SECURITY OF TENURE

FACTS:

WHO:

MACARTHUR MALICDEM and HERMENIGILDO FLORES, petitioners; extruder operators

MARULAS INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION and MIKE MANCILLA, respondents; manufacturer

of sacks

WHAT:

 Malicdem and Flores filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, separation pay,
money claims, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees against
Marulas and Mancilla
 Malicdem and Flores were responsible bagging the filament yarn, its quality and
cleanliness of the area.
 Malicdem and Flores signs a contract valid for one (1) year and they would sign
a resignation/quit claim every year thereafter one day after the end of their
contract then sign another contract for one (1) year.
 On December 16, 2010, Flores was asked to no longer report to work after
signing a paper from their HR stating that his contract has already come to an
end.
 On February 1, 2011, Malicdem experienced the same scenario.
 They were both claiming that they were illegally dismissed.
 Marulas was claiming that they were fixed-term employees for a certain period
of time and they were dismissed due to the expiration of their contracts.
 On July 13, 2011, the Labor Arbiter ruled that there was no illegal dismissal that
happened; were not terminated and due to the expiration of the contract, the
employment naturally ceased.

ISSUE: Whether or not Malicdem and Flores were regular employees and were illegally

dismissed

DECISION:

 Marulas was ordered by the Labor Arbiter to pay Malicdem and Flores their
respective wage differentials. All other claims were dismissed due to lack of
merit.
 Malicdem and Flores appealed to NLRC to be awarded 13th month pay, SIL and
holiday pay for three years. It was granted in part.
 Malicdem and Flores filed another petition under Rule 65 and was denied by CA
stating that there was no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction by NLRC.
 The CA explained that even though they were repeatedly and successively
rehired as project employees, they could not be deemed as regular employees
and the length of their service should not be the determinant of their
employment; the employment was fixed for a specific project with a specific
completion time.
 Since there was no dismissal as per CA, the backwages, 13th month pay,
damages and attorney’s fees have no basis and should not be awarded
 Malicdem and Flores filed for a motion of reconsideration but was denied by CA.
 Malicdem and Flores filed a petition for the reversal of the decision of the CA
and NLRC for no illegal dismissal; that they should be considered regular
employees and should not be terminated without just cause.
 The court ruled that Malicdem and Flores should be considered regular
employees and are entitled to full wages and other entitlements
 Marulas was ordered to reinstate Malicdem and Flores to their former positions
without loss of seniority and other privileges.