination reports for their termination and they were subsequently  Petitioner failed to substantiate its claim that respondents were hired
furnished with notices of termination due to the substantial completion merely as project employees. A perusal of the records of the case
of the civil works phase of PAL II. reveals that the supposed specific project or undertaking of petitioner
 Thereafter, respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. was not satisfactorily identified in the contracts of respondents.
 LA: dismissed the complaint ruling that respondents were not  The alleged projects stated in the employment contracts were either
dismissed from work; the employer-employee relationship between too vague or imprecise to be considered as the "specific undertaking"
the parties was severed upon expiration of the respective contracts of contemplated by law.
respondents and the completion of the projects concerned. o Petitioner's act of repeatedly and continuously hiring
 NLRC: reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter ruling that respondents to do the same kind of work belies its contention
respondents were regular non-project employees for having worked that respondents were hired for a specific project or
for more than one year in positions that required them to perform undertaking.
activities necessary and desirable in the normal business or trade of o The absence of a definite duration for the project/s has led the
PNOC. Court to conclude that respondents are, in fact, regular
o Further, it ruled that the employment contracts of respondents employees.
were not for a specific project or for a fixed period.
  Another cogent factor which militates against petitioner's insistence
that the services of respondents were terminated because the projects
for which they were hired had been completed is the fact that
respondents' contracts of employment were extended a number of
times for different or new projects.
o It must be stressed that a contract that misuses a purported
fixed-term employment to block the acquisition of tenure by
employees deserves to be struck down for being contrary to
law, morals, good customs, public order and public policy.

Length of Service of a Project Employee is not the Controlling Test of

Employment Tenure
 Filsystems v. Puente: the Court ruled that "the length of service of a
project employee is not the controlling test of employment tenure but
whether or not 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."
 Indeed, while length of time may not be the controlling test for project
employment, it is vital in determining if the employee was hired for a
specific undertaking or tasked to perform functions vital, necessary
and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer.
 Here, respondents had been project employees several times over.
o Their employment ceased to be coterminous with specific
projects when they were repeatedly re-hired by petitioner.
o 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.

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the petition is

DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 77584 and
the Resolution are AFFIRMED. No costs. SO ORDERED.
 3 FVR SKILLEX v SEVA 1. WON the CA erred in ruling that the respondents were regular
G.R. NO. 200857 employees and that they had been illegally dismissed – NO
OCTOBER 22, 2014
HELD/RATIO:
TOPIC: Project Employment 1. NO. Respondents were regular employees.
PETITIONERS: FVR Skills and Services Exponents, Inc., Fulgencio V.
Rana, and Monina R. Burgos Under Art 280, there are two kinds of regular employees, namely:
RESPONDENTS: Jovert Seva, et. al 1) those who were engaged to perform activities which are usually
PONENTE: Brion, J. necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer;
and
DOCTRINE: The respondents’ work as janitors, service crews and 2) those casual employees who became regular after one year of
sanitation aides, are necessary or desirable to the petitioner’s business of service, whether continuous or broken, but only with respect to the
providing janitorial and manpower services to its clients as an independent activity for which they have been hired
contractor. Thus, respondents may be considered as regular employees.
 The respondents’ work as janitors, service crews and sanitation aides,
FACTS: are necessary or desirable to the petitioner’s business of providing
 28 respondents were employees of Skillex, an independent contractor janitorial and manpower services to its clients as an independent
engaged in the business of providing janitorial and other manpower contractor.
services. Some respondents had already been under the petitioner’s  The primary standard in determining regular employment is the
employ since 1998. reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by
 On Apr 21, 2008 – Skillex entered into a Contract of Janitorial Service the employee and the employer’s business or trade.
with Robinsons Land Corp., wherein they agreed that Skillex shall  Even before the service contract with Robinsons, the respondents
supply janitorial, manpower and sanitation services to Robinsons were already under the petitioner’s employ.
Place Ermita for a period of 1 year, from Jan 1, 2008 to Dec 31, 2008. o Skillex presented no evidence to refute respondents’ claim
Respondents were deployed to Robinsons. that there was no gap between the projects they were
 Halfway through the service contract, the petitioner asked the assigned to and that Skillex continuously availed of their
respondents to execute individual contracts which stipulated that their services by constantly deploying them.
respective employments shall end on December 31, 2008, unless
earlier terminated. Respondents were also threatened that they would Rights of Contractual Employees = Regular Employees’ Rights
not be given their salaries if they would not sign the contracts.  Department Order (DO) 18-02 - grants contractual employees all the
 The petitioner and Robinsons no longer extended their contract of rights and privileges due a regular employee, including the following:
janitorial services. Respondents were dismissed by petitioner Skillex a) safe and healthful working conditions;
as they were project employees whose duration of employment was b) labor standards such as service incentive leave, rest days,
dependent on the service contract with Robinsons. overtime pay, holiday pay, 13th month pay and separation pay;
 Respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing that they c) social security and welfare benefits;
were not project employees, but regular employees who may only be d) self-organization, collective bargaining and peaceful concerted
dismissed for just or authorized causes. action; and
 LA: The LA ruled in favor of Skillex and held that respondents were e) security of tenure
not regular employees, but granted the respondents’ money claims
(wage differential pay, 13th month differential pay and holiday pay)
 NLRC: The NLRC reversed the LA’s ruling and held that they were  Although the respondents were assigned as contractual employees to
regular employees. the petitioner’s various clients, under the law, they remain to be the
 CA: The CA dismissed the petitioner’s certiorari petition and affirmed petitioner’s regular employees, who are entitled to all the rights and
the NLRC’s decision. benefits of regular employment.
 The timing of the execution of the respondents’ respective
ISSUE: employment contracts is indicative of the petitioner’s calculated plan
 to evade the respondents’ right to security of tenure. If the petitioner
really intended the respondents to be project employees, then the
contracts should have been executed right from the time of hiring, or
when the respondents were first assigned to Robinsons, not when the
petitioner’s service contract was winding up.
 Under Article 1390 of the Civil Code, contracts where the consent of a
party was vitiated by mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence
or fraud, are voidable or annullable. The threat of non-payment of the
respondents’ salaries clearly to intimidation. The employment
contracts were voidable.
 Having already determined that the respondents are regular
employees and not project employees, and that the respondents’
belated employment contracts could not be given any binding effect,
the Court ruled that the respondents were illegally dismissed.

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, in light of these considerations, we hereby

DENY the petition. We AFFIRM with MODIFICATION the Court of Appeals'
decision dated December 22, 2011 and resolution dated March 2, 2012 in CA-
G.R. SP No. 120991, which also AFFIRMED the National Labor Relation
Commission's decision dated April 28, 2011 and resolution dated June 16,
2011. Petitioners Fulgencio V. Rana and Monina R. Burgos are hereby
absolved from paying the respondents' monetary awards in their personal
capacity. No costs.
 4 ARO v. NLRC  SC: private respondent filed with this Court, Petition for Review on
G.R. NO. 174792 Certiorari.
MARCH 7, 2012 o In a Resolution, this Court denied the petition for having been
filed out of time and for non-payment of docket and other
TOPIC: Project Employment lawful fees.
PETITIONERS: Wilfredo Aro, et. al  Writ of Execution: The employees, including the petitioners, upon the
RESPONDENTS: NLRC and Benthel Development Corp. finality of this Court's resolution, filed a Motion for Execution before the
PONENTE: Peralta, J. Labor Arbiter of the January 12, 1999 decision.
o Thereafter, the Labor Arbiter ordered for the issuance of a writ
DOCTRINE: The principal test for determining whether employees are of execution directing the computation of the awards.
"project employees" or "regular employees" is whether they are assigned to  NLRC: Afterwards, private respondent filed an appeal from the said
carry out a specific project or undertaking, the duration and scope of which Order with an urgent prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining
are specified at the time they are engaged for that project. Such duration, order and/or preliminary injunction with public respondent NLRC.
as well as the particular work/service to be performed, is defined in an o The said appeal was denied.
employment agreement and is made clear to the employees at the time of o The NLRC held that the appeal was premature, there having
hiring. been no computation yet made by the Labor Arbiter as to the
exact amount to be paid to the employees.
“Construction workers are considered as project employees” o Public respondent remanded the case to the arbitration
branch for appropriate action.
FACTS:  Labor Arbiter Carreon inhibited himself from further proceedings in the
 Several employees of private respondent Benthel Development case upon motion of private respondent.
Corporation, including the petitioners, filed a Complaint for illegal o In the meantime, 15 employees have executed Affidavits of
dismissal with various money claims and prayer for damages against Full Settlement after having settled amicably with the private
the latter, in the NLRC. respondent.
 LA: Labor Arbiter Ernesto F. Carreon rendered a decision finding o Labor Arbiter Violeta Ortiz-Bantug issued an Order for the
private respondent guilty of illegal dismissal and ordering it to pay its issuance of a writ of execution only for the payment of the
thirty-six (36) employees P446,940.00 as separation pay. claims of the 21 remaining employees in the total amount of
 NLRC: affirmed the decision of Labor Arbiter Carreon in its Decision, P4,383,225.00, which included attorney's fees equivalent to
with the modification that private respondent pay backwages ten (10%) percent of the sum received as settlement by the
computed from the respective dates of dismissal until finality of the 15 employees who had earlier settled with the private
decision. respondent.
 MR: Private respondent, unsatisfied with the modification made by the  NLRC: Private respondent appealed to public respondent NLRC
NLRC, filed a motion for reconsideration with the contention that, since contending that the computation for backwages must be only until the
it has been found by the Labor Arbiter and affirmed in the assailed completion of the project and not until the finality of the decision.
decision that the employees were project employees, the computation o Public respondent, in its Decision, affirmed the Order of Labor
of backwages should be limited to the date of the completion of the Arbiter Bantug, but reduced the total amount to
project and not to the finality of the decision. P4,073,858.00, inclusive of attorney's fees.
o The NLRC, however, denied the motion ruling that private o MR: denied, but not before the admittance of the affidavits of
respondent failed to establish the date of the completion of the withdrawal, release/waiver and quitclaim executed by another
project. group of fourteen (14) employees, leaving unresolved only the
 CA: Aggrieved, private respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari with claims of the petitioners herein.
the CA, decision of the NLRC and the denial of its motion for o Thus, in the resolution of the private respondent's motion for
reconsideration which was dismissed for non-payment of docket fees reconsideration, the award was reduced to the sum of
and insufficiency of form. P1,374,339.00, inclusive of attorney's fees.
o MR: It filed a motion for reconsideration, but the latter was  CA: As a recourse, private respondent filed a petition for certiorari with
also denied. the CA, alleging that public respondent committed grave abuse of
 discretion in promulgating its assailed decision and denying its motion and their services may be lawfully terminated upon the completion of
for reconsideration. a project.
o The CA granted the petition, therefore, annulling and setting  Should the terms of their employment fail to comply with this standard,
aside the decision and resolution of the NLRC as to the award they cannot be considered project employees.
for backwages and remanded the case to the same public
respondent for the proper computation of the backwages due In the Case at Hand
to each of the petitioners herein.  This Court agrees with the findings of the CA that petitioners were
project employees. It is not disputed that petitioners were hired for the
ISSUE: construction of the Cordova Reef Village Resort in Cordova, Cebu.
1. WON petitioners are project employees. YES.  By the nature of the contract alone, it is clear that petitioners'
employment was to carry out a specific project.
HELD/RATIO:  Therefore, being project employees, petitioners are only entitled to full
backwages, computed from the date of the termination of their
Whether petitioners were project employees or regular employees is Factual employment until the actual completion of the work.
in Nature  Illegally dismissed workers are entitled to the payment of their salaries
 It is well-settled in jurisprudence that factual findings of administrative corresponding to the unexpired portion of their employment where the
or quasi-judicial bodies, which are deemed to have acquired expertise employment is for a definite period.
in matters within their respective jurisdictions, are generally accorded
not only respect but even finality, and bind the Court when supported DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review dated October 7, 2006,
by substantial evidence. of petitioners Wilfredo Aro, Ronilo Tirol, Jose Pacaldo, Primitivo Casquejo and
 Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, defines substantial evidence Marcial Abgo is hereby DENIED. Consequently, the Decision dated March 7,
as "that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might 2006 and Resolution dated July 27, 2006 of the Court of Appeals are hereby
accept as adequate to justify a conclusion." AFFIRMED in toto.
 Consistent therewith is the doctrine that this Court is not a trier of facts,
and this is strictly adhered to in labor cases.
 We [this Court] may take cognizance of and resolve factual issues,
only when the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Labor
Arbiter or the NLRC are inconsistent with those of the CA.
 In the present case, the NLRC and the CA have opposing views.

