Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 14

Employee Classification

1. Coverage
Art 284. Coverage. The provisions of the Title shall apply to all establishments or undertakings, whether for
profit or not.

2. Employee Classification
Art 286. 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 service 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 broke,
shall be considered as regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his
employment shall continue while such activity exists.

Art 287. Probationary Employment. Probationary employment


shall not exceed six months from the date the employee started working,
unless it is covered by an apprenticeship agreement stipulating a longer period.
The services of an employee who has been engaged on a probationary basis
may be terminated for a just cause or
when he fails to qualify as a regular employee
in accordance with reasonable standards
made known by the employer to the employee
at the time of his engagement.
An employee who is allowed to work after a probationary period shall be considered a regular employee.

a. Employer Recognition

Artemio Romares v NLRC, Pilimico Foods Corporation (1998, Martinez, Appeal)

- Romares hired by Pilimico


- In Maintenance/Projs/Engrg Dep’t
o 89 Sep 1 to 90 31 Jan – 89/day
o 91 Jan 16 to 91 Jun 15 – 103/day
o 92 Aug 16 to 15 Jan 93 – 103/day
- Romares: Rendered more than one year; necessary and desirable (painting, maintenance, repair, other jobs; no
legal cause to terminate; therefore regular
- Pilimico: former contractual ee || contract; hired as a mason for specific proj; services not continuous
- Executive LA:
o Romares regular ee;
 broken tenure but ~15 mos/more than one year;
 also exceed 6 mos required in probationary pd;
 two kinds of regular ees: 1. Usually necessary, desirable in the usual business, 2. At least one yr
of service, continuous or broken;
 regular status attaches immediately after end of first year of service || intent and spirit of law,
rather than actual regularization entailing mechanical act of issuing appointment papers || SOP;
o no twin-notice rule compliance
o reinstate, back wages, …
- NLRC: Reversed
o Employment contract: fixed/temporary pd || 280, LC
o Dismissal due to expiration of contract
- SC:
o 280 (1) construction
 Two kinds of regular ees:
1. Those engaged to perform activities necessary or desirable in usual business or
trade of er
2. Casual ees who have rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or
broken, with respect to the activity in which they are employed
 Usually necessary or desirable… must be emphasized
 Intent of law: safeguard the tenurial interest of the wrker who may be denied the rights
and benefits due a regular ee by virtue of lopsided agreements with the economically
powerful er who can maneuver to keep an ee on a casual status for as long as
convenient
 Here, work as mason necessary and desirable
 Not foreign or irrelevant to production of flour, yeast, feeds
o In each rehiring, performed same kind of maintenance work
o Evidence of continuing need for services which are necessary and indispensable
to Pilmico’s business, trade
o Fact of employment in another company in interregnum irrelevant
 NLRC wrong in applying 280 (1) which allows fixed or temporary pd
 Romares’ contract not for a fixed or specified pd
 || Brent v Zamora: decisive determinant in term employment not activities that the ee
is called upon to perform but the day certain agreed upon by the parties for the
commencement and termination of their employment relationship, but where
circumstances: apparent that pds imposed to preclude acquisition of tenurial security by
ee, should be struck down
o Criteria under which term employmet cannot be said to be in circumvention of
law
1. Fixed pd of employment knowingly and voluntariy agreed upon by parties,
without force, duress, improper pressure being brought to bear upon the ee
and absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent
2. Satisfactorily appears that er and ee dealt with each other on more or less
equal terms with no moral dominance exercised by the er on ee
 Contract here was to prevent regularization, circumventing right to security of tenure
and other benefits. Pilmico in bad faith
o Period in contract must be struck down for being contrary to public policy,
morals
o Else, permanent avoidance of hiring regular
o Even if Romares temporary, was regularized || 280 (2)
 || Baguio Country Club v NLRC: if ee performing job for at least one year even intermittently,
the repeated and continuing need for performance sufficient evidence of necessity, if not
indispensability, of that activity to the business. Employment regular with respect to such
activity while activity exists
o REVERSED. LA reinstated

b. Employer Determination/Designation

Phil Federation of Credit Cooperatives, Inc, Fr Benedicto Jayoma v NLRC, Victoria Abril (Romero, 1998)

