G.R. No.

192571, April 22, 2014 Ruling:

Abott Laboratories, Phils. Vs. Alcaraz No.
A probationary employee, like a regular
Facts: employee, enjoys security of tenure. However, in
Abbott Laboratories, Philippines (Abbott) a cases of probationary employment, aside from just
pharmaceutical company is in need of Medical and or authorized causes of termination, an additional
Regulatory Affairs Manager. It caused the ground is provided under Article 295 of the Labor
publication in a major broadsheet newspaper Code. The probationary employee may also be
wherein it included the duties and responsibilities. terminated for failure to qualify as a regular
Alcaraz, who was then a Regulatory Affairs and employee in accordance with the reasonable
Information Manager of another pharmaceutical standards made known by the employer to the
company, showed interest and submitted her employee at the time of the engagement.
application. Thus, the services of an employee who has
In Abbott’s offer sheet, it was stated that been engaged on probationary basis may be
Alcaraz was to be employed on a probationary terminated for any of the following: (a) a just or (b)
basis. Later that day, she accepted the said offer. an authorized cause; and (c) when he fails to
Alcaraz’s underwent pre-employment orientation qualify as a regular employee in accordance with
wherein she was briefed on her duties and reasonable standards prescribed by the employer.
responsibilities as Regulatory Affairs Manager. Abbott clearly conveyed to Alcaraz her
During the course of her employment, duties and responsibilities as Regulatory Affairs
Alcaraz noticed that some of the staff had Manager prior to, during the time of her
disciplinary problems. Thus, she would reprimand engagement, and the incipient stages of her
them for their unprofessional behavior. However, employment. There also are circumstances which
Alcarazs method of management was considered would show that Alcaraz was well-apprised of her
by her immediate supervisor to be "too strict." employers’ expectations that would, in turn,
Alcaraz was called to a meeting with her determine her regularization.
immediate supervisor and former HR Director. She Considering the totality of such
was informed that she failed to meet the circumstances, it cannot be doubted that Alcaraz
regularization standards for the position of was well-aware that her regularization would
Regulatory Affairs Manager. She was then depend on her ability and capacity to fulfill the
terminated. Alcaraz felt that she was unjustly requirements of her position as Regulatory Affairs
terminated from her employment and thus, filed a Manager and that her failure to perform such would
complaint for illegal dismissal and damages against give Abbott a valid cause to terminate her
Abbott and its officers. She claimed that she should probationary employment.
have already been considered as a regular and not
a probationary employee given Abbott’s failure to An employer who terminates an employee for a
inform her of the reasonable standards for her valid cause but does so through invalid
regularization upon her engagement as required procedure is liable to pay the latter nominal
under Article 295of the Labor Code. damages.
LA dismissed Alcaraz’s complaint for lack of
merit. The LA rejected Alcaraz’s argument that she Despite the existence of a sufficient ground
was not informed of the reasonable standards to to terminate Alcarazs employment and Abbott’s
qualify as a regular employee. The NLRC reversed compliance with the Labor Code termination
the findings of the LA and ruled that there was no procedure, it is readily apparent that Abbott
evidence showing that Alcaraz had been apprised breached its contractual obligation to Alcaraz when
of her probationary status and the requirements it failed to abide by its own procedure in evaluating
which she should have complied with in order to be the performance of a probationary employee. In this
a regular employee. case, it is apparent that Abbott failed to follow the
procedure in evaluating Alcaraz.
Issue: The fact that it violated its own company
Whether or not Alcaraz was illegally procedure renders the termination of Alcaraz’s
dismissed.
employment procedurally infirm, warranting the engaged to perform activities which are usually
payment of nominal damages. necessary or desirable in the usual business or
G.R. No. 186439, January 15, 2014 trade of the employer. Primary standard that
Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corp. vs. Acibo determines regular employment is the reasonable
connection between the particular activity
Facts: performed by the employee and the usual trade or
Universal Robina is a domestic corporation business of the employer, emphasizing on the
engaged in the sugarcane milling business. Acibo necessity or desirability of the employee’s activity.