Test of Determining Whether Particular Employees are Project Employees or

Regular Employees
 Hanjin Heavy Industries v. Ibanez: Whether or not the project
employees were assigned to carry out a "specific project or
undertaking," the duration and scope of which were specified at the
time the employees were engaged for that project.
 In a number of cases, the Court has held that the length of service or
the re-hiring of construction workers on a project-to-project basis does
not confer upon them regular employment status, since their re-hiring
is only a natural consequence of the fact that experienced construction
workers are preferred.
 Employees who are hired for carrying out a separate job, distinct from
the other undertakings of the company, the scope and duration of
which has been determined and made known to the employees at the
time of the employment, are properly treated as project employees
 5 WILLIAM UY CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. TRINIDAD unjust dismissal. The Labor Arbiter found no basis for granting
G.R. NO. 183250 Trinidad overtime pay, holiday pay, and 13th month pay.
MARCH 12, 2010  NLRC: affirmed the Labor Arbiter's ruling.
 CA: Reversed NLRC’s decision.
TOPIC: Project Employment  MR: denied.
PETITIONERS: William Uy Construction Corp. and/or Teresita Uy and William Uy
RESPONDENT: Jorge R. Trinidad ISSUE:
PONENTE: Abad, J. 1. WON Trinidad as project employee for its various projects entitled him to the
status of a regular employee?
DOCTRINE: Length of service provides a fair yardstick for determining when an
employee initially hired on a temporary basis becomes a permanent one, entitled to HELD/RATIO:
the security and benefits of regularization. But this standard will not be fair, if applied  the test for distinguishing a "project employee" from a "regular employee" is
to the construction industry, simply because construction firms cannot guarantee whether or not he has been assigned to carry out a "specific project or
work and funding for its payrolls beyond the life of each project. undertaking," with the duration and scope of his engagement specified at the
time his service is contracted.
FACTS: o Here, it is not disputed that petitioner company contracted
 Respondent Jorge R. Trinidad filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and unpaid respondent Trinidad's service by specific projects with the duration
benefts against petitioner William Uy Construction Corporation. of his work clearly set out in his employment contracts.
o Trinidad claimed that he had been working with the latter company o He remained a project employee regardless of the number of years
for 16 years since 1988 as driver of its service vehicle, dump truck, and the various projects he worked for the company.
and transit mixer.  Generally, length of service provides a fair yardstick for determining when an
o He had signed several employment contracts with the company that employee initially hired on a temporary basis becomes a permanent one,
identified him as a project employee although he had always been entitled to the security and benefits of regularization. But this standard will not
assigned to work on one project after another with some intervals. be fair, if applied to the construction industry, simply because construction
o Respondent Trinidad further alleged that in December 2004 firms cannot guarantee work and funding for its payrolls beyond the life of
petitioner company terminated him from work after it shut down each project. And getting projects is not a matter of course. Construction
operations because of lack of projects. companies have no control over the decisions and resources of project
o He learned later, however, that although it opened up a project in proponents or owners. There is no construction company that does not wish
Batangas, it did not hire him back for that project. it has such control but the reality, understood by construction workers, is that
 Petitioner company countered 1 that it was in the construction business. work depended on decisions and developments over which construction
o By the nature of such business, it had to hire and engage the services companies have no say.
of project construction workers, including respondent Trinidad,  Caseres v. Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation: the repeated and
whose employments had to be co-terminous with the completion of successive rehiring of project employees do not qualify them as regular
specific company projects. employees, as length of service is not the controlling determinant of the
o For this reason, every time the company employed Trinidad, he had employment tenure of a project employee, but whether the employment has
to execute an employment contract with it, called Appointment as been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, its completion has been
Project Worker. determined at the time of the engagement of the employee.
o Petitioner company stressed that employment intervals or gaps were  In this case, respondent Trinidad's series of employments with petitioner
inherent in the construction business. Consequently, after it finished company were co-terminous with its projects. When its Boni Serrano-
its Boni Serrano-Katipunan Interchange Project in December 2004, Katipunan Interchange Project was finished in December 2004, Trinidad's
Trinidad's work ended as well. employment ended with it.
o In compliance with labor rules, the company submitted an  He was not dismissed. His employment contract simply ended with the project
establishment termination report to the Department of Labor and for which he had signed up. His employment history belies the claim that he
Employment (DOLE). continuously worked for the company. Intervals or gaps separated one
 LA: dismissing respondent Trinidad's complaint for unjust dismissal. contract from another.
o The Labor Arbiter, however, ordered petitioner company to pay
Trinidad P1,500.00 in unpaid service incentive leave, taking into DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition, SETS ASIDE the
consideration the three-year prescriptive period for money claims. decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP 101903 dated April 24, 2008, and
o The Labor Arbiter held that, since Trinidad was a project employee REINSTATES the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC-NCR-
and since his company submitted the appropriate establishment CA 051703-07(7) dated August 31, 2007, which affirmed the decision of the Labor
termination report to DOLE, his loss of work cannot be regarded as Arbiter in NLRC-NCR Case 07-05764-06. SO ORDERED.
 6 DEALCO FARMS, INC. v NLRC o All the four elements in the determination of an employer-
G.R. NO. 153192 employee relationship being present, respondents were,
JANUARY 30, 2009 therefore, employees of petitioner.
o Respondents also performed activities which are usually
TOPIC: Casual Employment; Nature of Work necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of
PETITIONER: Dealco Farms, Inc. petitioner. Transporting the cattle to its main market in Manila
RESPONDENTS: NLRC, Chiquito Bastida and Albert Caban is an essential and component aspect of [petitioners]
PONENTE: Nachura, J. operation.
o More, it appears that respondents had rendered service for
DOCTRINE: Escorts or comboys for the transit of live cattle are considered more than one year doing the same task repeatedly, thus,
as a regular employee of a corporation engaged in the business of even assuming they were casual employees they may be
importation, production, fattening and distribution of live cattle for sale to considered regular employees with respect to the activity in
meat dealers, et al. which they were employed and their employment shall
continue while such activity exists (last par. of Art. 280).
FACTS:  NLRC: On appeal to the NLRC, the Fifth Division affirmed the Labor
 Petitioner is a corporation engaged in the business of importation, Arbiters ruling on the existence of an employer-employee relationship
production, fattening and distribution of live cattle for sale to meat between the parties .
dealers, meat traders, meat processors, canned-goods manufacturers  CA: Dismissed the petition for procedural flaws. Petitioners motion for
and other dealers in Mindanao and in Metro Manila. reconsideration was, likewise, denied by the appellate court.
o Petitioner imports cattle by the boatload from Australia into the  Hence, this appeal.
ports of General Santos City, Subic, Batangas, or Manila.
 Respondents Albert Caban and Chiquito Bastida were hired by ISSUE:
petitioner on June 25, 1993 and October 29, 1994, respectively, as 1. WON the respondents are casual employees. NO.
escorts or comboys for the transit of live cattle from General Santos
City to Manila. HELD/RATIO:
o Respondents work entailed tending to the cattle during 1. NO. Respondents are not casual employees.
transportation.  First. Petitioner failed to disprove respondents’ claim that they were
o Upon arrival in Manila, the cattle are turned over to and hired by petitioner as comboys from 1993 and 1994, respectively. In
received by the duly acknowledged buyers or customers of fact, petitioner admits that respondents were engaged, at one point,
petitioner, at which point, respondents work ceases. as comboys, on a per trip or per contract basis.
 Respondents filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal with claims for o This assertion petitioner failed anew to substantiate.
separation pay with full backwages, salary differentials, service Noteworthy is the fact that respondents’ affidavit merely
incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, damages, and attorney’s fees contains a statement that the offer of their services as
against petitioner before the National Labor Relations Commission comboys or escorts was not limited to petitioner alone.
(NLRC). o The affidavits simply aver that they, including herein
 Petitioner denies the existence of an employer-employee relationship respondents, were engaged by Dealco on a per trip basis,
with respondents. which commenced upon embarkation on a ship for Manila and
o Petitioner posits, among others, that respondents can only be terminated upon their return to the port of origin.
considered as casual employees performing work not o Respondents did not state that their engagement by petitioner
necessary and desirable to the usual business or trade of was on a one-time basis. As a result, petitioners claim remains
petitioner, i.e., cattle fattening to market weight and an unsubstantiated and bare-faced allegation.
production.  Second. Even assuming that respondents’ task is not part of
 LA: The Labor Arbiter found that respondents were employees of petitioners’ regular course of business, this does not preclude their
petitioner. attainment of regular employee status.
 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 exists.

 Undoubtedly, respondents were regular employees of petitioner with

respect to the escort or comboy activity for which they had been
engaged since 1993 and 1994, respectively, without regard to
continuity or brokenness of the service.

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Resolution dated

July 29, 2001 of the NLRC in NLRC CA No. M-005974-2000 (RAB-11-10-
50453-99) is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner.
 7 KIMBERLY-CLARK (PHILS), INC. v SECRETARY OF LABOR o Ordering KIMBERLY to pay the workers who have been
G.R. NO. 156668 regularized their differential pay with respect to minimum
NOVEMBER 23, 2007 wage, COLA, 13th month pay, and benefits provided for under
the applicable CBA from the time they became regular
TOPIC: Casual Employment; 1-year Service employees.
PETITIONER: Kimberly-Clark (Phils.), Inc.  In an Order issued on June 29, 2000, the DOLE considered as
RESPONDENTS: Secretary of Labor, et. al physically impossible, and moot and academic the opening and
PONENTE: Nachura, J. counting of the 64 challenged ballots because they could no longer be
located despite diligent efforts, and KILUSAN-OLALIA no longer
DOCTRINE: An employee becomes regular with respect to the activity in actively participated when the company went through another CBA
which he is employed one year after he is employed, the reckoning date cycle.
for determining his regularization is his hiring date. o However, the DOLE ordered the payment of the differential
wages and other benefits of the regularized workers
FACTS:  Kimberly filed a motion for reconsideration of the DOLE Order as well
 June 30, 1986: the Collective Bargaining Agreement executed by and as the BWC Report, arguing in the main that the decision in G.R. Nos.
between Kimberly-Clark (Phils.), Inc., (Kimberly) and United Kimberly- 77629 and 78791 (dismissed) only pertained to casuals who had
Clark Employees Union-Philippine Transport and General Workers rendered one year of service as of April 21, 1986, the filing date of
Organization (UKCEO-PTGWO) expired. KILUSAN-OLALIAs petition for certification election. On December 6,
 April 21, 1986: KILUSAN-OLALIA, then a newly-formed labor 2000, however, the DOLE denied the motion
organization, challenged the incumbency of UKCEO-PTGWO, by  CA: Kimberly filed a petition for certiorari before the CA alleging that
filing a petition for certification election with the Ministry of Labor and the employees who were dismissed due to the illegal strike should not
Employment (MOLE). be awarded regularization differentials. CA dismissed Kimberly’s
 A certification election was subsequently conducted on July 1, 1986 petition.
with UKCEO-PTGWO winning by a margin of 20 votes over KILUSAN-
OLALIA. ISSUE:
o Remaining as uncounted were 64 challenged ballots cast by 1. WON the private respondents who rendered 1-year service became
64 casual workers whose regularization was in question. regular employees of Kimberly?
KILUSAN-OLALIA filed a protest.
 November 13, 1986: MOLE issued an Order stating, among others, HELD/RATIO:
that the casual workers not performing janitorial and yard maintenance 1. YES. The private respondents became regular employees by
services had attained regular status on even date. UKCEO-PTGWO operation of law.
was then declared as the exclusive bargaining representative of  The law provides for two kinds of regular employees, namely:
Kimberly’s employees o (1) those who are engaged to perform activities which are
 March 16, 1987: KILUSAN-OLALIA filed with this Court a petition for usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade
certiorari which was docketed as G.R. No. 77629 assailing the Order of the employer; and
of the MOLE with prayer for TRO. o (2) those who have rendered at least one year of service,
o During the pendency of G.R. No. 77629, Kimberly dismissed whether continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in
from service several employees and refused to heed the which they are employed.
workers grievances, impelling KILUSAN-OLALIA to stage a  The private respondents herein who have been adjudged to be regular
strike on May 17, 1987. employees fall under the second category.
 Judgment in GR No. 77629: o These are the mechanics, electricians, machinists, machine
o Ordering the med-arbiter to open and count the 64 challenged shop helpers, warehouse helpers, painters, carpenters,
votes, and that the union with the highest number of votes be pipefitters and masons. It is not disputed that these workers
thereafter declared as the duly elected certified bargaining have been in the employ of KIMBERLY for more than one year
representative of the regular employees of KIMBERLY; at the time of the filing of the petition for certification election
by KILUSAN-OLALIA.
 o Owing to their length of service with the company, these
workers became regular employees, by operation of law, one
year after they were employed by KIMBERLY through RANK.
o While the actual regularization of these employees entails the
mechanical act of issuing regular appointment papers and
compliance with such other operating procedures as may be
adopted by the employer, it is more in keeping with the intent
and spirit of the law to rule that the status of regular
employment attaches to the casual worker on the day
immediately after the end of his first year of service.
 Considering that an employee becomes regular with respect to the
activity in which he is employed one year after he is employed, the
reckoning date for determining his regularization is his hiring date.
o Therefore, it is error for petitioner Kimberly to claim that it is
from April 21, 1986 that the one-year period should be
counted.
o While it is a fact that the issue of regularization came about
only when KILUSAN-OLALIA filed a petition for certification
election, the concerned employees attained regular status by
operation of law.
 Further, the grant of the benefit of regularization should not be limited
to the employees who questioned their status before the labor
tribunal/court and asserted their rights; it should also extend to those
similarly situate.

