G.R. No.

70705 August 21, 1989

MOISES DE LEON, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and LA

TONDEÑA INC., respondents.

FACTS:

Petitioner was employed by private respondent and was paid on a daily basis through petty
cash vouchers. After a service of more than one (1) year, petitioner requested from respondent
company that he be included in the payroll of regular workers, instead of being paid through petty
cash vouchers. Private respondent responded by dismissing petitioner from his employment.
Having been refused reinstatement despite repeated demands, petitioner filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal, reinstatement and payment of backwages before the Office of the Labor Arbiter.

Petitioner alleged that he was dismissed following his request to be treated as a regular
employee; that his work consisted of painting company buildings and maintenance chores like
cleaning and operating company equipment; and that weeks after his dismissal, he was re-hired
by the respondent company indirectly through a labor agency of respondent company, and was
made to perform the tasks which he used to do.

On the other hand, private respondent claimed that petitioner was not a regular employee
but only a casual worker hired allegedly only to paint a certain building in the company premises,
and that his work as a painter terminated upon the completion of the painting job.

The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision finding the complaint meritorious and the dismissal
illegal; and ordering the respondent company to reinstate petitioner with full backwages and
other benefits. It was ruled that petitioner was not a mere casual employee as asserted by
private respondent but a regular employee. He concluded that the dismissal of petitioner from the
service was prompted by his request to be included in the list of regular employees and to be
paid through the payroll and is, therefore, an attempt to circumvent the legal obligations of an
employer towards a regular employee.

On appeal, however, the decision of the Labor Arbiter was reversed by the National Labor
Relations Commission. The motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, this recourse.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner was a regular employee.

HELD:

Yes. An employment is deemed regular when the activities performed by the employee are
usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. Not considered
regular are the so-called "project employment" the completion or termination of which is more or
less determinable at the time of employment, such as those employed in connection with a
particular construction project, and seasonal employment which by its nature is only desirable for
a limited period of time. However, any employee who has rendered at least one year of service,
whether continuous or intermittent, is deemed regular with respect to the activity he performed
and while such activity actually exists.
 In the case at bar, the petitioner performed his work of painting and maintenance activities
during his employment in respondent’s business which lasted for more than one year, when he
demanded to be regularized and was subsequently dismissed. Certainly, by this fact alone he is
entitled by law to be considered a regular employee. And considering further that weeks after his
dismissal, petitioner was rehired by the company through a labor agency and was returned to his
post in the Maintenance Section and made to perform the same activities that he used to do, it
cannot be denied that his activities as a regular painter and maintenance man still exist.

G. R. No. 149440 - January 28, 2003

HACIENDA FATIMA and/or PATRICIO VILLEGAS, ALFONSO VILLEGAS and CRISTINE

SEGURA, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUGARCANE WORKERS-FOOD
AND GENERAL TRADE, respondents.

FACTS:

When complainant union was certified as the collective bargaining representative in the
certification elections, respondents refused to sit down with the union for the purpose of entering
into a collective bargaining agreement. Moreover, the workers including complainants herein
were not given work for more than one month. In protest, complainants staged a strike which was
however settled upon the signing of a Memorandum of Agreement.

However, alleging that complainants failed to load the fifteen wagons, respondents reneged
on its commitment to sit down and bargain collectively. Instead, respondent employed all means
including the use of private armed guards to prevent the organizers from entering the premises.
 Moreover, respondents did not any more give work assignments to the complainants forcing
the union to stage a strike. But due to the conciliation efforts by the DOLE, another Memorandum
of Agreement was signed by the complainants and respondents.

The NLRC ruled that petitioners were guilty of ULP and that the respondents were illegally
dismissed. The CA affirmed that while the work of respondents was seasonal in nature,they were
considered to be merely on leave during the off-season and were therefore still employed by
petitioners.

ISSUE/S:

1. Whether or not respondents are regular employees.

2. Whether or not petitioner is guilty of ULP.

HELD:

1. Although the employers have shown that respondents performed work that was seasonal
in nature, they failed to prove that the latter worked only for the duration of one particular season.
In fact, petitioners do not deny that these workers have served them for several years already.
Hence, they are regular not seasonal employees.