- Abril employed by Federation


o as Junior Auditor/Field Examiner
o Worked as office sec,
o and cashier-designate, 4 mos
o resumed work as office sec
o delivered baby girl
- Vangie Santos already on position after return
- Abril accepted Regional Field Officer post
o Contract: probationary for 6 mos
- After 6 mos, still worked
- Fed presented another employment contract for one year after which she was terminated
- LA: Abril: ill dism v Fed
o Dismissed, but reimburse 2,500 deduction
- NLRC: reversed. Reinstate Abril; if not possible, backwages

- SC:
o Fed: Abril abandoned sec position for 8 mos and applied for Regional Field Officer post and such
appointment fixed for specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which already
determined; casual/contractual employment || 280 only
o Abril regular ee; illegally dismissed
 281 allows termination of probationary ee for just cause or upon failure to qualify || standards
set forth by er at time of engagement
 Probationary employment made to afford er an opp to observe the fitness of a
probatione(r?) while at work, and to ascertain whether he will become proper and
efficient ee
 Probationary ees also entitled to security of tenure; can only be terminated || above
 Regardless of designation by Fed upon Abril’s employment status, it is uncontroverted that
Abril, having completed the probationary pd and allowed to work thereafter, became regular
who may be dismissed only for just or auth causes
 Therefore, illegally dismissed
o Abril not casual
 280 comprehends three kinds of ees
1. Regular ees, work necessary, desirable to usual business
2. Proj ees, seasonal ees
3. Casual ees who are neither regular, proj, seasonal
 || Brent v Zamora: contractual employment when valid (see criteria page before this)
 Contract here: fixed pd but contradicted by probationary status stipulation
 || Villanueva v NLRC: where contract of employment, being a contract of adhesion, is
ambiguous, any ambiguity therein should be construed strictly against the party who
prepared it.
o || 1702: in case of doubt, contracts construed in favor of labor
 To interpret as er does = violation of right to security of tenure
o AFFIRMED

A. Regular Employees
Art 286. 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 service 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 broke,
shall be considered as regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his
employment shall continue while such activity exists.

Art 287. … An employee who is allowed to work after a probationary period shall be considered a regular
employee.

Art 75 (d) Learnership agreement shall include a commitment to employ the learners if they so desire, as regular
ees upon completion of the learnership. All learners who have been allowed or suffered to work during the first
two months shall be deemed regular ees if training is terminated by the er before the end of the stipulated pd
through no fault of the learners.

Bk VI. Rule I. Sec 5 (a) The provisions of written agreements to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of
the oral agreements of the parties, employment shall be deemed regular for purposes of Bk VI of the LC where
the
Ee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade
of the er,
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 ee or where the job, work or
service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season
(b) Casual employment. There is casual employment where an ee is engaged to perform a job, work or
service which is merely incidental to the business of the er, and such job, work or service is for a definite pd
made known to the ee at the time of engagement: Provided, that any ee who has rendered at least one year of
service, whether such service is continuous or not, shall be considered a regular ee with respect to the activity in
which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such activity exists
Sec 6. There is probationary employment where the ee,
upon his engagement,
is made to undergo a trial period
during which the er determines his fitness to qualify for regular employment
based on reasonable standards made known to him at the time of engagement.
Probationary employment shall be governed by the ff rules:
(a) Where the work for which the ee has been engaged is learnable or apprenticeable in accordance with the
standards prescribed by the Dep’t. The period of probationary employment shall be limited to the
authorized learnership or apprenticeship period, whichever is applicable
(b) Where the work is neither learnable nor apprenticeable, the pd of probationary employment shall not
exceed six mos reckoned from the date the ee actually started working
(c) The services of any ee who has been engaged on probationary basis may be terminated only for a just cause
or authorized cause, when he fails to qualify as a regular ee in accordance with reasonable standards
prescribed by the er
(d) In all cases of probationary employment, the employer shall make known to the ee the standards under
which he will qualify as a regular ee at the time of his engagement. Where no standards are made known to
the ee at that time, he shall be deemed a regular ee.

