Casual employees

Art 286 (2). An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding
paragraph: Provided, That any ee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such
service is continuous or broken, shall be considered as regular ee with respect to the activity in
which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such activity exists.

Sec 5 (b). Bk VI. Rule 1. 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 period 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

1. Nature of work

Maranaw Hotels and Resort Corp v CA, Sheryl Oabel, Manila Resource Dev’t Corp (2009, Puno)

- Oabel hired as extra beverage attendant

o 95 Apr 24 to 97 Feb 7
o In Century Park Hotel, owned by Maranaw
- 96 Sep 16, Maranaw contracted with Mla Resource (service agreement)
o Oabel transferred to Mla Resource, er (consistently claimed so)
 Feb to Mar – Sec, PR Dep’t
 7 to 21 Apr – gift shop attendant
 Apr to May – waitress
 May 97 to Jul 98 – shop attendant
- LA: Jul 98: Oabel: regularization
- Aug: Oabel dismissed
- LA: regularization to illegal dismissal
o Dismissed complaint
o Work per function basis or need basis—co-terminus with function hired for
o At most a proj ee; did not ripen into regular ee
- NLRC: Reversed
o Mla Resource labor-only
 Provides not specific jobs but personnel; insufficient capital
o Oabel ill dism
 No just cause
- CA: dismissed bc no board resolution auth counsel to file petition
- SC:
o Maranaw: substantial justice, substantial compliance
o MR attachment of non-forum shopping certificate does not cure defect
 Defeats purpose of cert: inform Court of pendency of any other case
  Strict adherence to procedural requirements for orderly admin of justice
o Mla Resource labor-only; Oable regular ee
 Service agreement with Mla Resource mere ploy to circumvent law
 Operations of hotel do not cease with end of each event or function
 Ever present need for individuals to perform tasks necessary in
business
 Tasks vary but need for manpower does not
 Maranaw determines which job in exercise of power of control
 Oable rendered more than a year of service: 95-98
 Therefore regular || 280 (2)

2. One-year service

Fortunato Mercado, Sr, Rosa, Jr, Antonio Mercado, Jose Cabral, Mercado, Cabral, PAguio,
Alcantara, Mercado, Guevara, Mercado, Santillan v NLRC, LA, Aurora Cruz, Sps de Borja, Sto Nino
Realty, Inc (1991, Padilla)

- Mercado et al:
o agricultural workers hired by Cruz for
o agricultural phases of work on 7 ½ ha rice land, 10 ha sugar owned by Cruz
o Mercado, Santillan: 1949
o Mercado, Mercado: 72
o Rest: 60
o Until 1979
o Wage: 1.50 in 62 to 7.00 in 79
- Cruz: not ees; engaged through sps, mandaraois—persons who take charge in supplying
workers needed by owners of farms to do particular phase of agricultural work necessary in
production, after which they are free to render services to other farms
- Sps: deny relationship with petitioners; mere registered owners of land
- LA: petitioners: illegal dismissal, underpayment, non-payment of benefits
o Not regular, permanent workers bc performing only phases of work for a definite
pd after which services available to any other farm
o 12-hr work a day the whole yr unfounded claim; planting does not entail 1 yr
o Sworn statement of Mercado Jr: casuals on an on and off basis
o Cause of filing of complaint: filing of criminal complaint…
o Other money claims have prescribed; only 76 onwards may be claimed
o Awarded 10,000 financial assistance || equity
- NLRC: affirmed; 10,000 award deleted
- SC:
o petitioners: certiorari.
 || 280, seasonal but rehired for so many years, therefore reg
 Policy Instr 12: PD 830 has defined the concept of regular and casual
employment. What determines regularity or casualness is not the
employment contract, but the nature of the job. If not usually necessary or
 desirable to main business, casual. Employment for a definite pd which
exceeds one year shall be considered regular for the duration of the
definite period
 Concept designed to put an end to casual employment in regular
jobs which has been abused by many employers to prevent so-
called casuals from enjoying the benefits of regular ees or to
prevent casuals from joining unions
o Respondents: seasonal ees
o Factual findings respected
 LA, Chief of Sp Task Force, NLRC: casuals, on and off basis || affidavit
o On 280 (2)
 But first, (1): defines regular ees, except project ees: employment fixed for
specific proj or undertaking, completion of which determined at time of
engagement; or where work seasonal in nature, employment for the
duration of season
 Season: as is now
 All other ees not in (1), casual
 General rule: office of a proviso is to qualify or modify only the phrase
immediately preceding it or restrain or limit the generality of the clause
 Proviso must be construed with reference to the immediately
preceding part of provision, except legislative intent clear: restrain
or qualify not only phrase immediately preceding it but also earlier
provisions or statute as a whole
 Therefore, (2) applicable only to employees deemed casuals, not proj ees
nor regular ees in (1)
 Policy Instr 12: concept of regular, casual designed to put end to abuse, but
280 (2) not designed to stifle small-scale businesses nor to oppress
agricultural land owners
o Therefore, as seasonal ees, employment ends upon completion of proj or season.
Termination not illegal
o DISMISSED D:

Fixed-term employees

Brent School, Inc, Rev Gabriel Dimache v Ronaldo Zamora, Presidential Assistant for Legal Affairs,
Doroteo Alegre (1990, Narvasa)

- Alegre
o Engaged as athletic director by Brent
o Yearly compensation: 20,000
o Contract: five years—1971 Jul to 1976 Jul
- Subsidiary agreements, 73 Mar, Aug, 74: reiterated same t&c and expiry
- 1976 Apr: Alegre given copy of report of Brent to DOLE on his termination due to
completion of contract
 - 1976 May: accepted 3 thou and signed receipt with phrase: in full payment of services for
the period May to Jul 76 as full payment of contract
- Labor conciliator investigation: Alegre protested: although contract stipulated termination,
services necessary and desirable
- Regional Director:
o Brent report not report of termination but app for termination clearance
o Ground relied upon by Brent not sanctioned and prohibited by law
o Reinstate Alegre
- Secretary of Labor: sustained Regional Dir
- Office of Pres: affirmed. Alegre permanent
- SC:
o Contract bet Alegre and Brent executed before LC not yet promulgated
 Then, no doubt about validity of contract
 Impliedly recognized || Termination Pay Law. RA 1052: in cases of
employment without a definite period
o Implies existence of employment with definite period;
term employment licit
 || Code of Commerce: governed employment without fixed
period, implicitly acknowledging propriety of term employ
 Civil Code: no prohibition on fixed period contracts, obligations
 || Biboso v Victorias, J Walter Thompson v NLRC, 77, 83: what is
decisive is that petitioners were well aware all the time that their
tenure was for a limited duration. Upon its termination, both
parties to the employment rel were free to renew it or to let it
lapse
 || Am law: a contract of employment for a definite pd terminates
by its own terms at the end of such pd
o Is a fixed-term employment contract valid under LC? Yep
 LC has explicit references to fixed period employment
 320: probationary and fixed period employment
o Amended: reference to persons employed with fixed pd
deleted, renumbered 271
 321: just causes for termination of employment w/o def pd
o Amended, deleted reference to employment w/o def pd
 319 : employment without a fixed pd defined
1

o Also amended and deleted employment with fixed pd, and

added exclusion clause: irrelevant writthen or oral
agreements to contrary; provision exclusively regular,
casual. Renumbered 270
 Non sequitur: just bc duties necessary and desirable, er and ee forbidden
to stipulate any pd of time for the performance of those activities
1
An employment shall be deemed to be w/o def pd for purposes of this Ch where ee has been engaged to
perform activities which are usu necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the er, except proj
and seasonal ees
  Nothing contradictory bet def pd and nature of ee’s duties set
down in contract as being usu necessary or desirable
 The decisive determinant in term employment should not be the 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
 Day certain: that which must necessarily come
 Period: length of existence; duration; space of time which has
influence on an obligation
 Amendments legislative intent to outlaw fixed-term employ?
 LC and CC
o CC continues to recognize validity and propriety of
contracts and obligations with fixed pd
o LC seemingly limits fixed term contracts to project,
seasonal employment
 BUT consider employment contracts neither proj nor seasonal but
with pd: overseas, appointments to positions of dean,
administrative offices in educational inst as practiced; company
officials || Policy Instr 8
 But from where circumstances it is apparent that pds imposed to preclude
acquisition of tenurial security by ee, they should be struck down or
disregarded as contrary to public policy, morals, etc
 But where no such intent to circumvent the law is shown, where ee
himself insists upon pd or where nature of engagement is such
that, without being seasonal or for a specific proj, definite date of
termination sine qua non, agreement fixing pd not essentially evil,
illicit, not anathema
 280 cannot be interpreted to narrowly, too literally
 Lack of fixed pd employment anomalous
 Restricts right of ee to freely stipulate with er the duration of his
engagement
o Subverts principle of freedom to contract only to remedy
the evil of ers using it as a means to prevent their ees from
obtaining security of tenure
 Laws leaving a void must be construed in avoidance of wrongful
consequences
o 280 purpose: prevent circumvention of ee’s right to be
secure in tenure
 Therefore, perfectly sound to have fixed-term
employment contracts which do not have as their
purpose the circumvention of such right
 Bibiso ruling still good rule, as affirmed in Escudero
v Office of Pres
 o Alegre’s termination based upon expiration of contract with Brent. Report to DOLE
mere reminder of impending expiration; not application for clearance to terminate.
Termination valid
o REVERSED.