and the others are its employees, hired on different Casual employment is when the
dates and in different capacities. engagement lasts at least one year, regardless of
At the start of their employment, they signed continuity. The controlling test is the length of time
one-month period employment contracts or during which the employee is engaged.
seasonal employment contracts. Universal Robina Project employment, on the other hand,
repeatedly hired them to perform the same duties contemplates on arrangement whereby the
and each time required them to sign new employment has been fixed for a specific project or
employment contracts for the same period or undertaking whose completion or termination has
season. been determined at the time of the engagement of
They filed complaints for regularization with the employee. The services of the project
the LA. The LA dismissed their complaints holding employees are legally and automatically terminated
that they were seasonal or project workers and not upon the end or completion of the project as the
regular employees. That they could not be employees’ services are coterminous with the
regularized since their respective employments project.
were coterminous with the phase of the work or Seasonal employment operates much in the
project. same way as project employment, albeit it involves
On appeal, the NLRC declare them regular work or service that is seasonal in nature or lasting
employees. It ruled that the activities they for the duration of the season. To exclude the
performed were usually necessary and desirable in asserted seasonal employee from those classified
the usual trade or business of Universal Robina. as regular employees, the employer must show
Under Article 295 of the Labor Code, they were that: (1) the employee must be performing work
regular employees. or services that are seasonal in nature; and (2)
The CA affirmed the decision of the NLRC. he had been employed for the duration of the
That the repeated and continuing need of their season. Hence, when the seasonal workers are
performance of the same task, regardless of continuously and repeatedly hired to perform the
whether such was continuous or intermittent, same tasks or activities for several seasons or even
constituted sufficient evidence of the after the cessation of the season, this length of time
indispensability of activity to the business. may likewise serve as badge of regular
Universal Robina never gave them opportunity to employment.
work elsewhere during the off-season, which could Respondents perform activities that are
have qualified them as seasonal workers. necessary and desirable in sugarcane production.
Also, they were regularly and repeatedly hired to
Issue: perform the same tasks year after year. This
Whether or not Acido and the others are regular and repeated hiring of the same workers
regular employees. (two different sets) for two separate seasons has
put in place, principally through jurisprudence, the
Ruling: system of regular seasonal employment in the
No. The Supreme Court considered them as sugar industry and other industries with a similar
regular seasonal employees. nature of operations.
Article 295 of the Labor Code provides for 3
kinds of employment arrangements -regular, casual
and project/seasonal.
Regular employment refers to that
arrangement whereby the employee has been
 Conflict ensued. Sambajon subsequently
received his letter of termination which prompted
him to file a complaint for illegal dismissal against
the petitioner.
G.R. No. 196280 and 196286, April 02, 2014 The LA ruled that there was no just or
Unibersidad de Sta. Isabel vs. Sambajon, Jr. authorized cause in the termination of Sambajon’s
probationary employment. The NLRC affirmed LA’s
Facts: decision holding that respondent had acquired a
Universidad de Sta. Isabel is a non-stock, permanent status pursuant to the 1992 Manual of
non-profit religious educational institution in Naga Regulations for Private Schools, in relation to
City. Petitioner hired Marvin-Julian L. Sambajon, Jr. Article 281 of the Labor Code.
as a full-time college faculty member with the rank The CA sustained the conclusion of the
of Assistant Professor on probationary status. NLRC that respondent had already acquired
Even after the contract expired, petitioner permanent status when he was allowed to continue
continued to give teaching loads to Sambajon, who teaching after the expiration of his first
remained a full-time faculty member of the appointment-contract.
Department of Religious Education for two
semesters for two school-years. Issue:
Sambajon completed his course in Master Whether or not Sambajon is a regular
of Arts in Education. He submitted the employee.
corresponding Special Order from the CHED,
together with his credentials for the said master’s Ruling:
degree, to the Human Resources Department of No.
petitioner for the purpose of salary The probationary employment of teachers in
adjustment/increase. Subsequently, respondent’s private schools is not governed purely by the Article
salary was increased starting October of 2004 and 281 of the Labor Code. The Labor Code is
he was re-ranked from Assistant Professor to supplemented with respect to the period of
Associate Professor. probation by special rules found in the Manual of
In a letter addressed to the President of the Regulations for Private Schools.