1. Nature of work: primary standard to determine regular employment

Forever Richsons Trading Corp v Elsie Molina, et al (2013,

See also: Dante de la Cruz v Maersk Filipinas Crewing, Inc, Elite Shipping AS (2008, Corona)

- Maersk agent of
- Elite Shipping
- Employed de la Cruz as third engr
o 1999 Apr
o For nine mos
- 18 Jun: Chief Engr Nielsen dissatisfied with performance and de la Cruz to be sged off if no improvement
o || CBA, Art 1(7): first 60 days of service considered probationary pd which entitles shipowner or rep to
terminate contract by giving 14 days of written notice
- 26 Jun: similar notice
- 27 Jun: notice of discharge accdg to CBA; not qualified for position (2 entries in log book)
- De la Cruz disembarked in Texas, repatriated to Mla 17 Jul
- LA: de la Cruz: ill dismissal + money equivalent
o De la Cruz illegally dismissed
o Log book entry vague; did not expound on infractions, shortcomings
 De la Cruz unable to explain
- NLRC: affirmed. But no damages
- CA: log book entries sufficient compliance with first notice requirement; probationary ee may be dismissed
anytime during probationary pd for failure to live up to expectations
- SC:
o Motion for extension on time, but petition itself not. But OK, nvm + Rule 45 issue, nvm
o De la Cruz illegally dismissed
 No twin-notice rule compliance (notice of charge, notice of dismissal)
 Logbook entries not substantially compliant with first notice
o Did not state act or omission for which de la Cruz charged
o Too general
o Raise questions: how exactly was he unable to live up to expectations? How can
he meet expectations if charge vague
 Notice of dismissal also lacked necessary details
o No grounds for discharge; merely echoed earlier notice
 Such ambiguities attributable to er must be resolved against er
 No showing de la Cruz given opportunity to present side
 No showing of just cause
 Entries vague
o De la Cruz not probationary ee nor regular; instead a contractual ee
 || POEA SEC, RA 8042: employment of seaferes is for a fixed pd only
 For mutual int of both seafarer and er
 Seafarer cannot stay for long and indef pd of time at sea
o Limited access to shore adversely affects them
 Diversity in ship necessitates limitation of pd
 || Millares v NLRC: ‘permanent and probationary masters and ees’ vis-à-vis contracts of
seafarers
 Reference to ‘permanent and probationary masters and ees’ misnomer; does not
change fact that contract was for a definite pd of time
 Cannot violate POEA directive that contract not to exceed 12 mos
o GRANTED. Reversed. NLRC reinstated.

2. Art 280: when applicable

ATOK Big Wedge Co v Jesus Gison (2011, Peralta)

