>.
>ma2
LABOR RELATIONS – Atty. Cesar Santamaria
Lesson plan for 30/1/2018 – 06/02/2018
ART. 294 – SECURITY OF TENURE
 “In cases of regular employment, the employer
shall not terminate the services of an employee
except for a JUST CAUSE or when
AUTHORIZED by this Title.
An employee who is unjustly dismissed from
work shall be entitled to reinstatement without
loss of seniority rights and other privileges and
to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances,
and to his other benefits or their monetary
equivalent computed from the time of his
compensation was withheld from him up to
the time of his actual reinstatement.”
ART. 295 – 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
XPN: 1Employment 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 2where the work or service to be
performed 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.
sapere aude!
Provided, that any employee who has rendered
at least one year of service, whether such
service is continuous or broken, shall be
considered as regular employee with respect to
the activity in which he is employed and his
employment shall continue such activity exists.
CASES
1. Philips Semiconductors v. Fadriquela
FACTS:
 Eloisa Fadriquela is employed as a production
operator for thirteen (13) months from August
1992 to April 1993 via contract renewal.
Incurred 12 absences from April to June which
is the cause of petitioner’s non-renewal of
contract.
 Fadriquela complained of illegal dismissal, and
violation of twin requirement of notice and
hearing wherein there was no formal
investigation. She also avers that she is a
regular employee.
 Philips contends that she is not a regular
employee but rather her contract was not
simply renewed. Anent such fact, due to the
low performance rating, no further
investigation is required since the grade is
material in the course of renewing the
contract.
LA and NLRC:
 LA upheld the CBA which required seventeen
(17) months of employment with the
condition that employee must have attained
the grade acceptable for employment. Due to
the service of employment of one year of
Fadriquela however, she is entitled to one
month compensation.
CA:
 CBA does not apply to contractual employees
and thus not binding upon Fadriquela.

 Fadriquela attained regular employment since
her job was necessary and desirable in the
business coupled with the fact that she is
already working beyond the reglementary
period required for casual employment to be
regular.
 Illogical and subversive to the mandate of the
Labor Code which protects the tenure of
employees.
RULING:
 SECURITY OF TENURE; INTENTION
Intention of Art. 280 is enacted to secure
tenurial right of employees in their profession
and prevent employers of making permanent
casuals by renewal or extension of contracts.
BRENT DOCTRINE – Brent v. Zamora
While the law allows for term employment
what is accepted is that the contingent is based
on the determined or determinable date on
which the term of employment will expire.
If the contract agreement it is apparent that
the period precludes acquisition of tenurial
security, it is against public policy and
therefore should be struck down.
 CRITERIA FOR VALID TERM
EMPLOYMENT – Romares v. NLRC
1. Fixed period is knowingly and voluntarily
agreed upon by both parties without force,
duress, that vitiates consent.
2. Employer and employee negotiated dealt
with each other on more or less equal footing
with no moral dominance imposed by the
former on the latter.
>.>ma2
sapere aude!
 ILLEGAL AND ILLOGICAL
RELIANCE ON THE CBA
The CBA transgresses the constitutional policy
of security of tenure by denying regularization
to employees wherein the minimum standard
of regularization is more than what the law
prescribes.
Businesses can circumvent such policy by
simply not renewing or extending the terms of
contract.
Also, the CBA is not binding upon contractual
employees since it explicitly does not recognize
such party within the agreement. Therefore, it
is only rational that they could not be affected
and prejudiced by such agreement.
 TWIN REQUIREMENTS OF
NOTIFICATION AND HEARING
The power to dismiss is a management
prerogative which has its limits based on the
law. There must be a formal hearing in order
to comply with the mandate of the law. Mere
dialogue will not prosper.
2. GMA v. Pabriga
FACTS:
 Pabriga and co-workers complained before the
NLRC the miserable working conditions they
are enduring.
 They are employed as cameramen,
maintenance staff, VTR men, technicians.
 The manager confronted the employees when
they received a notice of the complained
wherein they were summoned the next week
by the Area Manager to explain the complaint
filed before the NLRC.