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review

oncertiorari is DENIED DUE COURSE. SO ORDERED.
 8 BRENT SCHOOL, INC. v ZAMORA  Brent School filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied. The
G.R. NO. L-48594 School is now before this Court in a last attempt at vindication.
FEBRUARY 5, 1990
ISSUE:
TOPIC: Casual Employment; Fixed Term 1. WON the provisions of the Labor Code, as amended, have
PETITIONERS: Brent School, Inc. and Rev. Gabriel Dimache anathematized "fixed period employment" or employment for a term.
RESPONDENTS: Ronaldo Zamora, the Presidential Assistant for Legal
Affairs, Office of the President, and Doroteo R. Legre. HELD/RATIO:
PONENTE: Narvasa, J.
On one hand, there is the gradual and progressive elimination of references to
DOCTRINE: term or fixed-period employment in the Labor Code, and the specific statement
GR: all written or oral agreements conflicting with the concept of regular of the rule that:
employment as defined therein should be construed to refer to the
substantive evil that the Code itself has singled out: agreements entered Regular and Casual Employment.— The provisions of written
into precisely to circumvent security of tenure. agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of
the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be
XPN: It should have no application to instances where a fixed period of deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged
employment was agreed upon knowingly and voluntarily by the parties, to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable
without any force, duress or improper pressure being brought to bear upon in the usual business or trade of the employer except where
the employee and absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent, or the employment has been fixed for a specific project or
where it satisfactorily appears that the employer and employee dealt with undertaking the completion or termination of which has been
each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance whatever determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or
being exercised by the former over the latter. where the work or service to be employed is seasonal in
nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.
FACTS:
 Doroteo R. Alegre was engaged as athletic director by Brent School, An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not
Inc. The contract was fixed for five (5) years, i.e., from July 18, 1971, covered by the preceding paragraph: provided, that, any
the date of execution of the agreement, to July 17, 1976. employee who has rendered at least one year of service,
o Three months before the expiration of the stipulated period, or whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be
more precisely on April 20,1976, Alegre was given a copy of considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in
the report filed by Brent School advising of the termination of which he is employed and his employment shall continue
his services effective on July 16, 1976. while such actually exists.
o The stated ground for the termination was "completion of
contract, expiration of the definite period of employment." On the other hand, the Civil Code, which has always recognized, and
 Alegre protested and argued that although his contract did stipulate continues to recognize, the validity and propriety of contracts and obligations
that the same would terminate on July 17, 1976, since his services with a fixed or definite period, and imposes no restraints on the freedom of the
were necessary and desirable in the usual business of his employer, parties to fix the duration of a contract, whatever its object, be it specie, goods
and his employment had lasted for five years, he had acquired the or services, except the general admonition against stipulations contrary to law,
status of a regular employee and could not be removed except for morals, good customs, public order or public policy. Under the Civil Code,
valid cause. therefore, and as a general proposition, fixed-term employment contracts are
 The Regional Director considered Brent School's report as an not limited, as they are under the present Labor Code, to those by nature
application for clearance to terminate employment (not a report of seasonal or for specific projects with pre-determined dates of completion; they
termination), and accepting the recommendation of the Labor also include those to which the parties by free choice have assigned a specific
Conciliator, refused to give such clearance and instead required the date of termination.
reinstatement of Alegre, as a "permanent employee," to his former
position without loss of seniority rights and with full back wages.
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. Outlawing
the whole concept of term employment and subverting to boot the principle of
freedom of contract to remedy the evil of employer's using it as a means to
prevent their employees from obtaining security of tenure is like cutting off the
nose to spite the face or, more relevantly, curing a headache by lopping off the
head.

Accordingly, 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.

Alegre's employment was terminated upon the expiration of his last contract
with Brent School on July 16, 1976 without the necessity of any notice. The
advance written advice given the Department of Labor with copy to said
petitioner was a mere reminder of the impending expiration of his contract, not
a letter of termination, nor an application for clearance to terminate which
needed the approval of the Department of Labor to make the termination of his
services effective.

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the public respondent's Decision complained

of is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondent Alegre's contract of
employment with Brent School having lawfully terminated with and by reason
of the expiration of the agreed term of period thereof, he is declared not entitled
to reinstatement and the other relief awarded and confirmed on appeal in the
proceedings below. No pronouncement as to costs.
 9 PRICE v INNODATA PHILS, INC. o That they could not be considered project employees since there
G.R. NO. 178505 employment was not coterminous with any project or undertaking.
SEPTEMBER 30, 2008  Innodata argued that almost half of the employees was engaged in data
encoding.
TOPIC: Casual Employment; Fixed Term Period o Due to the wide range of services rendered to its clients, it was
PETITIONERS: Cherry J. Price, Stephanie G. Domingo and Lolita Arbilera constrained to hire new employees for a fixed period of not more than
RESPONDENTS: Innodata Phils, Inc./ Innodata Corporation, Leo Rabang and one year (started on Sept 1999 and ended on feb 16 2000).
Jane Navarette o That Price and the others were not illegally dismissed for their
PONENTE: Chico-Nazario, J. employment was merely terminated.
o That Price et al are estopped from a position contrary to the contracts
SUMMARY: Price were hired as formatters by Innodata. Under their employment which they signed knowingly, voluntarily and willfully.
contract they were hired only for a fixed period. When last day of said period came,  LA: LA ruled in favor of Price.
innodata informed them of the termination of their services. Employees filed a o That their jobs were necessary, desirable, and indispensable to the
complaint for illegal dismissal. They argued that they are regular employees due to data processing and encoding business of INNODATA.
the fact that their work was necessary and desirable for the business of Innodata. o They were entitled to security of tenure and thus should only be
SC held that the fixed-term contract was invalid. An employee may be considered a terminated for just or authorized cause.
regular employee if his work was necessary and desirable to the usual business of  NLRC: reversed.
the employer or if s/he already worked for more than a year. In this case the court o They were not regular employees but fixed-term employees. The
found that their job as formatters was necessary for the data encoding business of determining factor of such contracts(fixed term contracts) is not the
Innodata. Court also found that the fixed term in the contract was a way for Innodata duty of the employee but the day certain agreed upon by the parties
to deprive the employees of security of tenure. SC held that they are regular for the commencement and termination of the employment
employees, entitled to security of tenure and could not be removed except for just relationship.
or authorized cause. Entitled to backwages and separation pay, instead of o Price entered into the contract freely hence there was no illegal
reinstatement since Innodata ceased its operations already. dismissal.
 CA: sustained NLRC ruling.
DOCTRINE: o Only employed for a year and for a project called earthweb. That
 Regular employees: there was no showing that they entered into the contracts
o (1) those who are engaged to perform activities which are unknowingly and involuntarily or that innodata forced them into it.
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the
employer regardless of length of their employment ISSUE:
o (2) those who were initially hired as casual employees, but have 1. WON petitioners were hired by INNODATA under valid fixed-term
rendered at least 1-year service, whether continuous or broken, employment contracts. NO
with respect to the activity in which they are employed.
 Test to determine whether an employment should be considered regular or HELD/RATIO:
non-regular is the reasonable connection between the particular activity 1. NO. They were regular employees of Innodata who could not be dismissed
performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the except for just or authorized cause.
employer  employment status of a person is defined and prescribed by law and not by
what the parties say it should be. A contract of employment is impressed with
FACTS: public interest such that labor contracts must yield to the common good.
 Innodata, a company that deals with data encoding and data conversion hired  Regular employment has been defined by Article 280 of the Labor Code
the Price and the others as formatters. o Art. 280. Regular and Casual Employment. The provisions of
 Under the employment contract they were hired for a fixed period (one year) written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of
which would end on Feb 16, 2000 the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed
 On Feb 16, 2000 the HR Manager informed them of their last day of work due to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform
to the end of their contract activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual
 Price et al filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and damages against business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has
Innodata. been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or
o That they should be considered regular employees since their termination of which has been determined at the time of engagement
positions as formatters were necessary and desirable to the usual of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is
business of Innodata. seasonal in nature and employment is for the duration of the season.
 An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by earlier than expected and that the sept employment was for a new
the preceding paragraph. Provided, That, any employee who has project.
rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is o SC: if these were truly fixed term contracts then a change in the term
continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with or period would already constitute a novation of the original contract.
respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment  Innodata wanted to make it appear that petitioners worked for less than a year
shall continue while such activity exists to preclude them from gaining regular status. But the SC already ruled that
 ‘Regular employees: they are regular employees under the first type of regular employees. Even if
o (1) those who are engaged to perform activities which are necessary we assume otherwise, the fact that the contract of employment was
or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer ambiguous it would be construed strictly against the party who prepared it. \
regardless of length of their employment  Innodata also argued that they are project employees
o (2) those who were initially hired as casual employees, but have o Project employees: those workers hired (1)for a specific project or
rendered at least 1 year service, whether continuous or broken, with undertaking and wherein (2) the completion or termination of such
respect to the activity in which they are employed. project has been determined at the time of the engagement of the
 Price et al belong to the first type. employee.
o SC; Innodata failed to name nor describe the project. Also there was
Test to determine whether an employment should be considered regular or non- no evidence to prove that such project has already been completed
regular: is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by or terminated to justify dismissal.
the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer  SC also noted the provisions in the contract wherein petitioners have no right
 They were hired as formatters. The primary business of Innodata is data at all to expect security of tenure, even for the supposedly one-year period of
encoding, and the formatting of the data entered into the computers is an employment provided in their contracts, because they can still be pre-
essential part of the process of data encoding. They make it easier for clients terminated (1) upon the completion of an unspecified project; or (2) with or
to understand the data. The work performed by petitioners was necessary or without cause, for as long as they are given a three-day notice. Such contract
desirable. provisions are repugnant to the basic tenet in labor law that no employee may
 But there are also forms of employment which although necessary and be terminated except for just or authorized cause
desirable, and exceed one year would still not result in regular employment. o This would be against the state policy to assure workers of security
Fixed-term employment contracts: seasonal or for specific projects with of tenure and free them from the bondage of uncertainty of tenure
predetermined dates of completion AND wherein parties by free choice have woven by some employers into their contracts of employment. This
assigned a specific date of termination was the purpose of Art. 280 of the Labor Code
 The decisive determinant in term employment is the day certain agreed upon  Petitioners have security of tenure. Illegally dismissed employees are entitled
by the parties for the commencement and termination of their employment to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges with full
relationship, day certain: that which must necessarily come, although it may backwages. In this case since Innodata ceased its operations, separation pay
not be known when (ex. Seasonal employment and employment for a equivalent to 1 month pay for every year of service instead.
particular project)
 Fixed-term contracts: exception rather than the general rule. DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The
 Some examples wherein a fixed-term is essential and natural: overseas Decision dated 25 September 2006 and Resolution dated 15 June 2007 of the Court of
employment contracts; dean, assistant dean, college secretary, principal, and Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 72795 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
other administrative offices in educational institutions; certain company Respondent Innodata Philippines, Inc./Innodata Corporation is ORDERED to pay
officials may be elected for what would amount to fixed periods, they may lose petitioners Cherry J. Price, Stephanie G. Domingo, and Lolita Arbilera: (a) separation
their jobs as president, executive vice-president or vice president, etc. pay, in lieu of reinstatement, equivalent to one month pay for every year of service, to
because the stockholders or the board of directors for one reason or another be computed from the commencement of their employment up to the date respondent
did not re-elect them Innodata Philippines, Inc./Innodata Corporation ceased operations; (b) full backwages,
 In Brent School v. Zamora: the court issued an admonition that where, from computed from the time petitioners' compensation was withheld from them up to the
the circumstances, it is apparent that the period was imposed to preclude the time respondent Innodata Philippines, Inc./Innodata Corporation ceased operations;
acquisition of tenurial security by the employee, then it should be struck down and (c) 10% of the total monetary award as attorney's fees. Costs against respondent
as being contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order and public policy Innodata Philippines, Inc./Innodata Corporation.
 In this case, the court is convinced that the term was meant only to circumvent
the rights of Price et al to security of tenure and is therefore invalid. The
contracts of employment were ambiguous and tampered with
o The date of their employment was originally Feb 17, 1999 but was
crossed out and replaced with sept. 6 1999. Innodata alleged that
the original project for which they were hired in Feb, was completed
 10 FUJI TV NETWORK v. ESPIRITU  NLRC: The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision and ruled that
G.R. NO. 204944-45 Arlene was a regular employee since she continuously rendered
DECEMBER 3, 2014 services that were necessary and desirable to Fuji’s business.
 CA: The Court of Appeals affirmed that NLRC ruling with modification
TOPIC: Casual Employment; Fixed term period that Fuji immediately reinstate Arlene to her position without loss of
PETITIONER: Fuji Television Network, Inc. seniority rights and that she be paid her backwages and other
REWSPONDENT: Arlene Espiritu emoluments withheld from her.
PONENTE: Leonen, J. o The Court of Appeals agreed with the NLRC that Arlene was
a regular employee, engaged to perform work that was
DOCTRINE: A regular employee [EE] with fixed-period contract, EE can be necessary or desirable in the business of Fuji, and the
regular even with an FT contract as long as it was EE who requested, or successive renewals of her fixed-term contract resulted in
bargained, that contract have definite date or termination, or that it was regular employment.
freely entered into by both parties. o The case of Sonza does not apply in the case because Arlene
was not contracted on account of a special talent or skill.
Thus, burden of ER to prove that person whose services it pays for is an Arlene was illegally dismissed because Fuji failed to comply
independent contractor rather than regular EE with or without fixed term. with the requirements of substantive and procedural due
process.
FACTS: o Arlene, in fact, signed the non-renewal contract under protest
 Arlene S. Espiritu (Arlene) was engaged by Fuji Television Network, as she was left without a choice.
Inc. (Fuji) as a news correspondent/producer tasked to report
Philippine news to Fuji through its Manila Bureau field office. ISSUE:
o The employment contract was initially for one year, but was 1. WON Arlene a regular employee?
successively renewed on a yearly basis with salary
adjustments upon every renewal. HELD/RATIO:
 In January 2009, Arlene was diagnosed with lung cancer. She 1. Arlene was a regular employee with a fixed-term contract.
informed Fuji about her condition, and the Chief of News Agency of
Fuji, Yoshiki Aoki, informed the former that the company had a In determining whether an employment should be considered regular or non-
problem with renewing her contract considering her condition. regular
o Arlene insisted she was still fit to work as certified by her  The applicable test is the reasonable connection between the
attending physician. particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual
 After a series of verbal and written communications, Arlene and Fuji business or trade of the employer.
signed a non-renewal contract.  The standard, supplied by the law itself, is whether the work
o In consideration thereof, Arlene acknowledged the receipt of undertaken is necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of
the total amount of her salary from March-May 2009, year-end the employer, a fact that can be assessed by looking into the nature
bonus, mid-year bonus and separation pay. of the services rendered and its relation to the general scheme under
o However, Arlene executed the non-renewal contract under which the business or trade is pursued in the usual course. It is
protest. distinguished from a specific undertaking that is divorced from the
 Arlene filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NCR Arbitration normal activities required in carrying on the particular business or
Branch of the NLRC, alleging that she was forced to sign the non- trade.
renewal contract after Fuji came to know of her illness.  However, there may be a situation where an employee’s work is
o She also alleged that Fuji withheld her salaries and other necessary but is not always desirable in the usual course of business
benefits when she refused to sign, and that she was left with of the employer. In this situation, there is no regular employment.
no other recourse but to sign the non-renewal contract to get
her salaries. In the Case at Hand
 LA: Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint and held that Arlene was  Fuji’s Manila Bureau Office is a small unit213 and has a few
not a regular employee but an independent contractor. employees. Arlene had to do all activities related to news gathering.
  A news producer “plans and supervises newscast [and] works with
reporters in the field planning and gathering information, including
monitoring and getting news stories, rporting interviewing subjects in
front of a video camera, submission of news and current events
reports pertaining to the Philippines, and traveling to the regional office
in Thailand.” She also had to report for work in Fuji’s office in Manila
from Mondays to Fridays, eight per day. She had no equipment and
had to use the facilities of Fuji to accomplish her tasks.
 The successive renewals of her contract indicated the necessity and
desirability of her work in the usual course of Fuji’s business. Because
of this, Arlene had become a regular employee with the right to
security of tenure.
 Arlene’s contract indicating a fixed term did not automatically mean
that she could never be a regular employee. For as long as it was the
employee who requested, or bargained, that the contract have a
“definite date of termination,” or that the fixed-term contract be freely
entered into by the employer and the employee, then the validity of the
fixed-term contract will be upheld.