- Gison part-time consultant of Atok


o Retainer basis – 3,ooo/mo
 1992, was approached by resident mgr Torres to help with problem; participation temporary; no
er-ee rel
 Was eventually permanently assigned to take charge of Baguio liaison
o Assisted Atok’s legal counsel re: prosecution of cases v illegal surface occupants on mineral claims
o Performed liaison work with gov’t
o Not required to report to office regularly; reports only when requested
o Retainer agreement misplaced. Lost
o For 11 years
- Gison requested SSS registration, already 56 y/o
- Atok denied request and ignored subsequent ones bc Gison only retainer/consultant
- SSS: Gison v Atok: complaint for refusal to cause reg
o || Gison received memo from Cera, resident mgr, 30 days from receipt, terminated; no longer necessary
- LA: Gison: ill dism, ULP, underpayment, 13th mo, VL, SL
o No er-ee rel
- NLRC: affirmed
- CA: || 65; annulled, set aside, remanded for backwages. Reinstated Gison
o LA and NLRC overlooked 280: 2 kinds of ees
 Gison regularized bc lapse of one year from employment
 Note: 11 yrs
o Although there was an agreement that arrangement temporary, Atok disregarded same by repeatedly
assigning Gison tasks
o Gison may appear to have waived right to regular ee status, but law recognizes him as regular ee; waiver
ineffective
- SC:
o Atok:
 280 should not apply where existence of er-ee relationship in dispute; 280 only talks about
distinction bet casual ee and regular ee for purposes of determing rights of ee to be entitled to
benefits
 Gison not regular ee
o Procedural OK
o No er-ee rel
 Four-fold test
 Fees paid at residence or local restaurant
 Control test most important
 Here, no element of control
 Not required to work every day during regular office hours;
 No prescribed manner in which Gison was to accomplish tasks as liaison
 Gison admitted that he was hired in a limited capacitiy—no er-ee rel
 Was hired merely as a consultant and temporarily
o Therefore, not regular ee
 That regular ees are those who perform activities which are desirable, necessary not
determinative premise
 Any agreement may provide that one to render services no matter how necessary even without
being hired as ee
 Therefore, length of service and repeated acts of assigning respondent tasks do not
result to entitlement of rights and privileges of ee
 280 not a yardstick for determining existence of er-ee rel bc merely distinguishes bet 2 kinds of
ees—regular and casual, for purposes of determining rights
 Does not apply where existence of er-ee rel in dispute
 Cannot be relied upon || CA; therefore, CA in error
o GRANTED. Reversed. Set aside. NLRC reinstated

3. Extended period

Tomas Lao Construction, LVM Construction Corp, Thomas and James Developers, Inc v NLRC, Mario Labendia, Sr,
Roberto Labendia, Narciso Adan, Florencio Gomez, Ernesto Bagatsolon, Slavador BAbon, Paterno Bisnar, Cipriano
Bernales, Angel Mabula, Leo Surigao, Roque Morillo (1997, Bellosillo)