 They were barred from entering the premises
the very next day.
 The mandatory conference was not fruitful
and the LA dismissed the complained but
granted them 13th month pay to which the
NLRC reversed.
ISSUE:
 WON Pabriga and company are regular
employees (YES)
RULING:
 EMPHASIS OF PROJECT v. FIXED v.
REGULAR EMPLOYMENT; NEED TO
SPECIFY WHAT
PROJECT/UNDERTAKING
Fixed term employment are different from that
project employment which may or may not be
necessary or desirable in the business
enterprise.
Project employment has two classification
which could either refer to a job that is within
the regular or usual business of the employer
but which is distinct and separate, and
identifiable which begins and ends at
determined or determinable times; or a job
that is NOT within the regular business of the
employer. It is also separate and distinct from
the business of the employer. In order to
guarantee the safety of the rights of tenurial
security against the arbitrary classification of
project, it must be proven that there be a
project in the first place. (PLDT v. Ylagan)
 CRITERION FOR FIXED TERM
EMPLOYMENT NOT MET;
CLASSIFICATION OF EMPLOYMENT
>.>ma2
sapere aude!
Even if they are to be classified however as
mere casual employees, they would have been
regularized due to their continuous rehiring.
Nevertheless, GMA also failed to meet the
standard set by the Court in Brent v. Zamora
regarding a valid fixed term employment.
3. Abasolo v. NLRC
FACTS:
 La Union Tobacco Redrying Corporation
(LUTORCO) engaged in the buying, selling,
redrying, and processing of tobacco leaves.
Tobacco season starts from October,
harvesting in February, redrying until
September.
 Abasolo and co. employed by LUTORCO for
several years until 1993 when TABACALERA
took over LUTORCO’s operations. Asked
farmers to file application form with TB.
 Aggrieved farmers filed complaint,
LUTORCO interposed the defense of good
faith and serious financial loss. LA dismissed
complaint. LUTORCO had new allegations in
the appeal before the NLRC that petitioners
refused to work for TABACALERA and that
they were notified of needed workers in the
Agoo plant where LUTORCO needs some
leaves to be redried. It also averred that
separation pay does not apply since they are
only seasonal workers.
ISSUE:
 WON Abasolo and co. are regular employees
(YES)
RULING:

 NATURE OF WORK NOT CONTRACT
DETERMINES EMPLOYMENT;
BADGE OF REGULARITY
It is the nature of the work and not of the
written contract that determines status of
employment. Performing services necessary
and indispensable to LUTORCO serve as
badges of regular employment. While it is
merely seasonal, the Court in a litany of cases
detracts from this view and upholds the
tenurial security of workers.
Different and wrong reliance on the case of
Mercado v. NLRC that employs worker on
projects which are distinct and identifiable
with each other and its beginning and end is
determined/determinable.
4. Fuji Television Network v. Arlene Espiritu
FACTS:
 Arlene Espiritu is engaged to Fuji TV Network
as a news correspondent producer to report
Philippine news. The initial employment was
up to one year which renewed yearly with
adjustments regarding to her wages and other
benefits.
 Espiritu is diagnosed with lung cancer to
which Fuji is informed of. The company thru
Yoshiki Aoki stated that it would not renew
the contract in light of her condition in spite
of the fact that Espiritu’s doctor declared her
fit to work.
 Petitioner and responded signed a non-renewal
contract to which she acknowledged the
receipt of the total amount of salary, year-end
bonus, mid-year bonus, and separation pay. It
was signed under protest.
 Espiritu filed for illegal dismissal with NLRC
which elaborated that Fuji withheld her salary
and benefits and was forced to sign the non-
>.>ma2
sapere aude!
renewal contract when they were informed of
her illness.
ISSUE:
 WON Espiritu is a regular employee and
illegally dismissed.
RULING:
 HAVING A FIXED TERM CONTRACT
DOES NOT PRECLUDE REGULARITY
IN EMPLOYMENT
It was determined that Espiritu is performing
activities that was necessary and indispensable
to the business of the employer. Further, they
also exercised control with regard to her
employment such as reporting time,
equipment furnished, etc. – compare with
Sonza v. ABS-CBN
As such, the Non-Renewal clause is indicative
of constructive dismissal since what is
prescribed in the Labor Code is only for just
and authorized causes wherein the disease in
this regard requires that it be incurable within
six (6) months and that it be certified by a
public health official.
5. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. v. Nazareno
FACTS:
 Nazareno and co. are employed by ABS as
production assistants. Required to work eight
hours a day including Sundays and holidays.
 Under the control and supervision of Asst.
Manager Luzon. ABS Union executed a CBA
excluding production assistants.
 Nazareno and co. belong to a “work pool” and
thus are regular employees. ABS meanwhile
avers that production assistants are “program
employees” that are issued information sheets

