FACTS

 Private respondent Romeo Acedillo began working for

petitioner as a helper-electrician. Then he received a
letter from petitioner informing him of his severance
from the company allegedly due to lack of available
projects and excess in the number of workers needed
 The Romeo filed complaint against the petition for
illegal dismissal in the NLRC because he learned that
new workers were hire
 The petitioner contended that its workers are hired on
a contractual or project basis, and their employment is
deemed terminated upon completion of the project for
which they were hired.
 And further argue argued that Acedillo was not a
regular employee because his employment was for a
definite period and apparently made only to augment
the regular work force.
ISSUE
 Whether or not the respondents is part of the regular
work pool.
HELD
 Petitioner is to be reminded that a project employee is one 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 or where the work or services to be
performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the
duration of the season.“
 The records reveal that petitioner did not specify the duration and
scope of the undertaking at the time Acedillo's services were
contracted. Petitioner could have easily presented an employment
contract showing that he was engaged only for a specific project,
but it failed to do so. It is not even clear if Acedillo ever signed an
employment contract with petitioner. Neither is there any proof that
the duration of his assignment was made clear to him other than the
self-serving assertion of petitioner that the same can be inferred from
the tasks he was made to perform.
 It is not even clear if Acedillo ever signed an
employment contract with petitioner. Neither is there
any proof that the duration of his assignment was
made clear to him other than the self-serving assertion
of petitioner
 What is clear is that Acedillo's work as a helper-
electrician was an activity "necessary or desirable in
the usual business or trade" of petitioner, since
refrigeration requires considerable electrical work.
This necessity is further bolstered by the fact that
petitioner would hire him anew after the completion
of each project, a practice which persisted throughout
the duration of his
DOUGLAS MILLARES and ROGELIO
LAGDA, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,
TRANS-GLOBAL MARITIME
AGENCY, INC. and ESSO
INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING CO.,
LTD. respondents.
FACTS
 Petitioner Douglas Millares was employed by private
respondent ESSO International Shipping Company
LTD, through its local manning agency, private
respondent Trans-Global Maritime Agency, Inc. as a
machinist.he was promoted as Chief Engineer which
position he occupied until he opted to retire in
1989. He was then receiving a monthly salary of US
$1,939.00.
 Millares filed a leave of absence and applied for
optional retirement plan under the
Consecutive Enlistment Incentive Plan (CEIP)
considering that he had already rendered more
than twenty years of continuous service but it
was denied for the following reason:
1. he was employed on a contractual basis;
2. his contract of enlistment (COE) did not
provide for retirement before the age of
sixty years; and
3. he did not comply with the requirement
for claiming benefits under the CEIP,
 after failing to return to work after the
expiration of his leave of absence then esso
advised millares that his absence wihout leave
is equivalent to abandonment of his position

 On the other hand Lagda likewise filed a leave of

absence and applied to avail of the optional early
retirement plan in view of his twenty years
continuous service in the company.
 Trans-global similarly denied Lagda’s request for
availment of the optional early retirement scheme
on the same grounds upon which Millares request
was denied.
 Where lagada was also advised that he was also
dropped from the roster of crew members because of
his unavailability for contractual sea service
 Millares and Lagda filed a complaint-affidavit for
illegal dismissal and non-payment of employee
benefits against private respondents Esso
International and Trans-Global before the POEA.
 The POEA rendered a decision dismissing the
complaint for lack of merit. On appeal, NLRC affirmed
the decision of the POEA dismissing the complaint
because of the reason that seamen and overseas
contract workers are not covered by the term “regular
employment” as defined under Article 280 of the
Labor Code.
ISSUE
 WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONERS ARE
CONSIDER AS REGULAR EMPLOYEE
HELD
 They can not be considered as regular employees under
Article 280 of the Labor Code.
 Their employment is governed by the contracts they sign
every time they are rehired and their employment is
terminated when the contract expires.
 Their employment is contractually fixed for a certain
period of time. They fall under the exception of Article 280
whose employment has been fixed for a specific project or
undertaking the completion or termination of which has
been determined at the time of engagement of the
employee or where the work or services to be performed is
seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration
of the season.
 Overseas workers including seafarers fall under this
type of employment which are governed by the mutual
agreements of the parties.
 POSEIDON FISHING/TERRY DE
JESUS, petitioners Vs. NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
and JIMMY S. ESTOQUIA,
Respondents.
FACTS
 Petitioner Poseidon Fishing is a fishing company
engaged in the deep-sea fishing industry.One of its
boat crew was private respondent Jimmy
S. Estoquia.]Petitioner Terry de Jesus is the manager of
petitioner company
 Private respondent was employed by Poseidon Fishing
in January 1988 as Chief Mate. After five years, he was
promoted to Boat Captain but got demoted to Radio
Operator for no certain reason
 On 3 July 2000, private respondent failed to record a 7:25
a.m. call in one of the logbooks. but, recorded in another
logbook. Then when he reviewed the two logbooks, he
noticed that he was not able to record the said call in one of
the logbooks so he immediately recorded the 7:25 a.m. call
after the 7:30 a.m. entry. Around 9am petitioner Jesus, the
manager, detected the error in the entry in the logbook.
And asked for the respondent and give a explanation.

 At around 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon of that same day,

petitioner Poseidon’s secretary, summoned private
respondent to get his separation pay amounting to Fifty-
Five Thousand Pesos (P55,000.00). However, he refused to
accept the amount as he believed that he did nothing
illegal to warrant his immediate discharge from work.
 Private respondent then filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal with the Labor Arbiter
 Petetioner contended that Estoquia was a contractual
or casual employee;that he was being employed only
on a “por viaje” (per trip) basis and that his
employment would be terminated at the end of the
trip for which he was being hired per the “Kasunduan”
with him. Petitioners also asserted that deep-sea
fishing is a seasonal industry as catching of fish could
only be undertaken for a limited duration or seasonal
within a given year and thus Estoquia was a seasonal or
project employee.

ISSUE
 WHETHER OR NOT THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT IS
A REGULAR EMPLOYEE
HELD
 The court held that as petitioners themselves admitted in their
petition before this Court, private respondent was repeatedly
hired as part of the boats crew and he acted in various capacities
onboard the vessel. In Integrated Contractor and Plumbing
Works, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[20] we held
that 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. And, 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
 Maraguinot Jr. v. National Labor Relations Commission
established that once a project or work pool employee has
been (1) continuously (vs. intermittently) re-hired by the
same employer for the same tasks or nature of tasks; and
(2) these tasks are vital, necessary and indispensable to the
usual business or trade of the employer, the employee must
be deemed a regular employee.
 It also held that the ruling in the Brent case could not
apply in the case at bar. The acid test in considering fixed-
term contracts as valid is: if from the circumstances it is
apparent that periods have been imposed to preclude
acquisition of tenurial security by the employee, they
should be disregarded for being contrary to public policy.