- Labendia, et al:
o Hired as construction workers (foremen, tiremen, leadman, clerk, paymaster, driver, surveyor,
watchman, road grade operator, etc)
o Diff periods (years) and wage rates
o Alternately worked for Tomas Lao, Thomas and James, LVM = Lao Group of Companies
- LGC
o Controlled by Laos
o Construction of public roads, bridges
o Whenever necessary, would lease tools and eq to each other, + ees
o Rehired workers after completion of project
- Thomas Lao stopped ops
- Ees asked to sign employment contracts and clearances 1989, issued Jul, antedated Jan
o Contract: project ees for a definite pd: expiration of contract pd or completion of project
o All except Gomez refused to sign bc downgrade: regular ee to proj ee
 Salaries withheld, asked to explain why not be terminated
- LA: dismissed complaint
o Respondents proj ees; can be terminated accordingly
o Separation pay OK
- NLRC: reversed
o Respondents regular ees dismissed without just cause, due process
o Terms of employment uniform at five years; term never refuted
o Pierced corporate veil bc 3 corps operated as one entity
- SC:
o Conglomerate:
 Proj ees; contract merely formalized status as proj ees || Sandoval Shipyards v NLRC:
employment of proj ees co-terminous with completion of proj, regardless of number of proj in
which they worked; not entitled to sep pay nor clearance for termination; Labendias also
absented selves without reason
 Assuming regular, terminated for cause
 Assuming ill dism, backwages in excess of three yrs
 Assuming NLRC correct, corporate veil shouldn’t have been pierced
o Respondents regular ees
 Project ee v regular ee test: whether the proj ees are assigned to carry out specific proj or
undertaking, durating and scope of which are specified at the time the ees are engaged for the
proj
 “proj” refers to a particular job or undertaking within regular or usual business of er, but
which is distinct and separate and identifiable as such from undertaking of company
o Begins and ends at determined or determinable times
 BUT where employment of proj ees extended long after supposed proj finished, ees are
removed from scope of proj ees and considered regular ees
 Here, respondents initially proj ees
 BUT repeated re-hiring and continuing need for services over long span of time (7 yrs
shortest) made them REGULAR
 Length of time not controlling test for proj employment but it can be a strong factor to
determine whether ee hired for specific undertaking or tasked to perform functions
vital, necessary, indispensable to usual business or trade
 Here: respondents had gone through proj ee status; employment already became non-
coterminous with projects; started to be continuously rehired due to business demands
o As admitted by conglomerate: overlapping projects, one work pool
 Work pool set-up where worker free to work elsewhere provided
available when called usu applicable to regular-seasonal, but can also be
applied to proj ees
 Prevents coddling of labor at expense of capital
o That respondents not regularly maintained on payroll and free to offer services to others unavailing. Pd
during which company forced to suspend/cease ops should not mean starvation for ees and their
families || Industrial Commercial Agri Wkers v CIR
 Cessation of construction activities at end of proj foreseeable
 Employment relation not severed by merely being suspended; ees not separated from services,
merely on leave of absence without pay until reemployed
o If indeed proj ees, should have submitted report of termination to employment office every time work
terminated
 Failure = admission that ees not proj ees
 Note: DO 19 superseded Policy Instruction 20: report of termination indicatrs of project
employment
o Employment contracts farcical, scheme to prevent regularization, circumventing laws
o Rehiring more economical and beneficial to er, yes, hence the law deems it fair that ees be regularized
o Respondents illegally dismissed; no abandonment on part of Labendias
 Burden of proving dismissal lawful on er
 Here, assertions self-serving and insufficient
 No just cause
 No due process
o Proj ees entitled to security of tenure || Archbuild Masters and Constr v NLRC: to allow ers to exercise
prerogative to terminate proj worker’s employment based on gratuitous assertions of proj completion
would destroy constitutionally protected right of labor to security of tenure
o Full back wages || 279, LC, Bustamante v NLRC
o Piercing of veil correct
o AFFIRMED

4. Repeated renewal of contract

Beta Electric Corp v NLRC, LA Iniego, Beta Electric Ees Association, Luzviminda Petilla (1990, Sarmiento)

- Petilla
o Typist-clerk of Beta Electric 86 Dec to 87 Jan (laid off)
o Hinged from contract to contract
o Extended up to Feb, up to Mar, up to Apr, up to May, up to Jun, laid off without notice
- LA: Petilla: ill dism v Beta; reinstate Petilla
- NLRC: affirmed
- SC:
o Beta: Petilla hired on ‘temporary basis’ for purposes of meeting seasonal or peak demands of business;
can be accordingly dismissed
o Petilla regularized
 Was at least a probationary ee
 Became regular after being allowed to work after 6 mo expiry || 281, LC
 Fact that employment contract to contract basis does not alter character of employment
 Contracts cannot override mandate of law
 Therefore, by op of law, Petilla regular
 “temporary” in LC: employment fixed for specific undertaking the completion or termination of
which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the ee or where the work or
services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the
season
 Here, Petilla’s work: usu necessary or desirable, provisions of agreement to contrary
notwithstanding || 280, LC
 Bilbos v Victorias not applicable (validity of contractual stipulations as to duration of
employment) bc here, contract-to-contract mere artifice to prevent acquisition of
security of tenure
o Backlogs not specific (special type of venture or proj whose duration is
coterminous with completion of proj/project work, but usually necessary or
desirable
o DISMISSED. Reinstate + backwages

B. Project Employees
Art 286. 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 service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment Is for the duration of the
season.

