GAPAYAO v.
FULO INDUSTRIAL
Gapayao engaged the services of Fulo as laborer in his agricultural
landholdings, harvester in abaca plantation and repairman or utility
worker in several establishments owned by Gapayao. Fulo had been
employed for 14 years until he died at work. Gapayao extended
financial assistance and had compromise agreement with the
surviving spouse which stated that Gapayao was discharged from
any claims. Thereafter, the survivg spouse went to claim SSS benefit
of the deceased only to found out that the latter was not a member
of SSS. During field investigation of the latter, Gapayao established
that Fulo was not his employee hence, not liable for any SSS claims.
He contended that Fulo was a freelance worker engaged on a
pakyaw basis, working on a short period of time. He argued that
Fulo was a seasonal employees. Fulo was not likewise prevented
from working with other persons.
ISSUE:
W/N there was an EE-ER relationship between Gapayao and Fulo.
HELD:
Yes. Pakyaw workers are considered regular employees so long as
the employer exercises control over them. In this case the exercise
of control was delegated to Gapayao’s caretaker. While Fulo’s
services were not rendered continuously, still the deceased never
stopped working from year to year until he died. The Compromise
agreement was not a bar to an employee demanding what is legally
due the latter.
Seasonal worker may be considered as regular employees.
COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURAL WORKERS’
ORGANIZATION (ICAWO) v. CIR and Central Azucarera De Pilar Allied
workers assiociation (CAPAWA)
FACTS:
ICAWAS declared a strike against CAPAWA. Among the strikers were
seasonal wokers. On the opening of the milling season for the year
1956-1957, the respondent company refused to re-admit these 101
seasonal workers of the ICAWO on the ground that it was precluded
by the closed-shop clause in its collective bargaining agreement
with the CAPAWA. the ICAWO filed an unfair labor practice charge
against the company.Seasonal workers argued that they were
regular employees hence they should have been rehired at the
start. Respondents contended that those seasonal workers were
new and that their employment terminating at the end of each
milling season and, therefore, could not be re-admitted without the
company violating the closed-shop agreement with the CAPAWA.
ISSUE:
W/N seasonal workers were regular Ees
HELD:
Yes. The court explained the court shop agreement. The status of
seasonal workers is that of regular seasonal employees who are
called to work from time to time. The nature of relationship is such
that that during off season they are temporarily laid off but during
summer season they are reemployed, or when their services may be
needed. They are not strictly speaking separated from the service
but are merely considered as on leave of absence without pay until
they are re-employed. Their employment relationship is never
severed but only suspended. As such, these, employees can be
considered as in the regular employment of the hotel.
LEYTE GEOTHERMAL POWER PROGRESSIVE EMPLOYEES UNION –
ALU-TUCP,
vs.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL OIL COMPANY – ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
FACTS: Respondent is a GOCC while petitioner is a legitimate labor
organization. Among [respondent’s] geothermal projects is the
Leyte Geothermal Power Project located at the Greater Tongonan
Geothermal Reservation in Leyte. Thus, the [respondent] hired and
employed hundreds of employees on a contractual basis, whereby,
their employment was only good up to the completion or
termination of the project and would automatically expire upon the
completion of such project.
Majority of the employees hired by [respondent] in its Leyte
Geothermal Power Projects had become members of petitioner. In
view of that circumstance, the petitioner demands from the
[respondent] for recognition of it as the collective bargaining agent
of said employees and for a CBA negotiation with it. However, the
[respondent] did not heed such demands of the petitioner.
Sometime in 1998 when the project was about to be completed, the
[respondent] proceeded to serve Notices of Termination of
Employment upon the employees who are members of the
petitioner.
On December 28, 1998, the petitioner filed a Notice of Strike with
DOLE against the [respondent] on the ground of purported
commission by the latter of unfair labor practice for “refusal to
bargain collectively, union busting and mass termination.” On the
same day, the petitioner declared a strike and staged such strike.
Secretary of Labor intervened and ordered all workers to return to
work. However, petitioner did not abide.
NLRC: ruled that the employees are PROJECT EMPLOYEES, and the
strike as ILLEGAL
Petitioner Union contends that its officers and members performed
activities that were usually necessary and desirable to respondent’s
usual business.
ISSUE: WON they are project employees
HELD: They are PROJECT EMPLOYEES
Article 280 of the Labor Code contemplates four (4) kinds of
employees:
(a) regular employees or those who have been “engaged to perform
activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer”;
(b) project employees or those “whose 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”;
(c) seasonal employees or those who work or perform services
which are seasonal in nature, and the employment is for the
duration of the season; and
(d) casual employees or those who are not regular, project, or
seasonal employees.
Jurisprudence has added a fifth kind— a fixed-term employee.

By entering into such a contract, an employee is deemed to

understand that his employment is coterminous with the project.
He may not expect to be employed continuously beyond the
completion of the project. It is of judicial notice that project
employees engaged for manual services or those for special skills
like those of carpenters or masons, are, as a rule, unschooled.
However, this fact alone is not a valid reason for bestowing special
treatment on them or for invalidating a contract of employment.
Project employment contracts are not lopsided agreements in favor
of only one party thereto. The employer’s interest is equally
important as that of the employee[s’] for theirs is the interest that
propels economic activity. While it may be true that it is the
employer who drafts project employment contracts with its
business interest as overriding consideration, such contracts do not,
of necessity, prejudice the employee. Neither is the employee left
helpless by a prejudicial employment contract. After all, under the
law, the interest of the worker is paramount.

Union’s own admission, both parties had executed the contracts

freely and voluntarily without force, duress or acts tending to vitiate
the worker[s’] consent. Thus, we see no reason not to honor and
give effect to the terms and conditions stipulated therein.

The litmus test to determine whether an individual is a project

employee lies in setting a fixed period of employment involving a
specific undertaking which completion or termination has been
determined at the time of the particular employee’s engagement.