PAL vs Pascua (Aug 2003)

Facts
In April, August, and September of 1992, PAL hired private respondents as station attendants on a four or six-
hour wor-shift a da! at five to six da!s a wee"
#he primar! dut! of private respondents who were assigned to PAL$s Air servi%es &epartment and AS&'(A)*+
was to load %argo to departing, and unload %argo
+n %ertain o%%asions, PAL %ompelled them to wor overtime be%ause of urgent ne%essit!" #he %ontra%ts with
private respondents were extended twi%e, the last of whi%h appears to have been for an indefinite period"
,oselito Pas%ua, in his and on behalf of other -9 part-time station attendants, filed with the &epartment of
Labor and .mplo!ment a %omplaint for/
011 )egulari2ation 021 3nderpa!ment of wages 041 +vertime pa! 051 #hirteenth month pa! 061 Servi%e
in%entive leave pa! 071 8ull time of eight hours emplo!ment 0-1 )e%over! of benefits due to regular emplo!ees
091 :ight differential pa! 091 ;oral damages and 01<1 Attorne!$s fees
&uring the penden%! of the %ase, ;anagement %onverted the emplo!ment status of private respondents from
temporar! part-time to regular part-time
Private respondents dropped their mone! %laim then pending before the +ffi%e of .xe%utive Labor Arbiter, thus
leaving for %onsideration their %omplaint for =regulari2ation= - %onversion of their emplo!ment status from
part-time to regular 0woring on an 9-hour shift1" #heir %omplaint was dismissed as their %laim was de%lared
moot and a%ademi%"
+n appeal, the :L)(, finding for private respondents, de%lared them as regular emplo!ees of PAL with an
eight-hour wor-shift"
> )espondent admits that %omplainants have been performing fun%tions that are %onsidered ne%essar! or desirable in
the usual business of PAL" #here is no %lear showing, however, that %omplainants$ emplo!ment had been fixed for a
parti%ular pro?e%t or undertaing the %ompletion or termination of whi%h has been determined at the time of their
engagement" :either is there a %lear showing that the wor or servi%es whi%h the! performed, was seasonal in nature
and their emplo!ment for the duration of the season"
(omplainants %an therefore be %onsidered as %asual emplo!ees for a definite period during the first !ear of their
emplo!ment and, thereafter, as regular emplo!ees of respondents b! operation of law" As su%h, the! should be
entitled to the %ompensation and other benefits provided in the (olle%tive @argaining Agreement for regular
emplo!ees from or da! after one !ear AofB servi%e"
Petition was filed with (A to annul :L)($s de%ision but was dismissed"
Issue
Chether or not the de%ision :L)( to a%%ord respondents as full time emplo!ees although, petitioners onl!
reDuire onl! part time servi%es, is valid"
Ruling
Ees"
Petitioner argues that the :L)( %ould not lawfull! impose the %hange of emplo!ment status of respondents
from part-time to full-time emplo!ees"
-
It has no authorit! or power to do so" A%%ording to petitioner,
management of its business is a matter that falls within the ex%lusive domain of the emplo!er"
It must be borne in mind that the exer%ise of management prerogative is not absolute" Chile it ma! be
%on%eded that management is in the best position to now its operational needs, the exer%ise of management
prerogative %annot be utili2ed to %ir%umvent the law and publi% poli%! on labor and so%ial ?usti%e" #hat
prerogative a%%orded management %ould not defeat the ver! purpose for whi%h our labor laws exist/ to
balan%e the %onfli%ting interests of labor and management, not to tilt the s%ale in favor of one over the other,
but to guarant! that labor and management stand on eDual footing when bargaining in good faith with ea%h
other" @! its ver! nature, en%ompassing as it %ould be, management prerogative must be exer%ised alwa!s
with the prin%iples of fair pla! at heart and ?usti%e in mind"
Arti%le 29< of the Labor (ode provides that an! emplo!ee who has rendered at least one !ear of servi%e,
whether su%h servi%e is %ontinuous or broen, shall be %onsidered a regular emplo!ee with respe%t to the
a%tivit! in whi%h he is emplo!ed, and his emplo!ment shall %ontinue while su%h a%tivit! a%tuall! exists"
Art. 280. Regular and casual employment. #he provisions of written agreement to the %ontrar! notwithstanding
and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an emplo!ment shall be deemed to be regular where the
emplo!ee has been engaged to perform a%tivities whi%h are usuall! ne%essar! or desirable in the usual business or
trade of the emplo!er, ex%ept where the emplo!ment has been fixed for a spe%ifi% pro?e%t or undertaing the
%ompletion or termination of whi%h has been determined at the time of the engagement of the emplo!ee or where the
wor or servi%e to be performed is seasonal in nature and the emplo!ment is for the duration of the season"
An emplo!ment shall be deemed to be %asual if it is not %overed b! the pre%eding paragraph/ Provided, #hat an!
emplo!ee who has rendered at least one !ear of servi%e, whether su%h servi%e is %ontinuous or broen, shall be
%onsidered a regular emplo!ee with respe%t to the a%tivit! in whi%h he is emplo!ed and his emplo!ment shall %ontinue
while su%h a%tivit! exists"
It is basi% to the point of being elementar! that nomen%latures assigned to a %ontra%t shall be disregarded if it
is apparent that the attendant %ir%umstan%es do not support their use or designation" #he same is true with
greater for%e %on%erning %ontra%ts of emplo!ment, imbued as the! are with publi% interest"
Although respondents were initiall! hired as part-time emplo!ees for one !ear, thereafter the over-all
%ir%umstan%es with respe%t to duties assigned to them, number of hours the! were permitted to wor
in%luding over-time, and the extension of emplo!ment be!ond two !ears %an onl! lead to one %on%lusion/ that
the! should be de%lared full-time emplo!ees" #hus, not without suffi%ient and substantial reasons, the %laim of
management prerogative b! petitioner ought to be stru% down for being %ontrar! to law and poli%!, fair pla!
and good faith"
8indings of fa%t of Duasi-?udi%ial agen%ies lie the :L)( whi%h have a%Duired expertise in the spe%ifi% matters
entrusted to their ?urisdi%tion are a%%orded b! this (ourt not onl! respe%t but even finalit! if the! are
supported b! substantial eviden%e