Policy Instructions No 20

DO 19, s 1993
1. Definition

Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Co, LTD, Hak Kon Kim and/or Jhunie Adajar v Felicito Ibanez, Aligwas Carolino,
Elmer Gacula, Enrique Dagotdot, Ruel Calda (2008, Chico-Nazario, Certiorari)

It is important that the scope and duration of work is specified at the time they are hired and that they are properly
treated as project employees. Failure to comply with these standards means that the respondents cannot be treated as
project employees.

The respondents were hired as welders, crane operator, and warehouseman for more than 10 years. However they were
dismissed from work even if their projects were still ongoing. The defense of the petitioner was that they were project
employees, and were validly terminated.

Regular ees. Project employees whose aggregate period of continuous employment in a construction company is at least
one year shall be considered regular employees, in the absence of a "day certain" agreed upon by the parties for the
termination of their relationship. Project employees who have become regular shall be entitled to separation pay.

2. Test of Project Employment

Juvy Caasi v Kanlungan Centre Foundation, Inc – Center for Migrant Workers (2013)

- Court resolution, 2013: reversed and set aside NLRC (that Caasi ill dism)
- Caasi: social work intern of UP
o Case manager in direct support services program of Kanlungan
 Migration-related cases
o Social work intern of community extension services program
o Before 2002 social work board exam, 2 mo research proj with Kanlungan under project contract
o Became probationary case manager/community organizer of community extension services program
 Assessed at the end of three mos
 Worked until end of probationary status (6 mos later)
- Chiday also on probation, 5th month
- Caasi and Chiday told of possibility that one will be terminated bc only one staff needed
- Caasi was offered LED case manager position
o Accepted on condition that no probation, bc finished probation under CESP, similar tasks
- Caasi received regular ee beenfits
- 2006, work contract ended; Caasi asked for renewal; Baga: in absence of new contract, service record ||
previous contract continues
- Interim phase
- Eventually learned will be working only until June 2007, not Aug 2007, end of interim phase
- Asked for SSS maternity + computation of separation and gratuity
- Kanlungan: no separation pay, only gratuity bc contract finished
- LA: Caasi: ill dism
o Kanlungan: Caasi proj employee: 2003-2006, 2007 bc extended contract
o Caasi illegally dismissed; Caasi regular ee
- NLRC: dismissed; only project or fixed-term ee
- SC:
o Caasi a project employee
 Employment contracts: engagement as CO for a fixed term from May 2003 to June 2007
 Salary and benefits received during pd ~ regular ees irrelevant
 Litmus test to determine whether individual proj ee lies in setting a fixed pd of employment
involving a specific undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at
the time of the particular ee’s engagement
 Decisive factor in term employment: day certain agreed upon by parties for the
commencement and termination of their employment relationship
o Day certain: that which must necessarily come, although not known when
o Ee deemed to understand that employment coterminous with the project and
that he may not expect to be employed continuously beyond the completion of
the project
 280 does not proscribe fixed pd employment. Does not follow that where duties
necessary or desirable in usual business, parties forbidden from agreeing on a pd of time
for the performance of activities. Nothing contradictory bet def pd of employment and
nature of ee’s duties. Ers not deprived the right to choose own workers fi they have
sufficient basis to refuse ee regularization || Rowell v CA
 || Brent v Zamora standards complied with here
o Fixed period agrred upon knowingly and voluntarily
o Dealt with each other on equal terms, no moral dominance
 Caasi cum laude

Villa v NLRC

- Two kinds of proj employment


1. For a particular job or undertaking within the regular or usual business of er company but which is distince
and separate and identifiable as such from other undertakings of the company
2. For a particular job or undertaking not within the regular business of the corporation. Such job or
undertaking must also be identifiably separate and distinct from ordinary or regular business ops of er

Indicators of Project Employment

(a) The duration of the specific/identified undertaking for which the worker is engaged is reasonably determinable.