1. Project employment and fixed-term employment distinguished

GMA Network, Inc v Carlos Pabriga, Geoffrey Arias, Kirby Campo, Arnold Lagahit, Armand Catubig
(2013, Leonardo-de Castro, Certiorari)

-
- Manned technical ops, acted as transmitter, acted as maintenance staff, cameramen
- 1999 Jul: LA: Pabriga et al: miserable working conditions
- 1999 Aug: GMA received notice of complaint; Pabriga et al confronted
o Barred the next day from reporting to work
o Requested be allowed to return to work
- Sep: still no work
- Sep: conference to settle; no settlement
- Nov: position papers
- LA: dismissed complaint of ill dism, ULP. But 13 th mo pay OK
- NLRC: reversed
o Regular ees with respect to particular activity
o Separation pay, 13th mo, night shift, SIL
o Not to OT, holiday
o Remanded for computation
- CA: denied certiorari
- SC:
o GMA: proj ees/fixed term only; cannot award sep pay absent finding of ill dism;
awards unfounded
o On the classifications of employment
 Nature of employment determined by law, regardless of contracts
expressing otherwise, employment contracts being imbued with public
interest
 280 of LC: regular, proj, casual, seasonal
 Brent v Zamora: fixed term employment (not illegal per se)
 Proj ees: activities may or may not be usually necessary or desirable in the
usual business of er || ALU TUCP v NLRC
  ‘project’ for the carrying out of which ‘proj ees’ are hired would
ordinarily have some relationship to the usual business—within
regular or usual business
o Except when undertaking does not have ordinary or
normal relationship to usual business of er—distinct and
separate and identifiable as such
 Principal test for determining whether proj or regular ee: whether
or not the proj ees were assigned to carry out a specific proj or
undertaking the duration and scope of which were specified at the
time the ees were engaged for that proj
 To safeguard rts of wkers against arbitrary use of word project: ers
claiming that workers ar proj ees should not only prove that the
duration and scope of employ was specified at the time they were
engaged, but also that there was indeed a proj which could either
be within regular or usual business but distinct and separate from
other undertakings or not within regular business
o In this case, jobs within regular or usual business and not
identifiably distinct or separate from other undertakings of
company
o Fact that hired as substitutes to regulars does not change
fact that jobs cannot be considered proj within purview of
law
 Court not convinced that big corp cannot device
sys wherein sufficient number of technicians can
be hired with reg status who can take over when
collegaues absent or on leave
 Esp when corp hires pinch-hitters regly moly
 Also, no report of termination as proj ees to DOLE
 Regularized because of repeated hiring
 Fixed term employment?
 V project employment
o Project employment requires project
o Fixed term employment requires day certain (that which
must necessarily come but unknown when)
o Decisive determinant in proj: proj
o Decisive determinant in ft: not activity but day certain
agreed upon by parties
 Brent: where pd imposed to circumvent rt to security of tenure,
kenat bee
o Criteria:
 Fixed pd of employment knowingly and voluntarily
agreed upon by parties without any force, duress,
improper pressure being brought to bear upon the
 ee, and absent any other circumstances, vitiating
his consent
 Satisfactorily appears that er and ee dealt with
each other on more or less equal terms with no
moral dominance exercised by former or latter
o Brent applies only when er and ee in equal footing
 Unjustifiable to allow GMA to hire and rehire on fixed terms ad
infinitum depending upon its needs, never regularized
 Therefore, ill dism
o Therefore, entitled to benefits; not fees
o AFFIRMED.