that would determine the programs that they
will assist.
ISSUE:
 WON Nazareno and co. are regular
employees. (YES)
RULING:
 TEST OF CONTROL SUPPORTS
REGULARITY OF EMPLOYMENT OF
NAZARENO AND CO.
It is shown that they were under the direct
control and supervision of the management
and can not be considered as talents. Their
mode of payment does not determine their
employment status coupled with the fact that
the project claimed by PLDT is not even filed
or distinguished during their employment.
6. Universal Robina Corp. v. Acibo
FACTS:
 Acibo and co. are employed by URSUMCO as
workers on different capacities. Initial
employment is a period of one (1) month or
for a given season which was renewed monthly
with the same duties they were given.
 Complainants filed for regularization but was
dismissed by the LA due to lack of merit.
Required to perform for a definite period,
phases of several URSUMCO’s project which
is not directly related to company’s business,
coupled with the fact that they are entitled to
benefits under the CBA which only covers
URSUMCO’s regular employees.
 NLRC granted regularity like CA but the latter
denied monetary benefits under CBA since the
agreement only covers employees regular
>.>ma2
sapere aude!
employees engaged with the company for the
entire year.
ISSUE:
 WON Acibo and co. are regular employees
and entitled to benefits under the CBA (YES)
RULING:
 REGULAR (SEASONAL) EMPLOYEE;
BADGES OF REGULAR
EMPLOYMENT IF REPEATEDLY
HIRED AFTER SEASON CESSATED
In order to prove that workers are indeed
seasonal employees that are excluded from
regulars, it must be shown that the work is: 1.
Seasonal in nature and; 2. Employed for the
duration of the season.
7. PureFoods Corporation v. NLRC
FACTS:
 Employees are hired by PureFoods
Corporation in General Santos City. After the
expiration of the fixed term of five (5) months,
the company’s employees executed a release
and quitclaim.
 LA rendered decision that employees are not
regulars and that they are mere contractual
workers. Res judicata also was a ground that
10,000 employees would be reemployed, thus
being prejudicial to the company.
 NLRC, dismissed the appeal but later reversed
the ruling of the LA on MR stating that the 5-
month employment is a clandestine scheme
that is transgressive of the constitutional policy
on labor regarding security of tenure.
ISSUE:
 WON respondents are regular employees

RULING:
 BRENT DOCTRINE NOT MET TO
JUSTIFY FIXED TERM CONTRACT;
SEASONAL NATURE OF WORK NOT
PROVEN
It was not the burden of the employer that the
nature of the work of the employees was
seasonal wherein it was not proven
definitively. The nature of the work does not
hinge on the demands of the nature of work
when it can be seen that such job continues to
be needed all year long. Furthermore, the
allegation that the workers are seasonal does
not adhere to the standard set Brent v. Zamora
when it clearly shows that the disparity
between the salary received by the employee
leaves him at the mercy and control of the
employer.
 IMPOSSIBILITY OF RE-HIRING DUE
TO SUDDEN INFLUX AND
CESSATION OF BUSINESS
OPERATIONS
Due to cessation of business operation and the
company itself however, re-employment is
impossible and they must be granted
separation pay.
8. Romares v. NLRC
FACTS:
 Romares is employed as a mason for
PILMICO for an overall duration of three (3)
years which comprises of five (5) months of
service being renewed at later dates.
 Petitioner claims that he is a regular employee
entitled to the rights and benefits accorded to
him by law. On the other hand, PILMICO
>.>ma2
sapere aude!
claims that his employment is that of a fixed
term employee.
 LA ruled that petitioner is a regular employee
since he fits the regularization of a casual
employee. The NLRC reversed the decision
stating that due to the fixed duration, certainly
he is a fixed term employee.
ISSUE:
 WON Romares is a regular employee.
(YES)
RULING:
 EVEN IN THE ABSENCE THAT
ROMARES IS NOT NECESSARY AND
DESIRABLE, HE FITS
REGULARIZATION BY DURATION IN
CASUAL EMPLOYMENT.
SC claims that it can be gleaned from the facts
that Romares’ work is necessary and desirable
in the business. Even if such argument is
tenable, it would not fly in the stringent
requirement of regularization of casual
employees that has rendered work for over a
year.
 BAD FAITH ON PART OF
EMPLOYER; REHIRING AND BRENT
DOCTRINE
9. San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC
FACTS:
 Francisco de Guzman is employed as a
bricklayer for San Miguel which manufactures
glass bottles for its liquors. He was
subsequently employed for a different kind of
employment which is for the maintenance of a
furnace required for the manufacturing of glass
bottles.
 After the lapse of more than three (3) years, de
Guzman filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