petitioner, Sambajon vigorously argued that his On the matter of probationary period,
salary increase should be made effective as of Section 92 of the 1992 Manual of Regulations for
June 2003 and demanded the payment of his Private Schools regulations states:
salary differential. “Subject in all instances to compliance with
The school administration replied by the Department and school requirements, the
explaining its policy on re-ranking of faculty probationary period for academic personnel shall
members. The Faculty Manual provides Re-ranking not be more than three (3) consecutive years of
is done every two years; hence the personnel hold satisfactory service for those in the elementary and
their present rank for two years. Those undergoing secondary levels, six (6) consecutive regular
probationary period and those on part-time basis of semesters of satisfactory service for those in the
employment are not covered by this provision. That tertiary level, and nine (9) consecutive trimesters of
teachers in the Universidad are not re-ranked satisfactory service for those in the tertiary level
during their probationary period. where collegiate courses are offered on a trimester
Respondent insisted on his demand for basis.”
retroactive pay. Petitioner reiterated the school Thus, it is the Manual of Regulations for
policy on re-ranking of teachers. However, Private Schools, and not the Labor Code, that
respondent found the above explanation insufficient determines whether or not a faculty member in an
and not clear enough. He pointed out the case of educational institution has attained regular or
another faculty member also on probationary status permanent status.
whose salary was supposedly adjusted by
petitioner at the start of school year (June) after Issue:
completing master’s degree in March. Whether or not Sambajon was illegally
dismissed.
Ruling:
YES, notwithstanding the limited
engagement of probationary employees, they are
entitled to constitutional protection of security of
tenure during and before the end of the
probationary period.
The services of an employee who has been
engaged on probationary basis may be terminated
for any of the following: (a) a just or (b) an
authorized cause; and (c) when he fails to qualify
as a regular employee in accordance with
reasonable standards prescribed by the employer.
Thus, while no vested right to a permanent
appointment had as yet accrued in favor of
respondent since he had not completed the
prerequisite three-year period (six consecutive
semesters) necessary for the acquisition of
permanent status as required by the Manual of
Regulations for Private Schools-- which has the
force of law -- he enjoys a limited tenure. During the
said probationary period, he cannot be terminated
except for just or authorized causes, or if he fails to
qualify in accordance with reasonable standards
prescribed by petitioner for the acquisition of
permanent status of its teaching personnel.
 Ruling:
Yes.
Once a project or work pool employee has
been: (1) continuously, as opposed to intermittently,
rehired by the same employer for the same tasks or
G.R. No. 204406, February 26, 2014 nature of tasks; and (2) these tasks are vital,
Malicdem vs. Marulas Industrial Corp. necessary and indispensable to the usual business
or trade of the employer, then the employee must
Facts: be deemed a regular employee, pursuant to Article
Malicdem and Flores were hired by 280 of the Labor Code.
respondent corporation as extruder operators in The test to determine whether employment
2006 They were responsible for the bagging of is regular or not is the reasonable connection
filament yarn, the quality of pp yarn package and between the particular activity performed by the
the cleanliness of the work place area. employee in relation to the usual business or trade
Their employment contracts were for a of the employer. If the employee has been
period of one (1) year. Every year thereafter, they performing the job for at least one year, even if the
would sign a Resignation/Quitclaim in favor of performance is not continuous or merely
Marulas a day after their contracts ended, and then intermittent, the law deems the repeated and
sign another contract for one (1) year until such continuing need for its performance as sufficient
time that they were told not to report to work evidence of the necessity, if not indispensability of
anymore. that activity to the business.
They were asked to sign a paper It is clear then that there was deliberate
acknowledging the completion of their contractual intent on the part of the employer to prevent the
status. Claiming that they were illegally dismissed, regularization of petitioners. To begin with, there is
the corporation countered that their contracts no actual project. The only stipulations in the
showed that they were fixedterm employees for a contracts were the dates of their effectivity, the
specific undertaking which was to work on a duties and responsibilities of the petitioners as
particular order of a customer for a specific period. extruder operators, the rights and obligations of the
Their severance from employment then was due to parties, and the petitioners’ compensation and
the expiration of their contracts. allowances. As there was no specific project or
The LA rendered a decision in favor of undertaking to speak of, the respondents cannot
Marulas ruling that Malicdem and Flores were not invoke the exception in Article 280 of the Labor
terminated and that their employment naturally Code.This is a clear attempt to frustrate the
ceased when their contracts expired. The NLRC regularization of the petitioners and to circumvent
partially granted the appeal. the law.