2. No implied renewal of employment contract

Antonio Unica v Anscor Swire Ship Mgt Corp (Peralta, 2014)

- Anscor
o Manning agency
- Unica
o Employed in various contracts since 1980s
o Last contract: 9 mo deployment—Jan to Oct 2000
o But repatriated only Nov, 20 days later
- LA: Unica: ill dism upon repatriation, benefits, sep, holiday pay
o Anscor: fixed pd employment
o Contract impliedly renewed bc of late repatriation; allowed to work while aboard;
entitled to pay for unexpired portion
- NLRC: affirmed contract impliedly extended
- CA: annulled and set aside; no implied renewal
- SC:
o Not renewed
 Late disembarkation not without valid reason
 Could not have disembarked on agreed date bc vessel out in sea
 A seaman need not physically disembark at expiration of contract to have
contract considered terminated
 Seafarers contractual ees
 Fixed term employment
 Therefore, when contract expires, employment terminates
o But entitled to wages after expiry || Sec 19, Standard Terms and Conditions
Governing Employment of Fil Seafarers On-Board Ocean-Going Vessels
o DENIED. AFFIRMED but modified to pay salary for the 20 days
Seasonal employees

Art 206 (1). 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 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 work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for
the duration of the season.

Phil Tobacco Flue-Curing & Redrying Corp v NLRC, Ligaya Lubat, Estaris, Javier, Plancez, Formento,
Tiu, et al (1998, Panganiban)

- Ph Tobacco processing plant in Balintawak closed down, transferred to Candon, Ilocos Sur
- Seasonal workers
o Lubat group
 Not given work preceding closure of plant; no longer employed at time of
closure (1994 tobacco season)
 Therefore denied separation pay
o Luris group
 Also denied separation pay due to serious business losses || 283
- LA: Lubat, Luris: ill dism , underpayment of sep benefits (Luris: did not consider ¾ of length
of service), damages, fees
o Ph Tobacco: computation: days worked x daily rate x 15 days bc seasonal ees;
employed only during tobacco season of Feb to Nov, working less than 6 mos per
season + served notice a month before
o Yes, financial losses therefore closure, but pay separation pay of half mo salary for
every yr of service provided ee worked at least a month in a year
- NLRC: affirmed
- SC:
o Serious business losses not proven
 No actual closure; only transfer and engaged in corn ops unaffected by
closure of Balintawak plant
o Lubat illegally dismissed
 Ph Tobacco: Employment of seasonal ees ends upon completion of season
|| Mercado v NLRC; therefore, terminated legally since not employed for
94 season; 280 superseded rulings below
 Ph Tobacco refused them work
 || Manila Hotel v CIR: seasonal workers called to work from time
to time and are temporarily laid off during off-season are not
separated from service in said period, but are merely considered
on leave until reemployed
o Nature of relationship is such that during off season they
are temporarily laid off but during summer, they are re-
employed, 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
 || Industrial-Comm-Agri Workers v CIR, Visayan Stevedore Transp
Co v CIR
 No conflict bet above rulings and 280
o || Gaco v NLRC: seasonal worker rehired ~ business here
 Rehiring shows sufficiently the necessity and
indispensability of services to business
 Therefore, Lubat group: only on leave of absence
 Mercado and Magcalas not applicable: different facts. Worker free
to work for others—proj ees. Magcalas: regular. Rulings not
inconsistent with Gaco, Manila Hotel
 Therefore, ill dism, therefore, sep pay, computation of which not appealed
from
o Separation pay to be taken from that already paid, excess need not be refunded
o AFFIRMED. Modified as to sep pay

Universal Robina Sugar Milling, Rene Cabati v Ferdinand Acibo, Aguilar, Baldoza, Abellar, Alicos, et
al (Brion, 2014)