 LA dismissed petition for lack of merit while
NLRC reversed the ruling stating that the
methods of SMC is denounced in the policy of
the State in labor.
ISSUE:
 WON de Guzman is a fixed term
employee. (YES)
RULING:
 FIXED TERM EMPLOYEE DUE TO
NATURE OF WORK NOT FITTING IN
REGULAR EMPLOYMENT; PRE-
DETERMINED DURATION OF WORK
De Guzman is not necessary and desirable in
the nature of the business which concerns
itself with the manufacturing of glass bottles.
Further, the duration of the undertaking is
explicitly determined or determinable thus
rendering the ratio of de Guzman untenable.
10. Rowell Industrial Corp. v. NLRC
FACTS:
 Taripe is employed as a power press operator
in the company’s business which mainly
concerns itself with the production of
rectangular tin cans in which regular
employees are also employed.
 Respondent filed for regularization and
indemnity for his severed finger which was
affirmed by both the LA and NLRC.
ISSUES:
 WON Taripe is a regular employee (YES)
RULING:
 CONTRACT OF ADHESION
PRESUMPTION THAT
EMPLOYMENT DOES NOT ADHERE
TO BRENT
>.>ma2
sapere aude!
What is significant discussion in the instant
case is that the Supreme Court noted that the
characteristics of contract of adhesion does
not conform to the requirements of the Brent
ruling since the nature of the contract itself
does not permit equal negotiation of between
employer and employee and the only action
permissible to the latter is his acquiescence.
11. Bustamante v. NLRC
FACTS:
 Evergreen Farms is engaged in the business of
producing high grade bananas in Davao del
Norte with petitioners Bustamante and co. as
its employees for over six (6) months.
 Bustamante was dismissed on account of poor
performance due to old age.
 NLRC rendered decision that stated
employees were regular workers and entitled to
backwages. On the secondary resolution
however, NLRC deleted award of backwages
as it ratiocinated that the dismissal was not
attended by bad faith and that the dismissal
was due to the wrongful interpretation of the
law.
ISSUES:
 WON Bustamante, as a regular employee,
is entitled to backwages? (YES)
RULING:
 REHIRING EMPLOYEES WITHOUT
CONSIDERATION THAT THEY ARE
REGULAR EMPLOYEES
CONSTITUTES BAD FAITH SINCE
THEY ARE NOT ENJOYING RIGHTS
AND PRIVILIGES THEY ARE
ENTITLED TO
Having determined that the nature of their
work is necessary and desirable in their
business, the deletion of backwages was