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Court of

Appeals decision dated June 25, 2012 is AFFIRMED with the modi􏰏cation that
backwages shall be computed from June 2009. Legal interest shall be
computed at the rate of 6% per annum of the total monetary award from date
of finality of this decision until full satisfaction.
 11 HACIENDA BINO v. CUENCA  Respondents regarded the notice as termination, causing them to file
G.R. NO. 150478 for illegal dismissal, alleging they are regular & permanent workers of
APRIL 15, 2008 the hacienda dismissed because they applied as beneficiaries under
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) over Starke’s
TOPIC: Seasonal Employment
PETITIONER: Hacienda Bino, Hortencia Starke, Inc, Hortencia L. Starke land.
RESPONDENTS: Candido Cuenca, et. al  Starke: Company's Board of Directors petitioned Kabankalan
PONENTE: Callejo, Sr., J. Sangguniang Bayan for authority to re-classify, from agricultural to
industrial, commercial & residential, whole Hacienda Bino, except
SUMMARY: Hacienda Bino is a sugar plantation at Negros Occidental, employing CARP ear-marked portion. Half of the workers supported the re-
76 Respondents. During off-milling season, Starke sent a notice that all those who classification but the others, which included respondents, opted to
did not signed in favor of CARP are offered employment. Respondents regarded become beneficiaries of the land under the CARP.
notice as termination, & filed for illegal dismissal, alleging they are regular workers  Starke: July 1996, there was little work in the planta-tion as it was
dismissed because for applying as beneficiaries under CARP over Starke’s land.
off-season; & so, on account of the seasonal nature of the work, she
Starke: little work on off-season, so she issued notice giving preference to CARP
non-signatories; n milling season, she issued notices to all informing work issued the order giving preference to those who supported the re-
availability, but respondents refused to work. SC: Respondents are regular classification; When milling season began in Oct 1996, work was
employees. Size of sugar hacienda (236 hectares) simply do not allow for plentiful again & she issued notices to all workers, including
respondents to render work only for a definite period. Respondents were performing respondents, informing them of the availability of work, but
work necessary & desirable in the usual trade or busi-ness of an employer. Hence, respondents refused to report back to work.
they can properly be classified as regular employees. To be excluded as regular  Starke: citing the Mercado case that respondents are seasonal
employees, they must (1) perform work seasonal in nature, & (2) employed only for employees & not regular employees
the duration of one season. Records sufficiently show respondents' work in the
 LA: Granted. NLRC affirmed. CA Affirmed.
hacienda was seasonal in nature, but no proof they were hired for the duration of
one season only. Payrolls show they availed respondents’ service since 1991
Absent any proof to the contrary, general rule of regular employment should, ISSUE:
therefore, stand. 1. WON Respondents are regular employees – YES

DOCTRINE: Primary standard for determining regular employment is the HELD/RATIO:

reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in  Settled doctrine of High Court sugar workers are considered regular
relation to the usual trade or business of the employer. Employee performing work & permanent farm workers of a sugar plantation owner, the reason
necessary & desirable in the usual trade or business of an employer can properly be
being that there are facts present that are peculiar to the Mercado
classified as regular employees.
case.
For respondents to be excluded from those classified as regular employees, it is not  Disparity in facts between Mercado case & the instant case is best
enough that they perform work or services that are seasonal in nature. They must exemplified by the fact that the former decision ruled on the status of
have been employed only for the duration of one season. employment of farm laborers, who, as found by the labor arbiter, work
only for a definite period for a farm worker, after which they offer their
FACTS: services to other farm owners, considering the area in question being
 Hacienda Bino is a 236-hectare sugar plantation at Brgy Orong, comparatively small, comprising of 17.5 hectares of land, such that the
Kabankalan City, Negros Occidental. planting of rice & sugar cane thereon could not possibly entail a whole
 76 Respondents were part of Hacienda’s workforce which had 220 year operation.
workers, performing cultivation, plant-ing of cane points, fertilization,  Mercado case: although respondent constantly availed herself of
watering, weeding, harvesting, & loading of harvested sugarcanes to petitioners' services from year to year, it was clear from facts therein
cargo trucks. they weren’t in her regular employ.
 During off-milling season, Starke sent a notice to employees that all o Petitioners therein performed different phases of agricultural
those who signed in favor of CARP ex-pressed desire to get out of work in a given year, during which, they were free to work for
employment on their own volition, & thus offered employment to only other farm owners, & in fact they did. They were not hired
those who did not sign. regularly & repeatedly for same phase/s of agricultural work,
but on & off for any single phase thereof.
  No evidence that Mercado particulars are present.
o Sarte didn’t present any evidence that respondents were
required to perform certain phases of agricultural work for a
definite period of time. Although Starke assert that
respondents made their services available to neighbo-ring
haciendas, records don’t support such assertion.
 Present case: different factual condition as size enormi-ty of the sugar
hacienda (236 hectares) simply do not al-low for respondents to
render work only for a definite period.
 Primary standard for 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.
 No doubt that respondents were performing work necessary &
desirable in the usual trade or business of an employer. Hence, they
can properly be classified as regular employees.
 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.
o They must have been employed only for the duration of one
season. Records sufficiently show respondents' work in the
hacienda was seasonal in nature, but there was no proof they
were hired for the duration of one season only.
o Payrolls show they availed respondents’ service since 1991
Absent any proof to the contrary, general rule of regular
employment should, therefore, stand. Employer has burden of
proving the lawfulness of his employee's dismissal.

DISPOSITION: IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED.

The Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated July 31, 2001, and its Resolution
dated September 24, 2001 are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.
 12 UNIVERSAL ROBINA SUGAR MILLING CORP. v ACIBO  Accordingly, the complainants were not entitled to the benefits granted under
Supra the CBA that, as provided, covered only the regular employees of URSUMCO.

TOPIC: 5.3 Kinds of Employment; Regular NLRC: Reversed the LA’s ruling
PETITIONERS: Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corp. and Rene Cabati  It declared the complainants as regular URSUMCO employees and granted
RESPONDENTS: Ferdinand Acibo, et. al. their monetary claims under the CBA.
PONENTE: Brion, J.  The NLRC pointed out that the complainants performed activities which were
usually necessary and desirable in the usual trade or business of URSUMCO,
SUMMARY: and had been repeatedly hired for the same undertaking every season.
 Thus, pursuant to Article 280 of the Labor Code, the NLRC declared that the
DOCTRINE: Primary standard that determines regular employment is the complainants were regular employees. As regular employees, the NLRC held
reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee that the complainants were entitled to the benefits granted, under the CBA, to
and the usual trade or business of the employer, emphasizing on the necessity or the regular URSUMCO employees.
desirability of the employee’s activity.  MR: Denied.

FACTS: Court of Appeals: the CA granted in part the petition.

 It affirmed the NLRC's ruling finding the complainants to be regular employees
Nature of the Case: The case is a petition for review on certiorari, challenging the of URSUMCO, but deleted the grant of monetary benefits under the CBA.
decision and resolution of the CA. The CA affirmed with modification the decision and
resolution of the NLRC, which reversed the decision of LA. The decision of LA ISSUE[S]:
dismissed the complaint filed by the complainants, against petitioners. 2. WON respondents are regular seasonal employees of URSUMCO? YES.

How the Case Started HELD/RATIO:

 URSUMCO is a domestic corporation engaged in the sugar cane milling 2. YES. Respondents are regular seasonal employees of URSUMCO.
business; Cabati is URSUMCO's Business Unit General Manager.  Article 280 of the Labor Code provides for three kinds of employment
 The complainants were employees of URSUMCO. They were hired on various arrangements, namely: regular, project/seasonal and casual.
dates (between February 1988 and April 1996) and on different capacities,
i.e., drivers, crane operators, bucket hookers, welders, mechanics, laboratory Regular Employees
attendants and aides, steel workers, laborers, carpenters and masons, among  Regular employment refers to that arrangement whereby the employee "has
others. been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable
 At the start of their respective engagements, the complainants signed in the usual business or trade of the employer[.]"
contracts of employment for a period of one (1) month or for a given season.  Under the definition, the primary standard that determines regular
o URSUMCO repeatedly hired the complainants to perform the same employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity
duties and, for every engagement, required the latter to sign new performed by the employee and the usual business or trade of the employer;
employment contracts for the same duration of one month or a given the emphasis is on the necessity or desirability of the employee's activity.
season.  GR: when the employee performs activities considered necessary and
 The complainants filed before the LA complaints for regularization, entitlement desirable to the overall business scheme of the employer, the law regards the
to the benefits under the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), and employee as regular.
attorney's fees.  XPN: Article 280 [par. 2] of the Labor Code also considers regular a casual
employment arrangement when the casual employee's engagement has
Labor Arbiter: Dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. lasted for at least one year, regardless of the engagement's continuity. The
 It was held that the complainants were seasonal or project workers and not controlling test in this arrangement is the length of time during which the
regular employees of URSUMCO. employee is engaged.
 The LA pointed out that the complainants were required to perform, for a
definite period, phases of URSUMCO's several projects that were not at all Project Employment
directly related to the latter's main operations.  Definition: Contemplates on arrangement whereby "the employment has
 As the complainants were project employees, they could not be regularized been fixed for a specific project or undertaking whose completion or
since their respective employments were coterminous with the phase of the termination has been determined at the time of the engagement of the
work or special project to which they were assigned and which employments employee[.]"
end upon the completion of each project.
  The services of the project employees are legally and automatically How to Determine the Nature of Employment
terminated upon the end or completion of the project as the employee's  The nature of the employment does not depend solely on the will or word of
services are coterminous with the project. the employer or on the procedure for hiring and the manner of designating the
employee.
Two Requirements of Project Employment:  Rather, the nature of the employment depends on the nature of the activities
(3) Designation of a specific project or undertaking for which the employee is to be performed by the employee, considering the nature of the employer's
hired; and business, the duration and scope to be done, and, in some cases, even the
(4) Clear determination of the completion or termination of the project at the time length of time of the performance and its continued existence.
of the employee's engagement.
In the Case at Hand
Length of Time  In light of the above legal parameters laid down by the law and applicable
 Unlike in a regular employment under Article 280 of the Labor Code, however, jurisprudence, the respondents are neither project, seasonal nor fixed-term
the length of time of the asserted "project" employee's engagement is not employees, but regular seasonal workers of URSUMCO.
controlling as the employment may, in fact, last for more than a year,  First: the respondents were made to perform various tasks that did not at all
depending on the needs or circumstances of the project. pertain to any specific phase of URSUMCO's strict milling operations that
 Nevertheless, this length of time (or the continuous rehiring of the employee would ultimately cease upon completion of a particular phase in the milling of
even after the cessation of the project) may serve as a badge of regular sugar rather, they were tasked to perform duties regularly and habitually
employment when the activities performed by the purported "project" needed in URSUMCO's operations during the milling season.
employee are necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of  Second: the respondents were regularly and repeatedly hired to perform the
the employer. same tasks year after year.
 In this latter case, the law will regard the arrangement as regular employment.  Third: while the petitioners assert that the respondents were free to work
elsewhere during the off-season, the records do not support this assertion.
Seasonal Employment There is no evidence on record showing that after the completion of their tasks
 Seasonal employment operates much in the same way as project at URSUMCO, the respondents sought and obtained employment elsewhere.
employment, albeit it involves work or service that is seasonal in nature or
lasting for the duration of the season. Note: SC ruled that the respondents are seasonal regular employees, thus, NLRC and
 Involves work that is seasonal or periodic in nature, the employment itself is CA gravely abused its discretion in deciding that respondents are regular employees.
not automatically considered seasonal so as to prevent the employee from Under the CBA, only regular employees are entitled to the benefits.
attaining regular status.
 Hence, when the "seasonal" workers are continuously and repeatedly hired to DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is PARTIALLY
perform the same tasks or activities for several seasons or even after the GRANTED . Except for the denial of the respondents' claim for CBA benefits, the
cessation of the season, this length of time may likewise serve as badge of November 29, 2007 decision and the January 22, 2009 resolution of the Court of
regular employment. Appeals are SET ASIDE. The complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO
 In fact, even though denominated as "seasonal workers," if these workers are ORDERED.
called to work from time to time and are only temporarily laid off during the off-
season, the law does not consider them separated from the service during the
off-season period.
 The law simply considers these seasonal workers on leave until re-employed.

Requirements of Seasonal Employment

(3) The employee must be performing work or services that are seasonal in
nature; and
(4) He had been employed for the duration of the season.

