Baguio Country Club vs NLRC

Facts:

Petitioner Baguio Country Club Corporation (corporation) is a recreational

establishment certified by the ministry of labor and employment as an
entertainment-service establishment.

Private respondent Jimmy Calamba was employed by corporation on a day to

day basis in various capacities as laborer and diswasher for a period of ten
months. Calamba was hired again as a gardener and rehired as such when he
was dismissed by the petitioner corporation.

Calamba filed a complaint against petitioner corporation with the ministry of

labor (DOLE) for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal and non-payment of
13th month pay. The executive labor arbiter ruled in favor of Calamba,
declaring the latter as a regular employee and ordering petitioner corporation
to reinstate Calamba to the position of gardener without loss of seniority and
with full backwages, benefits and privileges from the time of his dismissal up to
the reinstatement including 13th month pay.

Petitioner corporation filed an appeal to the NLRC contending that Calamba

was a contractual employee whose employment was for a fixed and specific
period as set forth and evidenced by Calambas contracts of employment.
However, the NLRC dismissed the appeal for lack of merit. The latter argued
that Calamba having rendered services as laborer, gardener,and dishwasher for
more than one year, was a regular employee at the time his employment was
terminated.

Hence, this petition.

Issue: whether or not Calamba is a regular employee at the time his

employment was terminated.

Ruling: YES

The court held that 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. Also, if the
employee has been performing the job for at least one year, even if the
performance is not continuous or merely intermittent, the law deems the
repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the
necessity if not indespensability of that activity to the business. Hence, the
employment is also considered regular, but ony with respect to such activity
and while such activity exists.

In the case at bar, the records reveal that Calamba was repeatedly re-hired to
perform tasks ranging from dishwasing and gardening, aside from performing
maintenace work. Such repeated rehiring and the continuing need for his
service are sufficient evidence of the necessity and indespensability of his
service to the petitioners business or trade.

Owing to Calambas length of service with the petitioners corporation, he

bacame a regular employee, by operation of law, one year after he was
employed.

The employment contracts entered into by Calamba with the petitioner have
the purpose of circumventing the employees security of tenure. The court
therefore, rigorously disapproves said contracts which demonstrate a clear
attempt to exploit the employee and deprive him of the protection sanctioned
by the labor code.

It is noteworthy that what determines whether a cetain employment is regular

or casual is not the will and word of the employer, it is the nature of the
activities performed in relation to the particular business or trade considering
all circumstances, and in some cases the length of time of its performance and
its continued existence.