improper and constitutes bad faith since the
continuous rehiring of the employees without
treating them as regular employees, subjecting
them to the whims and control of the
employer without the necessary rights and
benefits constitutes backwages to which they
are rightfully entitled thereto.
12. Labor Congress of the PH v. NLRC
FACTS:
 Petitioners are employees of Empire Foods
Inc. wherein Labor Congress is their
bargaining representative.
 Petitioners filed for money claims
 Empire Foods and LC reached an agreement
stating that: LCP is the sole bargaining
representative of the employees; adjustment of
wages of employees; deduction of union dues
to the payroll.
 The Union filed a complaint against the
company for unfair labor practices which
constitutes illegal lockout and dismissal, union
busting, violation of MOA, among other
things.
 LA ruled in favor of the company but ordered
reinstatement of those who were illegally
dismissed. The same was remanded to LA
upon appeal to NLRC.
 LA’s ruling which was later affirmed
concluded that employees are piece rate
workers who were not underpaid and that
were no unfair labor practices instituted by the
company.
ISSUES:
 WON employees are regular employees
and are entitled to benefits. (YES)
RULING:
 They are regular workers in the sense that their
work is necessary and desirable in the nature
>.>ma2
sapere aude!
of their business. As such they are entitled to
their backwages which is subject to
determination since they are piece-rate workers
wherein their pay is concomitant with their
production. Mode of compensation does not
generally determine nature of employment but
may be helpful in establishing control which is
indicative of regular employment.
13. Lambo v. NLRC
FACTS:
 Lambo and Belocura are employed by J.C.
Tailor Shop as tailors.
 They are paid on a piece-rate basis and are
given a daily pay of sixty-four (64) pesos.
 Lambo and co. sought regularization and filed
a complaint for illegal dismissal.
 LA found that petitioners were illegally
dismissed but the NLRC reversed the ruling
which stated that Bustamante and co. are
responsible since they threatened during a
negotiation that if they were not to be paid
they salaries in minimum wage, they would
walk out. The majority voted in favor of the
piece-rate basis which prompted petitioners to
abandon their work, NLRC claims.
ISSUES:
 WON petitioners are regular employees.
(YES)
RULING:
 CONTROL ESTABLISHES STATUS OF
EMPLOYMENT NOT MODE OF
COMPENSATION
As can be gleaned from the facts of the case,
the SC noted that was is the determining factor
is the right to control of the employer over the
employee. It can be seen that employees are
made to report on various days and time which
establishes the means of how the end will be
sought by the employee. Mode of

compensation is not the determining factor of
the status of employment although it may be
helpful in establishing control of employer
over employee.
 ABANDONMENT OF WORK AND
QUITCLAIM
Respondents cannot claim abandonment of
work and subsequent execution of quitclaim
will bar petitioners from invoking their rights
due unto them.
In order for abandonment to be justified, there
must be a deliberate and unjustified refusal on
the part of the employee to refuse. Mere
absence will not suffice.
Not all quitclaims are invalid or against public
policy, except however when it is clearly
FACTS:
wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible
person or such price is unconscionable on
their face.
14. ALU-TUCP v. NLRC
FACTS:
 Petitioners are employed as regular project
employees by the National Steel Corporation
due to the Five Year Expansion Program of
the company.
 Duration of the employment was pre-
determined at the provision “as long as the project
activity exists”
 LA rendered decision in favor of company and
classified them as project employees wherein it
was also affirmed by the NLRC but set aside
the awarding of benefits that is only accorded
to regular employees.
ISSUES:
ISSUES:
 WON petitioners are regular employees of
the NSC. (NO)
RULING:
>.>ma2
sapere aude!
 AS DURATION OF PROJECT IS
DETERMINABLE AND IS IN
CONSIDERATION OF A PROJECT
THAT IS DISTINCT FROM THE
BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The duration of the employment is not
determinative of the status of employment but
the nature therein. In the instant case, it was
stated that the activity which is specifically
distinct and separate from the business of the
company and that its employees were made
aware that the duration of the project is only
up to its completion. The only case that has to
be adjudged is whether or not employees are
legally dismissed.
15. Equipment Technical Services v. NLRC
 ETS is engaged in the business of plumbing
during pre-construction phases and its client is
Uniwide Corp. with an ongoing construction
project: Coastal Mall.
 Uniwide Corp failed to meet its obligation to
pay ETS thus the latter resorted to only paying
its employees their 13th month pay equivalent
to two weeks salary.
 Aggrieved, employees filed a complaint which
was followed by another due to refusal to
work in another construction project
(Richville).
 ETS claims that they are project employees,
which were hired on a per project basis,
employees refused to sign employment
contracts in order to formalize previous
agreement which led to denial of employment.
 LA ruled in favor of employees which was
overturned by the NLRC.
 WON aggrieved workers are regular
employees. (YES)