Casual Employment
 Refers to any other employment arrangement that does not fall under any of
the first two categories, i.e., regular or project/seasonal.
  LA: Labor Arbiter dismissed her complaint for lack of merit.
13 ABBOT LABORATORIES v ALCARAZ o (1) LA rejected her argument that she was not informed of the
G.R. NO. 192571 reasonable standards to qualify as a regular employee considering
JULY 23, 2013 her admissions that she was briefed by Almazar on her work during
the pre- employment orientation meeting, she received copies of the
TOPIC: Probationary Code of Conduct and Performance Modules used to evaluate all
PETITIONER: Abbott Laboratories, Philippines, Cecille A. Terrible, Edwin D. Feist, employees.
Maria Olivia T. Yabut-Misa, Teresita C. Bernardo, and Allan G. Almazar o (2) She was unable to meet the standards set by Abbott as per her
RESPONDENT: Pearlie Ann F. Alcaraz performance evaluation which justified her termination.
PONENTE: Perlas-Bernabe o (3) There was no evidence that the officers acted in bad faith.
 NLRC: reversed and set aside the LA’s ruling and ordered Abott to reinstate
DOCTRINE: Probationary employee like a regular employee enjoys security of and pay Alcaraz moral and exemplary damages.
tenure. However, probationary employee aside from just or authorized causes of o NLRC racionated that there was no evidence that Alcaraz was
termination, may also be terminated for failure to qualify as a regular employee in apprised of her probationary status and the requirements which she
accordance with the reasonable standards made known by the ER to the EE at the should comply with in order to be a regular employee.
time of the engagement. Thus, the services of an RR who has been engaged on o Mere receipt of the job description, Code of Conduct and
probationary basis may be terminated for any of the ff: (a) just or (b) authorized Performance Module was not equivalent to her being actually
cause; (c) when he fails to qualify in accordance with reasonable standards informed of the performance standards upon which she should have
prescribed by the ER. been evaluated on.
o Abbott did not comply with its own SOP in evaluating probationary
FACTS: employees. NLRC was not convinced that termination was for a valid
 On June 27, 2004, Abbott Laboratories, Philippines published in major cause given that Abbott’s allegation of Alcaraz’ poor performance
broadsheet that it is in need of Medical and Regulatory Affairs Manager stating was unsubstantiated.
therein the responsibilities and qualifications of said position.  CA affirmed NLRC decision.
 On December 7, 2004, Abbott formally offered Alcaraz the abovementioned
position which was an item under the company’s Hospira Affiliate Local ISSUE:
Surveillance Unit (ALSU) department. 1. WON Alcaraz was sufficiently informed of the reasonable standards to qualify
 On February 12, 2005, Alcaraz signed an employment contract which stated, her as a regular employee. YES
inter alia, that she was to be placed on probation for a period of six (6) months
beginning February 15, 2005 to August 14, 2005. HELD/RATIO:
 She underwent pre-employment orientation where she was briefed on her 1. YES. Probationary employee like a regular employee enjoys security of
duties and responsibilities. tenure.
 On March 3, 2005, Alcaraz received an e-mail from the HR Director explaining  However, probationary employee aside from just or authorized causes of
the procedure for evaluating the performance of probationary employees and termination, may also be terminated for failure to qualify as a regular employee
further indicated that Abbott had only one evaluation system for all of its in accordance with the reasonable standards made known by the ER to the
employees. EE at the time of the engagement.
o Alcaraz was also given copies of Abbott’s Code of Conduct and o Thus, the services of an RR who has been engaged on probationary
Probationary Performance Standards and Evaluation and basis may be terminated for any of the ff: (a) just or (b) authorized
Performance Excellence Orientation Modules which she had to apply cause; (c) when he fails to qualify in accordance with reasonable
in line with her task of evaluating the Hospira ALSU staff. standards prescribed by the ER.
 On April 12, 2005, Alcaraz received an e-mail from Misa requesting immediate  If the ER fails to inform the probationary EE of the reasonable standards upon
action on the staff’s performance evaluation as their probationary periods which the regularization would be based on at the time of the engagement,
were about to end. This Alcaraz eventually submitted. then the said EE shall be deemed a regular EE.
 On May 16, 2005, Alcaraz was called to a meeting with her immediate  REQTS: 1: communicate regularization standards to the EE, and 2: comm at
supervisor and the former HR Director where she was informed that she failed the time of the engagement.
to meet the regularization standards for the position of Regulatory Affairs  GR: ER is deemed to have complied when it has exerted reasonable efforts
Manager. Thereafter she was asked to tender her resignation, else they be to apprise the EE of what he is expected to do or accomplish during the trial
forced to terminate her services. period.
 She filed a case of illegal dismissal against Abott and its officers.  XPN: when the job is self-descriptive in nature (maids, cooks, drivers or
messengers)
Decisions
  Upon examination of the records, Abbott had complied with the requirements This is a major flaw that the ponencia satisfies only via an assumption. The ponencia
when it clearly conveyed her duties and responsibilities prior to, during the apparently forgets that knowledge of duties and responsibilities is different from the
time of engagement and during the early stages of her employment. measure of how these duties and responsibilities should be delivered. They are
o 1. News ad with JD separate elements and the latter element is missing in the present case.
o 2. Offer sheet – probationary status
o 3. Employment contract – Probationary for 6mos 2nd. The ponencia glosses over the communication aspect. Not only must there be
o 4. Upon her acceptance, she was emailed copies of the org structure express performance standards (except in specific instances defined in the
and JD implementing rules, discussed below); there must be effective communication. If no
o 5. She underwent a pre-employment orientation standards were provided, what would be communicated?
o 6. Required to undergo a training program
o 7. Received copies of Code of Conduct and Performance Modules 3rd. The ponencia badly contradicts itself in claiming that actual communication of
which was explained by Misa specific standards might not be necessary "when the job is self-descriptive in nature,
o 8. Moreover, she used to work for a pharma co and had admitted for instance, in the case of maids, cooks, drivers, or messengers." The respondent, in
having extensive training and background to acquire the necessary the first place, was never a maid, cook, driver or a messenger and cannot be placed
skills for the job. under this classification; she was hired and employed as a human resources manager,
 Given these, Alcaraz was well-aware that her regularization would depend on in short, a managerial employee. Plain and common sense reasoning by one who ever
her ability and capacity to fulfill the requirements of her position, and her failure had been in an employment situation dictates that the job of a managerial employee
to do so would be a valid cause to terminate the EMP. cannot be self- explanatory, in the way the ponencia implied; the complexity of a
managerial job must necessarily require that the level of performance to be delivered
DISSENTING OPINION, BRION, J.: must be specified and cannot simply be assumed based on the communication of the
manager's duties and responsibilities.
Standards to Determine Probationary Employment
 While the respondent might have been hired as a probationary employee,the 4th. The ponencia also forgets that what these "performance standards" or measures
petitioners' evidence did not establish the employers' compliance with the cannot simply be assumed because they are critically important in this case, or for that
probationary employment requirements under Article 281 of the Labor Code matter, in any case involving jobs whose duties and responsibilities are not simple or
(as amended) and Section 6 (d) of the Implementing Rules of Book VI, Rule I self-descriptive. If the respondent had been evaluated or assessed in the manner that
of the Labor Code (as amended). Thus, the respondent should be considered the company's internal rules require, these standards would have been the basis for
a regular employee and the case should be reviewed on this basis. her performance or lack of it. Last but not the least, the respondent's services were
 To sum up these provisions, a valid probationary employment requires the terminated on the basis of the performance standards that, by law, the employer set or
concurrence of two requirements. prescribed at the time of the employee's engagement. If none had been prescribed in
o First, the employer shall make known the reasonable standard the first place, under what basis could the employee then be assessed for purposes of
(performance standard) whose compliance will render the employee termination or regularization?
quali􏰏ed to be a regular employee.
o Second, the employer shall inform the employee of the applicable Respondent Should be Deemed A Regular Employee
performance standard at the time of his/her engagement.
 Failing in one or both, the employee, even if initially hired as a probationary In the context of this case, an initial determination of how the respondent's employment
employee, should be viewed and considered a regular employee. started and of her legal status at that point is the best starting point in determining the
validity of her dismissal.
Ponencia was wrong
The respondent was indisputably initially hired as a probationary employee. This is not
1st. The law and the rules require that there performance standards communicated at a contested point. The established facts and the applicable law, however, dictate
the time of engagement to the probationary employee. The performance standards to otherwise from the perspective of law as the petitioners failed to show compliance with
be met are the employer's specific expectations of how the probationary employee the two requirements of Article 281 of the Labor Code (as amended) and of Section 6
should perform. (d) of the Implementing Rules of Book VI, Rule I of the Labor Code (as amended).

The ponencia impliedly admits that no performance standards were expressly given This was what the NLRC found, leading the CA to conclude that no grave abuse of
but argues that because the respondent had been informed of her duties and discretion intervened in the NLRC's ruling because its findings were supported by the
responsibilities (a fact that was and is not disputed), she should be deemed to know evidence on record and by the correctly-chosen applicable law. In stark contrast, the
what was expected of her for purposes of regularization. ponencia's reading, although based on the same legal premises, was based on shaky
assumptions, not on the hard evidence that the tribunals below appreciated.
 14 RESOLUTION [April 22, 2014] command respect and obedience from them), or to organize office
policies, are hardly conveyable at the outset of the engagement since
Alcaraz posits that, contrary to the Court's Decision, one's job description cannot by the employee has yet to be immersed into the work itself.
and of itself be treated as a standard for regularization as a standard denotes a o Given that a managerial role essentially connotes an exercise of
measure of quantity or quality. By way of example, Alcaraz cites the case of a discretion, the quality of effective management can only be
probationary salesperson and asks how does such employee achieve regular status if determined through subsequent assessment. While at the time of
he does not know how much he needs to sell to reach the same. engagement, reason dictates that the employer can only inform the
probationary managerial employee of his duties and responsibilities
SC RESOLUTION: Argument is untenable as such and provide the allowable parameters for the same.
o Verily, as stated in the Decision, the adequate performance of such
 The Court must correct Alcaraz's mistaken notion: it is not the probationary duties and responsibilities is, by and of itself, an implied standard of
employee's job description but the adequate performance of his duties and regularization.
responsibilities which constitutes the inherent and implied standard for  In this relation, it bears mentioning that the performance standard
regularization. contemplated by law should not, in all cases, be contained in a specialized
o To echo the fundamental point of the Decision, if the probationary system of feedbacks or evaluation.
employee had been fully apprised by his employer of these duties o The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that not all employers, such
and responsibilities, then basic knowledge and common sense as simple businesses or small-scale enterprises, have a
dictate that he must adequately perform the same, else he fails to sophisticated form of human resource management, so much so that
pass the probationary trial and may therefore be subject to the adoption of technical indicators as utilized through "comment
termination. cards" or "appraisal" tools should not be treated as a prerequisite for
 The determination of "adequate performance" is not, in all cases, measurable every case of probationary engagement.
by quantitative specification, such as that of a sales quota in Alcaraz's o In fact, even if a system of such kind is employed and the procedures
example. for its implementation are not followed, once an employer determines
o It is also hinged an the qualitative assessment of the employee's that the probationary employee fails to meet the standards required
work; by its nature, this largely rests on the reasonable exercise of for his regularization, the former is not precluded from dismissing the
the employer's management prerogative. latter.
o While in some instances the standards used in measuring the quality o The rule is that when a valid cause for termination exists, the
of work may be conveyed — such as workers who construct tangible procedural infirmity attending the termination only warrants the
products which follow particular metrics, not all standards of quality payment of nominal damages. This was the principle laid down in the
measurement may be reducible to hard figures or are readily landmark cases of Agabon v. NLRC (Agabon) and Jaka Food
articulable in specific pre-engagement descriptions. Processing Corporation v. Pacot (Jaka).
o A good example would be the case of probationary employees o In the assailed Decision, the Court actually extended the application
whose tasks involve the application of discretion and intellect, such of the Agabon and Jaka rulings to breaches of company procedure,
as — to name a few — lawyers, artists, and journalists. notwithstanding the employer's compliance with the statutory
o In these kinds of occupation, the best that the employer can do at the requirements under the Labor Code.
time of engagement is to inform the probationary employee of his o Hence, although Abbott did not comply with its own termination
duties and responsibilities and to orient him on how to properly procedure, its non-compliance thereof would not detract from the
proceed with the same. finding that there subsists a valid cause to terminate Alcaraz's
o The employer cannot bear out in exacting detail at the beginning of employment.
the engagement what he deems as "quality work" especially since o Abbott, however, was penalized for its contractual breach and
the probationary employee has yet to submit the required output. In thereby ordered to pay nominal damages.
the ultimate analysis, the communication of performance standards
should be perceived within the context of the nature of the DISSENTING OPINION, BRION, J.:
probationary employee's duties and responsibilities.
 The same logic applies to a probationary managerial employee who is tasked Probationary employment is not a default mode of employment contract
to supervise a particular department, as Alcaraz in this case.
 Regardless of the kind of employment arrangement between the
o It is hardly possible for the employer, at the time of the employee's
engagement, to map into technical indicators, or convey in precise parties, an employer has the right to put a newly-hired employee under
detail the quality standards by which the latter should effectively a probationary period or it may choose not to do so, as part and parcel
manage the department. of its power to hire.
o Factors which gauge the ability of the managerial employee to either
deal with his subordinates (e.g., how to spur their performance, or
  If the employer opts for the latter, however, he may not easily sever o Second, the employer shallinform the employee of the
the relationship without proving the existence of a just or authorized applicable performance standard at the time of his/her
cause and without complying with procedural due process. engagement.
 If the employer opts to hire an employee on a probationary basis, valid  Failing in one or both, the employee, even if initially hired as a
severance of the employer-employee relationship — outside of the just probationary employee, should be considered a regular employee.
and authorized causes — presupposes that the employer had  Both these elements are sorely wanting in this case.
accomplished the following things:
1. The employer must communicate to the employee that he The rule and the exception in jurisprudence
is being hired on a probationary basis;  In Aberdeen Court, Inc. v. Agustin, Jr., the Court made a
2. The employer must convey to the probationary employee qualification to the rule that failure to comply with the two requirements
the reasonable standards to qualify for regularization; for valid probationary employment would make the employment a
3. The probationary status of the newly-hired employee must regular employment. Where the employee acted "in a manner contrary
be communicated to him prior to the commencement of his to basic knowledge and common sense, in regard to which there is no
employment; need to spell out a policy or standard to be met," then his termination
4. The employer must convey these reasonable standards at on this ground will be upheld by the Court.
the time of the probationary employee's engagement;  In Robinsons Galleria v. Ranchez: the Court stated that a
5. The employer must evaluate the performance of the probationary employee shall be deemed a regular employee where no
probationary employee vis the duly communicated standards are made known to him at the time of his engagement
reasonable standards; and "unless the job is self- descriptive, like maid, cook, driver, or
6. The employee fails to comply with these reasonable messenger."
standards before the completion of the probationary period.  GR: failure to meet a performance standard that is rooted on "basic
 These cumulative requirements are demanded from the employer knowledge and common sense" can be a valid ground to terminate a
itself and cannot be supplied for him by law. probationary employee without the need of an express prior
o These requirements, too, should serve to dispel the wrong communication of the performance standard to the probationary
notion that a probationary employee enjoys lesser rights than employee. Basic knowledge and common sense should be possessed
a regular employee under the Labor Code. Since a by anyone desiring to find a regular employment.
probationary employment is not an "employment at will"
situation as that phrase is understood in American
jurisprudence, the only way by which the constitutional
guarantee of security of tenure may be enforced is to ensure
that the employer sufficiently discharges its burden of proving
compliance with these requirements in the same manner that
it is burdened to prove the existence of a valid cause in
dismissing an employee.