However, the CA denied the petition. It ruled Even granting that petitioners were project
that the issue of whether or not petitioners were employees; they can still be considered as regular
project employees or regular employees was as they were continuously hired by the same
factual in nature. On the substantive issue, the CA employer for the same position as extruder
explained that “the repeated and successive operators. Being responsible for the operation of
rehiring of project employees do not qualify them as machines that produced sacks, their work was vital
regular employees, as the length of service is not and indispensable the business of the employer.
the controlling determinant of the employment The respondents cannot use the alleged
tenure of a project employee, but whether the expiration of the employment contracts of the
employment has been fixed for a specific reason or petitioners as a shield of their illegal acts. The
undertaking, its completion has been determined at project employment contracts that the petitioners
the time of the engagement of the employee. were made to sign every year since the start of
their employment were only a stratagem to violate
Issue: their security of tenure in the company.
Whether or not Malicdem and Flores were
illegally dismissed.
 Whether or not Noblejas is a regular
employee.

Ruling:
Yes. In the case at bench, Noblejas was
employed by IMAPI as a training
instructor/assessor for a period of three (3) months.
G. R. No. 207888, June 9, 2014 After the end of the 3-month period, he was rehired
Noblejas vs. Italian Maritime Academy Phils. by IMAPI for the same position and continued to
work as such.
Facts: There is no dispute that the work of
Italian Maritime was a training center for Noblejas was necessary or desirable in the
seamen and an assessment center for business or trade of IMAPI, a training and
determination of the qualifications and competency assessment center for seamen and officers of
of seamen and officers for possible promotion. vessels. Moreover, such continuing need for his
Italian Maritime President, wrote a Letter to services is sufficient evidence of the necessity and
Noblejas informing him that he had been appointed indispensability of his services to IMAPI’s business.
as training instructor/assessor of the company on a Taken in this light, Noblejas had indeed
contractual basis for a period of three (3) months. attained the status of a regular employee at the
After the expiration of the 3-month period, Italian time he ceased to report for work.
Maritime hired Noblejas again but no written
contract was drawn for his rehiring. Issue:
The absence of a written contract to cover Whether or not Noblejas was illegally
the renewal of his employment became Noblejas’ dismissed.
major concern. To address all his apprehensions,
he wrote a letter requesting that a new contract be Ruling:
executed to reflect the following provisions that they Fair evidentiary rule dictates that before
had allegedly agreed upon. Likewise, in the same employers are burdened to prove that they did not
letter, Noblejas intimated that he was electing to commit illegal dismissal, it is incumbent upon the
continue working for the company as its regular employee to first establish by substantial evidence
instructor. the fact of his or her dismissal.
Noblejas averred that the company did not Aside from his mere assertion, no
act on his letter-request, so he sought an audience corroborative and competent evidence was
with the President. During the meeting, an adduced by Noblejas to substantiate his claim that
altercation between them ensued. After such he was dismissed from employment. The record is
incident, he was dimissed. bereft of any indication that he was prevented from
The LA declared Noblejas to be illegally returning to work or otherwise deprived of any work
dismissed and concluded that he was a regular assignment. It is also noted that no evidence was
employee. The NLRC reversed the LA decision. submitted to show that respondent Ferrez, the
The NLRC explained that there was no showing secretary of Capt. Terrei, was actually authorized
that respondents committed any positive and overt by IMAPI to terminate the employment of the
act of dismissal and that the claim of Noblejas that company’s employees or that Ferrez was indeed
the President ordered his secretary to terminate his instructed by Capt. Terrei to dismiss him from
employment was not substantiated. According to employment.
the NLRC, it was Noblejas who severed his The Court finds it odd that, instead of
employment. On appeal, the CA upheld the findings clarifying from Capt. Terrei what he heard from
of the NLRC that Noblejas was a contractual Ferrez, Noblejas immediately instituted an illegal
employee of IMAPI and that there was no evidence dismissal case against the respondents the day
to prove that he was dismissed from employment. following the alleged incident and never reported
back for work since then. Complainant’s allegation
Issue: that he was dismissed from employment cannot be
accorded credence for it is obvious that being
unhappy with not being granted his demands, it
was he himself who is no longer interested to
continue his employment with respondent
company.