RULING:
 FAILURE TO REPORT
TERMINATION OR STATUS OF
PROJECT SERVES AS PRESUMPTION
OF REGULARITY ON PART OF
EMPLOYEE; REPEATED HIRING
Presumption of regularity will arise when there
is an absence of a written contract since the
law serves to ensure tenurial security in the
workers. Since presumption was not
overturned by ETS, regularity will apply to
aggrieved employees.
Furthermore, the absence of reports to the
proper government agency of the termination
of the project constitutes willful intent to
circumvent the policy and the law.
16. FVR Skills and Service v. NLRC
FACTS:
 FVR Skills and Services is engaged in the
business of providing janitorial and sanitary
services wherein it has in its employ the
twenty-eight (28) worker-respondents.
 FVR executed a service agreement with
Robinson’s Ermita wherein it shall extend
janitorial and sanitary services until Dec 31,
2008.
 FVR asked petitioners to execute individual
contracts which stipulated that their contract
will end on Dec 31, 2008 unless earlier
terminated.
 FVR and Robinson’s did not extend their
contract prompting the former to dismiss the
employees as they were dubbed as project
employees wherein their employment hinges
upon the service contract with Robinson’s.
 Workers filed complaint for illegal dismissal
stating that they must only be dismissed upon
finding of just and authorized causes.
>.>ma2
sapere aude!
 LA ruled in favor of FVR which classified the
workers as project employees. The NLRC
however, reversed their decision upon the
finding that some of them are working for
FVR for more than one (1) year already.
 CA ruled in favor of the workers stating that
FVR only executed the contract after their
initial hiring when it became obvious that the
contracts would not be renewed required the
workers to sign the contracts so as to prevent
regularization.
ISSUES:
 WON workers are regular employees.
(YES)
RULING:
 REASONABLE CONNECTION TEST
APPLIED IN ASCERTAINING
NECESSARY AND DESIRABLE TEST
Reasonable necessity is the test to be applied
in determining whether the nature of the
employment of the worker is necessary or
desirable in the business even if it be separate
or distinct from the primary industry the
company is engaged in.
Notwithstanding such application, employees
have already become by virtue of being
employed for over one (1) year by FVR
continuously in the same nature of work.
 VOIDABLE CONTRACTS;
CONTRACTS REGARDING PROJECT
EMPLOYMENT EXECUTED BEFORE
ENGAGING IN WORK
For project employment to prosper instead of
regular employment, what is determinative is
that the contract is executed before the time of
engagement since it indicates that the duration
has been determined by both contracting
parties. Such practice is denounced.

17. Dacuital v. L.M. Camus
FACTS:
 Respondents are engaged in the business of
construction and air-conditioning with
Dacuital and co. employed as its workers.
 Respondents ordered petitioners to surrender
their ATM card and execute contracts of
employment but the latter did not budge as
they see that it is only a scheme that would
divest them of their regular employment and
livelihood.
 Subsequently thereafter, they were dismissed
from employment.
 LA and NLRC classified petitioners as regular
employees but was overturned by the CA
which ruled that their dismissal was legal as
their employment status is that of a project
employment.
ISSUES:
 WON petitioners are regular employees.
(YES)
RULING:
 ABSENCE OF WRITTEN CONTRACT;
PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN
EMPLOYMENT
Even though the absence of a written contract
does not by itself grant regular status to
petitioners, such a contract is evidence that
petitioners were informed of the duration and
scope of their work and their status as project
employees. In this case, where no other
evidence was offered, the absence of the
employment contracts raises a serious question
of whether the employees were properly
informed at the onset of their employment of
their status as project employees.
While it is true that respondents presented the
employment contract of Dacuital, the contract
does not show that he was informed of the
>.>ma2
sapere aude!
nature, as well as the duration of his
employment. In fact, the duration of the
project for which he was allegedly hired was
not specified in the contract.
18. Filipinas Prefabricated v. Puente
FACTS:
 Filsystems is engaged in the construction
business with Puente as its worker as a mobile
crane operator for over ten (10) years.
 Puente was dismissed by Filsystems on the
ground that he is merely a project employee.
 LA ruled in favor of Filsystems which is
likewise affirmed by the NLRC, finding that
Puente is only a project employee. They were
however overturned by the CA ruling which
favored Puente.
ISSUES:
 WON Puente is a regular employee. (NO)
 WON Peunte is legally dismissed. (NO)
RULING:
 LENGTH OF TIME NOT
DETERMINATIVE IN
CONSTRUCTION; CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS ACCORDED SPECIAL
CLASSIFICATION AND
REQUIREMENTS BY LAW; DOLE D.O.
No. 19, Series of 1993
Filsystems has competently shown that it has
employed Puente for over ten (10) years by the
execution of several contracts which in essence
spells out the duration of the contract whether
for a day certain or on a determinable time.
By the regular submission of the project to the
proper public employment office and other
evidence that purports to Puente’s project
employment, it is evident that the company is
compliant with the DO.
 >.>ma2
sapere aude!