Elements of Valid Probationary Employment

 Based on Article 281 of the Labor Code and Section 6 (d) of the
Implementing Rules of Book VI, Rule I of the Labor Code, a valid
probationary employment presupposes the concurrence of two
requirements:
o First, the employer shall make known to the employee the
reasonable standard (performance standard) that the
probationary employee must comply with to qualify as a
regular employee.
 15 WOODRIDGE SCHOOL v BENITO  LA: Labor Arbiter Vicente R. Layawen rendered a Decision dismissing
G.R. NO. 160240 the complaint.
OCTOBER 29, 2008 o He concluded that the termination of the respondents’
probationary employment was justified because of their failure
TOPIC: Probationary; Definition to submit vital teaching documents, such as lesson plans and
PETITIONER: Woodridge School subject syllabi.
RESPONDENTS: Joanne C. Pe Benito and Randy T. Balaguer o The Labor Arbiter found respondents guilty of serious
PONENTE: Nachura, J. misconduct warranting their dismissal from service because
of maliciously spreading false accusations against the school
DOCTRINE: A probationary employee is one who, for a given period of through mass media, which made them unfit to remain in the
time, is being observed and evaluated to determine whether or not he is school’s roster of teachers.
qualified for permanent employment. o The Labor Arbiter also validated the preventive suspension of
respondents.
FACTS:  NLRC: the Commission affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s disposition.
 Petitioner Woodridge School is a private educational institution located o The Commission concluded that respondents’ acts, taken
Bacoor, Cavite. Respondents Joanne C. Pe Benito and Randy T. together, constitute serious misconduct, warranting their
Balaguer were hired as probationary high school teachers effective dismissal from service. Aggrieved, respondents elevated the
June 1998 and June 1999, respectively. matter to the CA.
o Their contracts of employment covered a three (3) year  CA: The CA granted the petition and set aside the NLRC ruling a
probationary period. decision.
 February 19, 2001: respondents, together with twenty other teachers, o The appellate court declared the preventive suspension of
presented to petitioner with a Manifesto Establishing Relevant Issues respondents invalid because it was based on grounds that do
Concerning the School raising various issues. not pose a serious threat to the life or property of the employer
o Among these issues were the NSAT/NEAT anomaly, the or of the workers.
teacher’s right to due process, issuance of individual o The CA concluded that respondents’ acts do not constitute
contracts, and non-clear-cut school policies. serious misconduct.
o A confrontation between the school administrators and the o The appellate court likewise refused to sustain petitioner’s
concerned teachers was held, but no settlement was arrived contention that respondents failed to qualify for permanent
at. employment, as there was no sufficient evidence to prove the
 Due to the failure of the parties to resolve the issues, respondents filed same.
a formal complaint against the petitioner with the Department of o The appellate court emphasized that because respondents
Education, Culture, and Sports (DECS) requesting the latter to are probationary employees, legal protection extends only to
undertake a formal investigation, institute appropriate charges, and the period of their probation.
impose proper sanctions against petitioner. o The dismissal breached their probationary employment, and
o During the pendency of the DECS case, respondents being tainted with bad faith, the court upheld the award of
appeared on television and spoke over the radio on the moral and exemplary damages.
alleged NSAT/NEAT anomaly.
 February 28, 2001: petitioner sent two separate Memoranda to ISSUE:
respondents placing them under preventive suspension for a period of 1. WON respondents as probationary employees can be dismissed
thirty days, which prompted respondents to commence an action for without just cause?
illegal suspension before the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC). HELD/RATIO:
 March 19, 2001: petitioner issued respondents their Notice of
Termination, each to take effect similarly on March 31, 2001. What is Probationary Employee?
Respondents then amended their initial complaint to include illegal
dismissal.
  DEFINITION: A probationary employee is one who, for a given period  Considering that respondents were on probation for three years, and
of time, is being observed and evaluated to determine whether or not they were subjected to yearly evaluation by the students and by the
he is qualified for permanent employment. school administrators (principal and vice-principal), it is safe to
 A probationary appointment affords the employer an opportunity to assume that the results thereof were definitely documented.
observe the skill, competence and attitude of a probationer.  As such, petitioner should have presented the evaluation reports and
 The word "probationary", as used to describe the period of other related documents to support its claim, instead of relying solely
employment, implies the purpose of the term or period. While the on the affidavits of their witnesses.
employer observes the fitness, propriety and efficiency of a  The unavoidable inference, therefore, remains that the respondents'
probationer to ascertain whether he is qualified for permanent dismissal is invalid.
employment, the probationer at the same time, seeks to prove to the
employer that he has the qualifications to meet the reasonable Due Process
standards for permanent employment.  The Labor Code commands that before an employer may legally
dismiss an employee from the service, the requirement of substantial
Security of Tenor and procedural due process must be complied with.
 Probationary employees enjoy security of tenure in the sense that  Under the requirement of substantial due process, the grounds for
during their probationary employment, they cannot be dismissed termination of employment must be based on just or authorized
except for cause or when he fails to qualify as a regular employee. causes.
 However, upon expiration of their contract of employment,  The totality of the acts of respondents cannot be characterized as
probationary employees cannot claim security of tenure and compel "misconduct" under the law, serious enough to warrant the severe
their employers to renew their employment contracts. In fact, the penalty of dismissal. This is especially true because there is no finding
services of an employee hired on probationary basis may be of malice or wrongful intent attributable to respondents.
terminated when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in  In light of this disquisition, it is settled that petitioner failed to comply
accordance with reasonable standards made known by the employer with the requirement of substantial due process in terminating the
to the employee at the time of his engagement. employment of respondents.
 There is nothing that would hinder the employer from extending a
regular or permanent appointment to an employee once the employer DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby
finds that the employee is qualified for regular employment even DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution dated June 30, 2003
before the expiration of the probationary period. and September 26, 2003, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 75249, are
 Conversely, if the purpose sought by the employer is neither attained AFFIRMED.
nor attainable within the said period, the law does not preclude the
employer from terminating the probationary employment on justifiable
ground.

In the Case at hand

 The notices of termination sent by petitioner to respondents stated that
the latter failed to qualify as regular employees.
 However, nowhere in the notices did petitioner explain the details of
said "failure to qualify" and the standards not met by respondents.
 We can only speculate that this conclusion was based on the alleged
acts of respondents in uttering defamatory remarks against the school
and the school principal; failure to report for work for two or three
times; going to class without wearing proper uniform; delay in the
submission of class records; and non- submission of class syllabi.
 Yet, other than bare allegations, petitioner failed to substantiate the
same by documentary evidence.
 16 CEBU MACHINE BEACH RESORT v NLRC o Petitioners contend: Appellate Court committed a serious error when
G.R. NO. 143252 it unilaterally extended the 6-month probationary employment
OCTOBER 23, 2003 contracts of the respondents by awarding them full backwages, or in
lieu of their reinstatement, when it ordered payment of their
TOPIC: Probationary; Definition separation pay computed from the time of their dismissal up to the
PETITIONERS: Cebu Machine Beach Resort, Ofelia Pelaez and Tsuyoshi Sasaki finality of its Decision
RESPONDENTS: NLRC, Manulito Villegas and Lora G. Igot
PONENTE: Sandoval-Gutierrez, J. ISSUE:
1. WON respondents were illegally dismissed from employment by petitioner
DOCTRINE: It is settled that while probationary employees do not enjoy permanent company. YES.
status, they are entitled to the constitutional protection of security of tenure. Their
employment may only be terminated for just cause or when they fail to qualify as HELD/RATIO:
regular employees in accordance with reasonable standards made known to them 1. Respondents were illegally dismissed
by their employer at the time of engagement, and after due process.
Probationary employees
FACTS:  Do not enjoy permanent status, they are entitled to the constitutional
 Jan 1990: Cebu Marine Beach Resort (pet) owned by Victor Dualan, started protection of security of tenure.
operations with the recruitment of its employees, including Ric Rodrigo  Employment may only be terminated for just cause or when they fail to qualify
Rodriguez, Manulita Villegas and Lorna G. Igot, (resp). as regular employees in accordance with reasonable standards made known
 Mar 1990: started receiving Japanese guests to them by their employer at the time of engagement, and after due process
o Since it wanted to cater to Japanese guests, employees in the resort
had to undergo Japanese customs training under Tsuyoshi Sasaki, In the Case at Hand
also a petitioner  Petitioners terminated respondents’ probationary employment on the grounds
 May 24 1990: Sasaki threw brooms, floor maps, iron trays, fire hoses and of abandonment and failure to qualify for the positions for which they were
other things to the respondents while scolding them employed.
o Sasaki also screamed to go home and never come back o Sasaki’s utterances were indicative of their illegal dismissal
 respondents filed at Regional Arbitration Branch at Cebu City a complaint for o Reinstatement, however, is not possible because of strained
illegal dismissal and other monetary claims relationships between the employer and the employees
o Labor Arbiter dismissed the case but ordered them to go back to work  Instead of reinstatement, they were awarded separation pay equivalent to at
 On appeal, NLRC reversed Labor Arbiter’s decision least one month pay, or one month pay for every year of service, whichever is
o Respondents were illegally dismissed higher; and their full backwages, other privileges and benefits, or their
o Ordered monetary equivalent during the period of their dismissal up to their supposed
 full back wages om May 24, 1990 up to their actual actual reinstatement
reinstatement
 separation pay DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of
 atty’s fees Appeals dated November 5, 1999 and April 18, 2000 are hereby AFFIRMED WITH
 February 28, 1995: the NLRC issued a Resolution MODIFICATION in the sense that, in lieu of reinstatement, respondents are awarded
o declaring that the backwages shall correspond only to the period separation pay equivalent to at least one month pay, or one month pay for every year
from May 24, 1990 (the date of their dismissal) until March 23, 1993 of service, whichever is higher; and their full backwages, other privileges and benefits,
(when they were ordered reinstated by the Labor Arbiter), subject to or their monetary equivalent during the period of their dismissal up to their supposed
the deduction of their earnings from other sources during the actual reinstatement.
pendency of the appeal
 Mar 22 1995: filed in this court petition for certiorari…
 SC however sent this case to the Court of Appeals (CA) pursuant to St Martin’s
Funeral vs NLRC
 CA approves NLRC’s decision
o Respondents were illegally dismissed
 They filed motion for reconsideration
o Denied
 Hence this petition
 17 A’ PRIME SECURITY v NLRC  The Court cannot uphold and give weight to private respondent's resignation
G.R. NO. 107320 letter which appears to have been written and submitted at the instance of
JANUARY 19, 2000 petitioner.
o Its form is of the company's and its wordings are more of a waiver
TOPIC: Probationary; Duration and quitclaim.
PETITIONERS: A’ Prime Security Services, Inc. o Moreover, the supposed resignation was not acknowledged before a
RESPONDENTS: NLRC, Hon. Arbiter Valentin Guanio, and Othello Moreno notary public.
PONENTE: Purisima, J. o Petitioner's failure to deny that Sugarland is its sister company and
that petitioner absorbed Sugarland's security contract and security
DOCTRINE: Employee considered regular upon completion of 6-month period of personnel assumes overriding significance over the resignation
probation. theorized upon, evincing petitioner's design to ignore or violate labor
laws through the use of the veil of corporate personality.
FACTS: o The Court cannot sanction the practice of some companies which,
 Private respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner with the Department shortly after a worker has become a regular employee, effects the
of Labor and Employment for illegal dismissal, illegal deduction and transfer of the same employee to another entity whose owners are
underpayment of wages. the same, or identical, in order to deprive subject employee of the
 The complaint alleged, among others, that private respondent had been benefits and protection he is entitled to under the law.
working as a security guard for a year with the Sugarland Security Services,
Inc., a sister company of petitioner. 2. Private respondent is a regular employee.
o Subsequently, petitioner took over the security contracts of its sister  The Court holds that the latter became a regular employee upon completion
company and absorbed some of its employees. of his six-month period of probation. Private respondent started working on
o Private respondent was among those absorbed. January 30, 1988 and completed the said period of probation on July 27, 1988.
o Private respondent was then forced by petitioner to sign new Thus, at the time private respondent was dismissed on August 1, 1988, he
probationary contracts of employment for six (6) months. was already a regular employee with a security of tenure.
 August 1, 1988: petitioner terminated his employment.  He could only be dismissed for a just and authorized cause.
o Petitioner was dismissed based on the results of his behavioral and  There is no basis for subjecting private respondent to a new probationary or
neuropsychological tests and on his alleged violations of sleeping on temporary employment on January 30, 1988, considering that he was already
post and quarrelling with a co-worker. a regular employee when he was absorbed by A' Prime from Sugarland, its
 LA: rendered a decision ordering the respondent to reinstate the complainant sister company.
to his former position and accord to him the status of a regular employee.
o The respondent is further ordered to pay the complainant his 3. YES. Private respondent’s dismissal was unjust and illegal.
backwages and to refund to the complainant the deduction it had  Private respondent's alleged violations of sleeping on post and quarrelling with
made from his salary. a co- worker, may not be proper grounds for dismissal as the same were first
 NLRC: On appeal, the NLRC affirmed with slight modification the decision of infractions. Further, private respondent was not given a chance to contest his
Labor Arbiter. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC. dismissal. Hence, the Court held that the dismissal of private respondent, a
Hence, this petition. regular employee, was without any just, legal and valid basis.