(b) Such duration, as well as the specific work/service to be performed, is defined in an employment agreement and is
made clear to the employee at the time of hiring.

(c) The work/service performed by the employee is in connection with the particular project/undertaking for which he is
engaged.

(d) The employee, while not employed and awaiting engagement, is free to offer his services to any other employer.

(e) The termination of his employment in the particular project/undertaking is reported to the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) Regional Office having jurisdiction over the workplace within 30 days following the date of his
separation from work, using the prescribed form on employees' terminations/dismissals/suspensions.

(f) An undertaking in the employment contract by the employer to pay completion bonus to the project employee as
practiced by most construction companies.

3. Application of Rule on Reportorial Requirements

Roy D Pasos v Ph Nat’l Construction Corp (2013, Villarama, certiorari)


4. Application of Rule in Construction Industries

Macarthur Malicdem, Hermenigildo Flores v Marulas Industrial Corporation, Mike Mancilla (2014, Mendoza, Certiorari)

- Malicdem and Flores extruder operators, 2006


o Bagging of filament yarn, pp yarn package quality, cleanliness
o One-yr employment contracts
o Yearly, would sign resignation/quitclaim
o Until 2010: Flores told not to report; sgd doc: acknowledged contractual status termination
o 2011: Malicdem also terminated ~ly
- LA: Malicdem, Flores: illegal dismissal
o Marulas: fixed-term ees for specific undertakings to work on particular order of customer
 Termination due to expiration
o No illegal dismissal. Termination due to expiry, but pay wage differentials
- NLRC: award 13th mo, SIL, holiday pay for 3 yrs
- CA: determination of whether regular or proj ees factual, therefore cannot be reviewed on certiorari
o Affirmed
o Repeated and successive rehiring do not qualify them as regular ees as length of service not controlling
determinant, but whether employment has been fixed for a specific proj or undertaking || William Uy
Construction v Trinidad1
o No award
- SC:
o Malicdem and Flores regular ees
 281: after probationary pd work, ee regular. No er allowed to determine indefinitely the fitness
of its ees
 Contracts: 6 mo probation after which classified as proj ees
 Length of time not controlling test for proj employment, but it is vital in determing if ee hired for
a specific undertaking or tasked to perform vital, necessary, and indispensable functions in usual
business or trade of er
 || Maraguinot Jr v NLRC: project or work pool ee, who has been
 Continuously, as opposed to intermittently rehired by the same er for the same tasks or
nature of tasks, and
 Those tasks are vital, necessary and inidispensable to the usual business or trade of the
er
 MUST BE DEEMED A REGULAR EE
 The test to determine whether employment is regular or not is the reasonable connection
between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or
trade of the employer. 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
indispensability of that activity to the business.
o Marulas deliberately intended to prevent regularization
 No actual proj in contract; only dates

1
It is widely known that in the construction industry, a project employee's work depends on the availability of projects, necessarily
the duration of his employment. It is not permanent but coterminous with the work to which he is assigned.24 It would be
extremely burdensome for the employer, who depends on the availability of projects, to carry him as a permanent employee and
pay him wages even if there are no projects for him to work on.
The rationale behind this is that once the project is completed it would be unjust to require the employer to maintain these
employees in their payroll. To do so would make the employee a privileged retainer who collects payment from his employer for
work not done. This is extremely unfair to the employers and amounts to labor coddling at the expense of management.
 280 cannot be invoked bc no specific undertaking at all
 If proj ees, already regularized || Maraguinot
 Here, continuously rehired for same position; work vital
 || Consunji: an employment ceases to be coterminous with specific projects when the ee is
continuously rehired due to the demands of the er’s business and re-engaged for many more
projs without interruption
 William Uy not applicable—William Uy applicable only in cases of proj ees in construction
 Practice here a clear stratagem to violate security of tenure (sgd every year)
o GRANTED

Maraguinot, Villa, Willam Uy, Consunji – see also cases