 DISMISSAL DOESN’T SUPPORT RULING:

JUSTIFIABLE GROUNDS IN WHICH
 CONTINUOUS REHIRING OF
CASE PUENTE IS ENTITLED TO
CONSTRUCTION WORKERS
MONETARY CLAIMS
CONNOTES NECESSITY AND
Even though respondent is classified now as a
DESIRABILITY IN THE BUSINESS;
project employee, he still enjoys security of
While the project itself is distinct and separate
tenure wherein he may only be dismissed by
and that the duration itself has been pre-
virtue of just and authorized causes.
determined before the work has been engaged,
the time labored upon and the continuous
19. Tomas Lao v. NLRC*
rehiring are strong indications that the worker
-compare with Filsystems v. Puente
itself was necessary and desirable in the
FACTS: business operations.

 Respondent-employees work for the Lao Failure to present report that will comply with
Group of Companies which comprises of D.O. Policy Instruction No. 20 is indicative
Tomas Lao Corp (TLC), Thomas & James that the workers are indeed regular employees.
Developers (TJD), and LVM Construction (needs elucidation)
(LVM) which is engaged in the construction of
public works such as bridges and highways.
 The members within the conglomerate 20. ABESCO v. Ramirez
executed joint-venture agreements that would
enable them to lease services or utilities to FACTS:
each other. This enabled them to freely
 ABESCO is engaged in the business of
transfer and order their respective workers to
construction wherein it employed Ramirez and
another group’s project.
co. as its employees as laborers, painters,
 Due to a joint venture agreement between drivers, etc.
LVM and TJD, employees were ordered to
 Respondents filed complaint for illegal
execute contracts that are issued on July 1989
dismissal while ABESCO avers that they are
but antedated on January 1989.
project employees wherein they belong to a
 Such contract states that the employees are workpool and their employment coterminous
mere project employees and their employment to the project to which they were assigned.
would terminate upon the expiration of the
 LA and NLRC ruled in favor of workers. CA
contract period. To ensure compliance, the
ruled also in the affirmative claiming that the
director ordered the withholding of salaries.
duration of which the workers are employed is
 LA ruled that employees are project employees indicative of the regular employment of the
but were however overturned by the NLRC employees.
stating that the aggrieved employees who did
not sign the contract were regular employees ISSUES:
that are illegally dismissed.
 WON Ramirez and co. are regular
ISSUES: employees. (YES)
 WON respondents are regular employees.
(YES)
 >.>ma2
sapere aude!

RULING:

 LENGTH OF TIME NOT

CONTROLLING BUT THE
DETERMINATION OF THE SCOPE
OF WORK + DURATION IN PROJECT
EMPLOYMENT – REITERATION
The SC ruled that respondents are regular
employees based on the fact that the
agreements between the two parties contain no
material fact that would definitively state that
the contract is one of project employment
which requires the nature and scope of work
and the duration. Due to the absence of the
elementary requirement, the employment
presumptively is regular.

SC took the time to admonish the CA when it

stated that time is a strong factor in
determining the necessity and desirability of
the worker in the work pool or business.

21. Pasos v. PNCC

FACTS:


22. Raycor Aircontrol Systems v. San Pedro
23. Macarthur Malicdem v. Marulas Industrial
24. Caramol v. NLRC
25. Price v. Innodata Phils
26. Olongapo Maintenance v. Chantengco
27. PNOC-EDC v. NLRC
28. Fegurin v. NLRC
29. PNOC-EDC v. NLRC
30. Maraguinot, Jr. v. NLRC
31. D.M. Consunji Construction v. Bello
32. Millenium Erectors Corp. v. Magallanes
33. Caseres v. URSUMCO
34. Hanjin Construction v. Ibañez