ISSUE: DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED; and the Decision, dated
1. WON private respondent’s employment with A’ Prime Security Services, Inc. April 20, 1992, and Resolution, dated June 25, 1992, of the National Labor Relations
was just a continuation of his employment with Sugarland Security. Commission in NLRC NCR Case No. 00-02-01038-89, AFFIRMED. No pronouncement
2. WON private respondent is a regular or probationary employee of petitioner. as to costs.
3. WON private respondent’s dismissal is illegal.

HELD/RATIO:
1. YES. It was a continuation of his employment.
 In the petition under scrutiny, it is contended belatedly that A' Prime and
Sugarland are two separate and distinct juridical entities.
o However, aside from such a bare allegation, petitioner presented no
supporting evidence and the Court cannot, of course, act thereupon
without any legal basis.
 17 CANADIAN OPPORTUNITIES v DALANGIN ● Explanation for declining to attend the Values Formation Seminar, which was
G.R. NO. 172223 scheduled on Oct. 27 (Sat) from 2:00PM onwards:
FEBRUARY 6, 2012  He inquired from Abad about the subject and purpose of the seminar
o When he learned that it bore no relation to his duties, he told
TOPIC: Probation; Duration Abad that he would not attend the seminar and had to leave at
PETITIONER: Canadian Opportunities Unlimited, Inc. 2:00 p.m. in order to be with his family in the province
RESPONDENTS: Bart Q. Dalangin, Jr.  Abad insisted that he attend the seminar so that the other employees
PONENTE: Brion, J. would also attend
o He replied that he should not be treated similarly with the other
DOCTRINE: employees
1. The word "probationary," as used to describe the period of employment,  There are marked differences between their respective
implies the purpose of the term or period, but not its length. positions and duties.
2. The “trial period” or the length of time the probationary employee remains o Nonetheless, he signified his willingness to attend the seminar,
on probation depends on the parties’ agreement. But it shall not exceed six but requested Abad to have it conducted within office hours to
(6) months under Article 281 of the Labor Code. enable everybody to attend
 Abad refused his request and stressed that all company
FACTS: employees may be required to stay beyond 2:00 p.m.
● Canadian Opportunities Unlimited Inc. is a company that provides assistance on Saturdays, which she considered still part of office
and related services to applicants for permanent residence in Canada hours
● Oct. 2001: Dalangin was hired by the company in Oct. 2001 as Immigration ● Argued that an employee cannot be made to stay in the office beyond office
and Legal Manager hours, except under circumstances provided in Article 89 of the Labor Code
 He was paid P15,000/month  Under his employment contract, his work schedule was from 9:00 a.m.
 He was placed on probation for 6 months to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on
 He reported directly to the Chief Operations Officer, Annie Saturdays
Llamanzares Abad  It has been an established company practice that on Saturdays, office
 His principal tasks involved: hours end at 2:00 p.m
o Reviewing the clients’ applications for immigration to Canada ● Alleged that the company's Managing Director, Sichani, told him that since he
o Ensuring that said applications are in accordance with was a probationary employee, his employment could be terminated at any
Canadian and Philippine laws time and at will
● Oct. 27, 2001: The company terminate Dalangin’s employment. Declared him  Sichani refused to accept his letter-reply to the company
unfit and unqualified to continue as Immigration and Legal Manager for the ff memorandum dated October 26, 2001 and instead told him to just
reasons: hand it over to Abad
 Obstinacy and utter disregard of company policies o The letter-reply contained his explanation for his being unable
o Propensity to take prolonged and extended lunch breaks, to attend the Oct. 27 seminar
o Shows no interest in familiarizing oneself with the policies and  Sichani terminated his services the following day, stating that he
objectives. cannot keep in his company people who refuse to follow orders from
 Lack of concern for the company’s interest despite having just been management
employed in the company  CANADIAN OPPORTUNITIES’ DEFENSE
o Declined to attend company sponsored activities, seminars ● Dalangin was advised that he was under probation for six months and his
intended to: employment could be terminated should he fail to meet the standards to
 Familiarize company employees with Management qualify him as a regular employee
objectives  He was informed that he would be evaluated on the basis of:
 Enhancement of company interest and objectives o The results of his work
 Showed lack of enthusiasm toward work o His attitude towards the company
o Showed lack of interest in fostering relationship with his o His work and his co-employees
co-employees ● Dalangin showed lack of enthusiasm towards his work and was indifferent
● Nov. 20, 2001: Dalangin filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for towards his co-employees and the company clients
reinstatement and backwages against Canadian Opportunities ● Dalangin refused to comply with the company’s policies and procedures
 Routinely taking long lunch breaks, exceeding the one hour allotted to
THE PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS: employees
 DALANGIN
  Leaving the company premises without informing his immediate  The word "probationary," as used to describe the period of
superior employment, implies the purpose of the term or period, but not its
 Showed lack of interpersonal skills and initiative length
o Manifested when the immigration application of a company o Thus, in the case at bar, the fact that Dalangin was separated
client, Mrs. Jennifer Tecson, was denied by the Canadian from the service after only about four weeks does not
Embassy necessarily mean that his separation from the service is
o Dalangin failed to provide counsel to Tecson without basis
 He should have found a way to appeal her denied ● The “trial period” or the length of time the probationary employee remains on
application probation depends on the parties’ agreement.
 The explanation he gave to Tecson led her to believe  But it shall not exceed six (6) months under Article 281 of the Labor
that the company did not handle her application well Code
● Dalangin showed lack of interest in the company o Unless it is covered by an apprenticeship agreement
 Manifested when he refused to attend company-sponsored stipulating a longer period
seminars designed to acquaint or update the employees with the  The essence of a probationary period of employment is the purpose
company’s policies and objectives or objective of both the employer and the employee during the period,
● Since Dalangin failed to qualify for the position of Immigration and Legal which are as follows:
Manager, the company decided to terminate his services o Employer = To observe the fitness, propriety and efficiency of
 After duly notifying him of the company’s decision and the reason for a probationer to ascertain whether he is qualified for
his separation permanent employment
o Probationer = To prove to the former that he has the
PROCEDURAL HISTORY: qualifications to meet the reasonable standards for permanent
● LA: Declared Dalangin’s dismissal illegal, and awarded him backwages of employment.
P75,000.00 ● Contrary to the CA’s conclusions, we find substantial evidence indicating that
 Found that the charges against Dalangin, which led to his dismissal, the company was justified in terminating Dalangin’s employment, however
were not established by clear and substantial proof brief it had been
● NLRC: Reversed LA Decision ● Dalangin offered glimpses of his own behavior and actuations during his
 Dalangin’s dismissal was a valid exercise of the company’s four-week stay with the company
management prerogative because Dalangin failed to meet the a) The Values Formation Seminar incident is an eye-opener on the kind of
standards for regular employment person and employee Dalangin was, and is the reason behind the
● CA: Reinstated LA Decision company charging him with obstinacy
 The company failed to support, with substantial evidence, its claim  Dalangin admitted in compulsory arbitration that the proximate
that Dalangin failed to meet the standards to qualify as a regular cause for his dismissal was his refusal to attend the company’s
employee Values Formation Seminar scheduled for October 27, 2001, a
 It did not allow Dalangin to prove that he possessed the qualifications Saturday
to meet the reasonable standards for his regular employment  It highlights his lack of interest in familiarizing himself with the
 Instead, it dismissed Dalangin peremptorily from the service company’s objectives and policies
o It was quite improbable that the company could fully determine o Significantly, the seminar involved acquainting and
Dalangin’s performance barely one month into his updating the employees with the companys policies
employment. and objectives
o Had he attended the seminar, Dalangin could have
ISSUES/HELD/RATIO: broadened his awareness of the company’s policies
 It also reveals Dalangin’s lack of interest in establishing good
1. W/N Dalangin as a probationary employee was validly dismissed - YES working relationship with his co-employees, especially the rank
● International Catholic Migration Commission v. NLRC: A probationary and file
employee, as understood under Article 281 of the Labor Code, is one who is  He did not want to join them because of his view that
on trial by an employer, during which, the latter determines whether or not he the seminar was not relevant to his position and duties
is qualified for permanent employment b) Dalangin exhibited negative working habits
 A probationary appointment gives the employer an opportunity to  Took prolonged lunch breaks or would go out of the office without
observe the fitness of a probationer while at work, and to ascertain leave of the company
whether he would be a proper and efficient employee  Failed to find ways to appeal the denial of Tecson’s application,
 ● Therefore, the Court is convinced that the company had seen enough from
Dalangins actuations, behavior and deportment during a four-week period to
realize that Dalangin would be a liability rather than an asset to its operations
 In the case at bar, four weeks was enough for the company to assess
Dalangin’s fitness for the job and he was found wanting
 Thus, in separating Dalangin from the service before the situation got
worse, we find the company not liable for illegal dismissal

2. W/N the requirements of notice and hearing in employee dismissals were

complied with in Dalangin’s case -
● Section 2, Rule I, Book VI of the Labor Code’s Implementing Rules and
Regulations provides:
 If the termination is brought about by the completion of a contract or
phase thereof, or by failure of an employee to meet the standards of
the employer in the case of probationary employment, it shall be
sufficient that a written notice is served the employee within a
reasonable time from the effective date of termination
● Defense of Canadian Opportunities: It complied with the rule on procedural
due process when it asked Dalangin, through a Memorandum, to explain why
he could not attend the seminar
 When he failed to submit his explanation, the company served him a
notice the following day terminating his employment
● SC: The notice to Dalangin was not served within a reasonable time from the
effective date of his termination as required by the rules
 Since he was dismissed on the very day the notice was given to him
 However, because of the existence of a valid cause for termination,
the Supreme Court did not invalidate his dismissal but penalized the
company for its non-compliance with the notice requirement, and
ordered the company to pay an indemnity, in the form of nominal
damages amounting to P10,000.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed
decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are hereby SET ASIDE. The
complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Petitioner Canadian Opportunities Unlimited, Inc. is DIRECTED to pay respondent

Bart Q. Dalangin, Jr. nominal damages in the amount of P10,000.00.
 18 BUISER v. LEOGARDO o required by the nature of work to be performed by the employee.
G.R. NO. L-63316  There is an exercise of managerial prerogatives in requiring a longer period of
JULY 31, 1984 probationary employment, especially where the employee must learn a
particular kind of work such as selling, or when the job requires certain
TOPIC: Probation; Duration qualifications, skills, experience or training.
PETITIONER: Iluminada Ver Buiser, et. al  Under the Labor Code, six (6) months is the general probationary period, but
RESPONDENTS: Vicente Leogardo, in his capacity as Deputy Minister of the the probationary period is the period needed to determine fitness for the job.
Minister of Labor and Employment and General Telephone Directory Co. This period, for lack of a better measurement is deemed to be the period
PONENTE: Guerrero, J. needed to learn the job.
 Moreover, an eighteen-month probationary period is recognized by the Labor
DOCTRINE: Generally, the probationary period of employment is limited to six (6) Union GT Directory Co, which is Article V of the Collective Bargaining
months. The exception to this general rule is when the parties to an employment Agreement.
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 DISPOSITION
employee. WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

FACTS
 Buiser, Rilloacuna and Intengan were employed by General Telephone
Directory Co. as sales representative.
 Buiser et al. entered an “Employment Contract (on Probationary Status)” with
GT Directory.
 The employment contact states that:
o The company hereby employs the employee as telephone sales
representative on a probationary status for a period of eighteen (18)
months.
o During the probationary period of employment, the Employee may
be terminated at the pleasure of the company without the necessity
of giving notice of termination or the payment of termination pay.
o It takes about eighteen (18) months before his worth as a telephone
sales representative can be fully evaluated
 GT Directory prescribed sales quotas to be accomplished by Buiser. Failing
to meet their respective sales quotas, Buiser et al. were dismissed from the
service. Thus, Buiser filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
 Regional Director Ministry of Labor dismissed the complaint. Buiser appealed
to Deputy Minister Vicente Leogardo, Jr which affirmed the decision of RD.
 Deputy Minister Leogardo ruled that the petitioners have not attained
permanent status since private respondent was justified in requiring a longer
period of probation, and that the termination of petitioners’ services was valid
since the latter failed to meet their sales quotas.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUE
1. WON the 18 months probationary status is allowed.