Respondents’ refusal to grant complainant’s
demands does not constitute an overt act of
dismissal. On the contrary, it is rather the apparent
disinterest of complainant to continue his
employment with respondent company that may be
considered a covert act that severed his G.R. No. 209559, December 9, 2015
employment when the latter did not grant the litany Enchanted Kingdom, Inc. vs. Verzo
of his demands.
Facts:
Miguel J. Verzo was hired by petitioner
Enchanted Kingdom, Inc. to work as section head-
mechanical and instrumentation maintenance for its
theme park in Laguna for a period of six months on
probationary status. He was provided with a
detailed list of responsibilities that he should fulfil.
During the probationary period, Enchanted
assessed Verzo’s performance as not up to par. He
was recommended by his immediate supervisor
that he should not be considered for regularization.
Enchanted furnished Verzo a copy of the
cast member performance appraisal for
regularization, which reported that he only obtained
a score of 70 out of 100. Enchanted formally
informed Verzo that he did not qualify for
regularization because his work performance for
the past five months did not meet the requirements
of his position.
Verzo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
against Enchanted.

Issue:
Whether or not Verzo is deemed to be a
regular employee.

Ruling:
No. Book VI of the Implementing Rules of
the Labor Code provides that if the employer fails to
inform the probationary employee of the reasonable
standards on which his regularization would be
based at the time of the engagement, then the said
employee shall be deemed a regular employee,
Thus: (d) In all cases of probationary employment,
the employer shall make known to the employee
the standards under which he will qualify as a
regular employee at the time of his engagement.
Where no standards are made known to the
employee at that time, he shall be deemed a
regular employee.
 When dealing with a probationary
employee, the employer is made to comply with two
(2) requirements: first, the employer must
communicate the regularization standards to the
probationary employee; and second, the employer
must make such communication at the time of the
probationary employee’s engagement. If the
employer fails to comply with either, the employee
is deemed as a regular and not a probationary
employee.
In the case at bench, the evidence is clear
that when Verzo was first hired by Enchanted, he
was placed on a probationary status. The letter,
clearly reflects not only the agreement of both
parties as to the probationary status of the
employment and its duration, but also the fact that
Enchanted informed Verzo of the standards for his
regularization.
“As Section Head for Mechanical &
Instrumentation Maintenance, you shall be
responsible for mechanical and structural system
assessments and inspection to evaluate conditions,
operations and maintenance requirements of rides,
facilities and buildings to ensure compliance with
applicable codes, regulations and standards.
Please see attach Job Description for the details of
your responsibilities.”
Clearly, Enchanted informed Verzo that he
was being placed on probation. Aside from the
probationary nature of his employment, the
agreement of the parties specifically showed: the
duration of such status; the benefits to which he
was entitled once regularized; and most
importantly, the standard with which he must
comply in order to be regularized.
 Ruling:
Yes, Arlene is a regular employee with a
fixed term contract.
Fuji’s Manila Bureau Office is a small
unit213 and has a few employees. Arlene had to do
all activities related to news gathering.
The successive renewals of her contract
indicated the necessity and desirability of her work
in the usual course of Fuji’s business. Because of
this, Arlene had become a regular employee with
G.R. Nos. 204944-45, December 3, 2014
the right to security of tenure.