- Universal Robina: domestic corp in sugar cane milling

- Cabati: Business Unit Gen Mgr
- Acibo et al ees
o Drivers, crane ops, bucket hookers, wleders, mechanics, lab attendants, aides, steel
wokers, laborers, carpenters, masons, inter alia
o Sgd conracts of employment for one month or for a season
o Were repeatedly hired and were made to sign same contract
- LA: Acibo: regularization, benefits under CBA, fees
o Dismissed; seasonal/proj ees only
o Projs not related to main ops
- NLRC: reversed; regularized; activities usually necessary, desirable; repeatedly hired every
season || 280, LC
- CA: affirmed regularization; deleted benefits under CBA
o Necessary
o No showing that allowed to work elsewhere off season which could have qualified
them as seasonal
o CBA only covers those rendering service for entire year, not seasonal
- SC:
o Universal Robina: contractual/proj/seasonal ees
o Acibo et al regular seasonal ees
 To remove presumption of regularity of employ, 2 things:
 Prove designation of specifi proj or undertaking for which ee hired
  Clear determination of completion or termination of proj at time of
ee’s engagement || proj ees
 Continuous rehiring = regularization
 Seasonal ees ~ proj ees, latter involving work or service seasonal in nature
 To remove presumption of regularity, er must show
o Ee performing work or services seasonal in nature
o Employed for the duration of the season
 Therefore, continuous rehiring and temporary laying off during off-
season, not separated from work; regular
 Here: tasks did not pertail to specifi phase of strict milling ops that would
cease upon completion of phase of milling
 Instead: regular and habitual necessary work
 Year after year, rehired for same work for duration of growing or
milling season
 No evidence to show that after task, free to seek employment
elsewhere
o Fixed term employment
 || Brent v Zamora
 Not fixed term ees
o NLRC declared them as regular, not regular seasonal
 Therefore, CA erred in affirming
 Bc regular seasonal, not regular
o DISMISSED

Probationary employees

Art 287. Probationary employment shall not exceed sic mos from the date the ee started working,
unless it is covered by an apprenticeship agreement stipulating a longer period. The service of an
ee who has been engaged on a probationary basis may be terminated for a just cause or when he
fails to qualify as a regular ee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the er to
the ee at the time of his engagement. An ee who is allowed to work after probationary pd shall be
considered a regular ee

Art 61. Contents of apprenticeship agreements. Appr agreements, including wage rates of
apprentices, shall conform to the rules issued by Sec The pd of apprenticeship shall not exceed six
mos….

Art 75 (d). Learnership agreement to 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 mos 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.

Sec 6. Probationary employment. P 399, codal

Robinson’s Galleria/Robinsons Supermarket Corp, and/or Jess Manuel v Irene Ranchez (2011,
Nachura)
- Ranchez probationary ee
o 5 mos-97 Oct to 98 Mar
o Six-wk training as cashier before probee hiring
o Two weeks into work, reported loss of 20 thou inside locker
 Strip-searched but nothing
o Requested to be allowed to settle and pay lost amt
- Manuel: police
- RTC: qualified theft; two weeks in jail for failure to post bail
- LA: Ranchez: ill dismissal, damages, 97
- 98: notice of dismissal and expiration of probationary employ, Mar
- LA: dismissed claim
o Not yet dismissed when filed ill dism complaint
- NLRC: strip-search and two-week detention = constructive dismissal
o Although probationary ee, lapse of contract did not validly terminate employment
bc of earlier constructive dismissal
- CA: affirmed
o If no reinstatement bc strained, separation pay
- SC:
o Rob: probationary ee; lapse of contract terminated employment
o Ranchez: could not go back to work after bail bc continued employ impossible,
unreasonable, unlikely; denied due process
o Ranchez illegally terminated
 Probationary employment when ee upon his engagement is made to
undergo a trial pd during which the er determines his fitness to qualify for
regular employment based on reasonable standards made known to him at
time of engagement
 Enjoys security of tenure—dism only for just cause + procedure
o Aside from just, auth cause of termination, another ground
for termination: failure to qualify as regular ee in
accordance with reasonable standards made known by er
to ee at time of engagement
o Must be notified accordingly
 Here, no substantive and procedural due process
 Constructive dismissal: unreasonable to charge with abandonment bc
height of callousness to expect her to return after suffering in jail for two
weeks; indeed unreasonable, unlikely, impossible considering the
treatment accorded Ranchez
o Sep pay, backwages
o DENIED. AFFIRMED. One mo pay and backwage from constr dism