HELD/RATIO:
1. YES
 General Rule: probationary period of employment is limited to six (6) months.
 Exception:
o parties to an employment contract agreed otherwise,
o established by company policy
 19 PFCCI v. NLRC  As defined in the case of International Catholic Migration v. NLRC, “a
G.R. NO. 121071 probationary employee is one who is on trial by an employer during which the
DECEMBER 11, 2008 employer determines whether or not he is qualified for permanent
employment.
TOPIC: Probation; Extension  A probationary employment is made to afford the employer an opportunity to
PETITIONER: Phil Federation of Credit Cooperatives, Inc. and Fr. Benedicto observe the fitness of a probationer while at work, and to ascertain whether
Jayoma he will become a proper and efficient employee.”
RESPONDENTS: NLRC and Victoria Abril  In the instant case, petitioner refutes the findings of the NLRC arguing that,
PONENTE: Romero, J. after respondent had allegedly abandoned her secretarial position for eight (8)
months, she applied for the position of Regional Field Officer for Region IV,
DOCTRINE: It is an elementary rule in the law on labor relations that a probationary which appointment, as petitioner would aptly put it, "had been fixed for a
employee who is engaged to work beyond the probationary period of six months, as specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which had
provided under Art. 281 of the Labor Code, as amended, or for any length of time been determined at the time of the engagement of said private respondent
set forth by the employer, shall be considered a regular employee. and therefore considered as a casual or contractual employment under Article
280 of the Labor Code."
FACTS:
 Victoria Abril was employed by PFCCI in different capacities from 1982 to DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is hereby
1988, when she went on leave until she gave birth. DISMISSED and the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission dated
o When she went back in 1989, after 8 months, another employee had November 28. 1994 is AFFIRMED. No costs.
been permanently appointed to her former position of office
secretary. She accepted a position of Regional Field Officer.
o The contract reads: "That the employer hires the employee on
contractual basis to the position of Regional Field Officer of Region
4 under FCCI/WOCCU/Aid Project No. 8175 and to do the function
as stipulated in the job description assigned to him (her): on
probationary status effective February 17, 1990 for a period not to
exceed six (6) months from said effectivity, subject to renewal of this
contract should the employee's performance be satisfactory."
 Said period having elapsed, respondent was allowed to work until PFCCI
presented to her another employment contract for a period of one year
commencing on January 2, 1991 until December 31, 1991, after which period,
her employment was terminated.
 LA dismissed her complaint for illegal dismissal against PFCCI.
 NLRC set aside LA’s decision and ordered her reinstated to her last position
held (RFO) or to an equivalent position, with full backwages from Jan 1, 1992
until she is reinstated.

ISSUE:
1. WON Abril was a probationary employee.

HELD/RATIO:
1. No. Abril is a regular employee.
 It is an elementary rule in the law on labor relations that a probationary
employee who is engaged to work beyond the probationary period of six
months as provided under Art. 281 ofthe Labor Code, as amended, or for any
length of time set forth by the employer, shall be considered a regular
employee.
 Article 281 of the Labor Code, as amended, allows the employer to secure the
services of an employee on a probationary basis which allows him to terminate
the latter for just cause or upon failure to qualify in accordance with reasonable
standards set forth by the employer at the time of his engagement.
 20 BUISER v. LEOGARDO  There is an exercise of managerial prerogatives in requiring a longer period of
supra probationary employment, especially where the employee must learn a
particular kind of work such as selling, or when the job requires certain
TOPIC: Probation; Duration qualifications, skills, experience or training.
PETITIONER: Iluminada Ver Buiser, et. al  Under the Labor Code, six (6) months is the general probationary period, but
RESPONDENTS: Vicente Leogardo, in his capacity as Deputy Minister of the the probationary period is the period needed to determine fitness for the job.
Minister of Labor and Employment and General Telephone Directory Co. This period, for lack of a better measurement is deemed to be the period
PONENTE: Guerrero, J. needed to learn the job.
 Moreover, an eighteen-month probationary period is recognized by the Labor
DOCTRINE: Generally, the probationary period of employment is limited to six (6) Union GT Directory Co, which is Article V of the Collective Bargaining
months. The exception to this general rule is when the parties to an employment Agreement.
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 DISPOSITION
employee. WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

FACTS
 Buiser, Rilloacuna and Intengan were employed by General Telephone
Directory Co. as sales representative.
 Buiser et al. entered an “Employment Contract (on Probationary Status)” with
GT Directory.
 The employment contact states that:
o The company hereby employs the employee as telephone sales
representative on a probationary status for a period of eighteen (18)
months.
o During the probationary period of employment, the Employee may
be terminated at the pleasure of the company without the necessity
of giving notice of termination or the payment of termination pay.
o It takes about eighteen (18) months before his worth as a telephone
sales representative can be fully evaluated
 GT Directory prescribed sales quotas to be accomplished by Buiser. Failing
to meet their respective sales quotas, Buiser et al. were dismissed from the
service. Thus, Buiser filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
 Regional Director Ministry of Labor dismissed the complaint. Buiser appealed
to Deputy Minister Vicente Leogardo, Jr which affirmed the decision of RD.
 Deputy Minister Leogardo ruled that the petitioners have not attained
permanent status since private respondent was justified in requiring a longer
period of probation, and that the termination of petitioners’ services was valid
since the latter failed to meet their sales quotas.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUE
1. WON the 18 months probationary status is allowed.

HELD/RATIO:
1. YES
 General Rule: probationary period of employment is limited to six (6) months.
 Exception:
o parties to an employment contract agreed otherwise,
o established by company policy
o required by the nature of work to be performed by the employee.
 21 DAVAO CONTRACTORS v PASAWA  NLRC: Dacodeco appealed however it was dismissed for failure to
G.R. NO. 172174 accompany the memorandum of appeal with a certificate of non-forum
JULY 9, 2009 shopping.

TOPIC: Probation; Standards ISSUE:

PETITIONERS: Davao Contractors Development Cooperative, represented by 1. WON there was a valid dismissal against the respondent who’s a probationary
Chairman of the Board Engr. Edgar L. Chavez employee. NO.
RESPONDENTS: Marilyn A. Pasawa
PONENTE: Quisumbing, J. HELD/RATIO:
 Under Article 281 of the Labor Code, a probationary employee can be legally
DOCTRINE: Under Article 281 of the Labor Code, a probationary employee can be dismissed either:
legally dismissed either: (1) for a just cause; or (2) when he fails to qualify as a o (1) for a just cause; or
regular employee in accordance with the reasonable standards made known to him o (2) when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with
by the employer at the start of the employment. the reasonable standards made known to him by the employer at the
start of the employment.
FACTS:  Nonetheless, the power of the employer to terminate the services of an
 Petitioner Davao Contractors Development Cooperative (DACODECO) is a employee on probation is not without limitations.
duly registered cooperative engaged in the construction business. o First, this power must be exercised in accordance with the specific
 January 5, 2004: it hired respondent Marilyn A. Pasawa (PASAWA) as requirements of the contract.
General Manager with a monthly salary of P6,500. o Second, the dissatisfaction on the part of the employer must be real
 May 2004: the Board of Directors of DACODECO formed an evaluation and in good faith, not feigned so as to circumvent the contract or the
committee to assess respondent's performance. law.
o The evaluation committee reported that respondent's services was o Third, there must be no unlawful discrimination in the dismissal. In
just "average"; she lacked construction knowledge; and she made a termination cases, the burden of proving just or valid cause for
false statement in the 2004 General Assembly. dismissing an employee rests on the employer.
 In the said evaluation, it was stated that she did not met  Here, petitioner did not present proof that respondent was duly notified, at the
the working standard of the cooperative. time of her employment, of the reasonable standards she needed to comply
 Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and contested the findings with for her continued employment.
of the evaluation committee.  Neither can respondent be dismissed for loss of trust and confidence.
o She asserted that she was able to establish the proper system and o To be a valid ground for dismissal, loss of trust and confidence must
guidelines for DACODECO's business operations; and she was be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly
able to rectify DACODECO's mistakes and errors in the past, thus, established facts.
improving its business output and boosting its revenues. o A breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely,
o However, the new Chairman of the Board of Directors disfavored without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done
the streamlining. carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently.
o Respondent also contended that contrary to DACODECO's claim, o It must rest on substantial grounds and not on the employer's
she was engaged as a regular employee. arbitrariness, whims, caprices or suspicion; otherwise, the employee
 LA: rendered a decision in respondent’s favor. would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer.
o He ruled that respondent was a probationary employee as evidenced o Such ground of dismissal has never been intended to afford an
by Board Resolution No. 369-20037 which contained DACODECO's occasion for abuse because of its subjective nature.
acceptance of her application as General Manager.
o He noted, however, that the board resolution did not specify or inform DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The Resolutions dated
respondent of the reasonable standards by which her advancement February 8, 2006 and March 28, 2006 of the Court of Appeals-Mindanao Station in CA-
to regular status would be gauged. G.R. SP No. 00822 are AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.
o Thus, respondent's dismissal was invalid. As reinstatement was no
longer possible, the Labor Arbiter ordered DACODECO to pay
respondent separation pay equivalent to one-month salary of P6,500
and backwages from the time of her dismissal up to the finality of his
decision.
 22 MERCADO v AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE  CA: The CA Ruling the CA granted AMACC’s petition for certiorari and
G.R. NO. 183572 dismissed the petitioners’ complaint for illegal dismissal.
APRIL 13, 2010
ISSUE:
TOPIC: Probation; Teachers 1. WON the Non-renewal of Contract for teachers constitute illegal dismissal after
PETITIONERS: Yolanda M. Mercado, Charito S. De Leon, Diana R. Lachica, having rendered service for three consecutive school years but run short as to the
Margarito M. Alba, Jr. and Felix A. Tonog actual number of tenures which is only equal to 2 yrs. and 3 months?
RESPONDENTS: AMA Computer College- Paranaque City, Inc.
PONENTE: Brion, J. HELD/RATIO:
1. Yes, it constituted illegal dismissal.
DOCTRINE: The use of employment for fixed periods during the teachers’
probationary period is likewise an accepted practice in the teaching profession. The use of employment for fixed periods during the teachers’ probationary period is
However, the school, however, cannot forget that its system of fixed-term contract is likewise an accepted practice in the teaching profession.
a system that operates during the probationary period and for this reason is subject  AMACC’s right to academic freedom is particularly important in the present
to the terms of Article 281 of the Labor Code. case, because of the new screening guidelines for AMACC faculty put in place
for the school year 2000-2001.
FACTS:  We agree with the CA that AMACC has the inherent right to establish high
 The petitioners were faculty members who started teaching at AMACC on May standards of competency and efficiency for its faculty members in order to
25, 1998. achieve and maintain academic excellence.
o The petitioners executed individual Teacher’s Contracts for each of  The school’s prerogative to provide standards for its teachers and to
the trimesters that they were engaged to teach, with the following determine whether or not these standards have been met is in accordance
common stipulation: with academic freedom that gives the educational institution the right to
choose who should teach.
1. POSITION. The TEACHER has agreed to accept a non-tenured
appointment to work in the College of xxx effective xxx to xxx The provision on employment on probationary status under the Labor Code is a primary
example of the fine balancing of interests between labor and management that the
or for the duration of the last term that the TEACHER is given a Code has institutionalized pursuant to the underlying intent of the Constitution.
teaching load based on the assignment duly approved by the  Labor, for its part, is given the protection during the probationary period of
DEAN/SAVP-COO. knowing the company standards the new hires have to meet during the
probationary period, and to be judged on the basis of these standards, aside
 For the school year 2000-2001, AMACC implemented new faculty screening from the usual standards applicable to employees after they achieve
guidelines, set forth in its Guidelines on the Implementation of AMACC Faculty permanent status.
Plantilla.  Under the terms of the Labor Code, these standards should be made known
o Under the new screening guidelines, teachers were to be hired or to the teachers on probationary status at the start of their probationary period,
maintained based on extensive teaching experience, capability, or at the very least under the circumstances of the present case, at the start
potential, high academic qualifications and research background. of the semester or the trimester during which the probationary standards are
 On September 7, 2000, the petitioners individually received a memorandum to be applied.
from AMACC, through informing them that with the expiration of their contract  Of critical importance in invoking a failure to meet the probationary standards,
to teach, their contract would no longer be renewed. is that the school should show – as a matter of due process – how these
 LA: The Labor Arbiter Ruling declared that the petitioners had been illegally standards have been applied.
dismissed.
 NLRC: On appeal, the NLRC in a Resolution dated July 18, 2005 denied Subject to the Terms of Art. 281, LC
AMACC’s appeal for lack of merit and affirmed in toto the LA’s ruling.  The school, however, cannot forget that its system of fixed-term contract is a
o The NLRC, however, observed that the applicable law is Section 92 system that operates during the probationary period and for this reason is
of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools (which mandates a subject to the terms of Article 281 of the Labor Code.
probationary period of nine consecutive trimesters of satisfactory  Unless this reconciliation is made, the requirements of this Article on
service for academic personnel in the tertiary level where collegiate probationary status would be fully negated as the school may freely choose
courses are offered on a trimester basis), not Article 281 of the Labor not to renew contracts simply because their terms have expired.
Code (which prescribes a probationary period of six months) as the  The inevitable effect of course is to wreck the scheme that the Constitution
LA ruled. and the Labor Code established to balance relationships between labor and
management.
Where the Probationary Status Overlaps
 Given the clear constitutional and statutory intents, we cannot but conclude
that in a situation where the probationary status overlaps with a fixed-term
contract not specifically used for the fixed term it offers, Article 281 should
assume primacy and the fixed-period character of the contract must give way.
 This conclusion is immeasurably strengthened by the petitioners’ and the
AMACC’s hardly concealed expectation that the employment on probation
could lead to permanent status, and that the contracts are renewable unless
the petitioners fail to pass the school’s standards.

In the Case At Hand; No Evidence

 While we can grant that the standards were duly communicated to the
petitioners and could be applied beginning the 1st trimester of the school year
2000-2001, glaring and very basic gaps in the school’s evidence still exist.
 The exact terms of the standards were never introduced as evidence; neither
does the evidence show how these standards were applied to the petitioners.
Without these pieces of evidence (effectively, the finding of just cause for the
non-renewal of the petitioners’ contracts), we have nothing to consider and
pass upon as valid or invalid for each of the petitioners.

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby GRANT the petition,

and, consequently, REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Decision of the Court of Appeals
dated November 29, 2007 and its Resolution dated June 20, 2008 in CA-G.R. SP No.
96599. The Labor Arbiter's decision of March 15, 2002, subsequently a􏰏rmed as to the
results by the National Labor Relations Commission, stands and should be enforced
with appropriate re-computation to take into account the date of the finality of this
Decision.