The primary standard, therefore, of determining regular employment is the reasonable

connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual
trade or business of the employer. The test is whether the former is usually necessary or
desirable in the usual trade or business of the employer. The connection can be determined by
considering the nature of the work performed and its relation to the scheme of the particular
business or trade in its entirety. Also if the employee has been performing the job for at least a
year, even if the performance is not continuous and merely intermittent, the law deems repeated
and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity if not
indispensability of that activity to the business. Hence, the employment is considered regular, but
only with respect to such activity and while such activity exists.

2. Yes. Indeed, from respondents' refusal to bargain, to their acts of economic inducements
resulting in the promotion of those who withdrew from the union, the use of armed guards to
prevent the organizers to come in, and the dismissal of union officials and members, one cannot
but conclude that respondents did not want a union in their hacienda clear interference in the
right of the workers to self-organization.
G.R. No. 148492            May 9, 2003

BUENAVENTURA C. MAGSALIN & COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC., petitioners,

vs.
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF WORKING MEN (N.O.W.M.), et al., respondents.

FACTS:

Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc., engaged the services of respondent workers as "sales route
helpers" for a limited period of five months. After which, respondents were employed by petitioner
company on a day-to-day basis. According to petitioner company, respondent workers were
hired to substitute for regular sales route helpers whenever the latter would be unavailable or
when there would be an unexpected shortage of manpower in any of its work places or an
unusually high volume of work. The practice was for the workers to wait every morning outside
the gates of the sales office of petitioner company. If thus hired, the workers would then be paid
their wages at the end of the day.

Respondent workers then asked petitioner company to extend to them regular

appointments. Petitioner company refused. They filed with the NLRC a complaint for the
regularization of their employment with petitioner company. Claiming that petitioner company
meanwhile terminated their services, respondent workers filed a notice of strike and a complaint
for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice with the NLRC.

The parties agreed to submit the controversy, including the issue raised in the complaint for
regularization of employment for voluntary arbitration. The voluntary arbitrator rendered a
decision dismissing the complaint on the thesis that respondents were not regular employees of
petitioner company. On appeal, the CA reversed and set aside the ruling of the voluntary
arbitrator.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the nature of work of respondents in the company is of such nature as to be
deemed necessary and desirable in the usual business or trade of petitioner that could qualify
them to be regular employees.
HELD:

In determining whether an employment should be considered regular or non-regular, the

applicable test is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the
employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer. The standard, supplied by
the law itself, is whether the work undertaken is necessary or desirable in the usual business or
trade of the employer, a fact that can be assessed by looking into the nature of the services
rendered and its relation to the general scheme under which the business or trade is pursued in
the usual course. It is distinguished from a specific undertaking that is divorced from the normal
activities required in carrying on the particular business or trade. But, although the work to be
performed is only for a specific project or seasonal, where a person thus engaged has been
performing the job for at least one year, even if the performance is not continuous or is merely
intermittent, the law deems the repeated and continuing need for its performance as being
sufficient to indicate the necessity or desirability of that activity to the business or trade of the
employer. The employment of such person is also then deemed to be regular with respect to
such activity and while such activity exists.

The argument of petitioner that its usual business or trade is softdrink manufacturing and
that the work assigned to respondent workers as sales route helpers so involves merely
"postproduction activities," one which is not indispensable in the manufacture of its products,
scarcely can be persuasive. If, as so argued by petitioner company, only those whose work are
directly involved in the production of softdrinks may be held performing functions necessary and
desirable in its usual business or trade, there would have then been no need for it to even
maintain regular truck sales route helpers. The nature of the work performed must be viewed
from a perspective of the business or trade in its entirety and not on a confined scope. The
repeated rehiring of respondent workers and the continuing need for their services clearly attest
to the necessity or desirability of their services in the regular conduct of the business or trade of
petitioner company.