Fuji Television Network, Inc. vs. Espiritu
Arlene’s contract indicating a fixed term did
not automatically mean that she could never be a
Facts:
regular employee. For as long as it was the
Arlene S. Espiritu (Arlene) was engaged by
employee who requested, or bargained, that the
Fuji Television Network, Inc. (Fuji) as a news
contract have a “definite date of termination,” or
correspondent/producer tasked to report Philippine
that the fixed-term contract be freely entered into by
news to Fuji through its Manila Bureau field office.
the employer and the employee, then the validity of
The employment contract was initially for one year,
the fixed-term contract will be upheld.
but was successively renewed on a yearly basis
with salary adjustments upon every renewal.
1.
Arlene was diagnosed with lung cancer.
Fuji alleged that Arlene was an independent
She informed Fuji about her condition, and the
contractor citing the Sonza case. She was hired
Chief of News Agency of Fuji informed her that the
because of her skills. Her salary was higher than
company had a problem with renewing her contract
the normal rate. She had the power to bargain with
considering her condition. Arlene insisted she was
her employer. Her contract was for a fixed term. It
still fit to work as certified by her attending
also stated that Arlene was not forced to sign the
physician.
non-renewal agreement, considering that she sent
After a series of verbal and written
an email with another version of her non-renewal
communications, Arlene and Fuji signed a non-
agreement.
renewal contract. In consideration thereof, Arlene
Arlene argued (1) that she was a regular
acknowledged the receipt of the total amount of her
employee because Fuji had control and supervision
salary from March-May 2009 along with bonuses
over her work; (2) that she based her work on
and separation pay. However, Arlene executed the
instructions from Fuji; (3) that the successive
non-renewal contract under protest.
renewal of her contracts for four years indicated
Arlene filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
that her work was necessary and desirable; (4) that
with the NLRC alleging that she was forced to sign
the payment of separation pay indicated that she
the non-renewal contract after Fuji came to know of
was a regular employee; (5) that the Sonza case is
her illness. She also alleged that Fuji withheld her
not applicable because she was a plain reporter for
salaries and other benefits when she refused to
Fuji; (6) that her illness was not a ground for her
sign, and that she was left with no other recourse
dismissal; (7) that she signed the non-renewal
but to sign the non-renewal contract to get her
agreement because she was not in a position to
salaries.
reject the same.
Issues:
Whether or not Arlene is a regular
employee with a fixed term contract.

1. Was Arlene an independent contractor?

2. Was Arlene a regular employee?
3. Was Arlene illegally dismissed? (discussion
on security of tenure)
 Consequently, in order to safeguard the
rights of workers against the arbitrary use of the
word "project" to prevent them from attaining
regular status, employers claiming that their
workers are project employees should prove that:
(a) the duration and scope of the employment was
specified at the time they were engaged; and (b)
there was indeed a project.
In this case, Milenium was able to prove
that Dacles was a project employee:
1. Dacles was adequately informed of his
G.R. No. 209822, July 8, 2015 employment status, as shown by his employment
Dacles vs. Millennium Erectors Corp. contract, stating that (a) he was hired as a project
employee; and (b) his employment was for the
Facts: indicated starting dates therein "and will end on
Dacles was hired by Millenium as a mason completion/phase of work of project.
in 1998. In June of 2010, while he was working on 2. Millenium submitted “Establishment
a project in Quezon City, he was advised by Employment Reports” to DOLE regarding the
respondent's officer to move to another project in permanent termination of Dacles from its projects in
Robinson's Cubao, QC. accordance with DO 19 (Guidelines Governing the
However, upon arrival at the site, he was Employment of Workers in the Construction
instructed to return to his former job site and, Industry.”
thereafter, was given a run-around for the two (2) 3. There was no proof that he has been
succeeding days. When he requested to be given a repeatedly rehired for 22 years.
post or assigned to a new project, he was told by At any rate, the repeated and successive
the paymaster not to report for work anymore, rehiring of project employees does not, by and of
prompting him to file a complaint for illegal itself, qualify them as regular employees. Case law
dismissal. states that length of service (through rehiring) is not
As a defense, Millenial claimed that Dacles’ the controlling determinant of the employment
employment as project employee was terminated in tenure, but whether the employment has been fixed
June of 2010 upon the completion of this masonry for a specific project or undertaking, with its
work assignment in their RCB-Malakas Project. He completion having been determined at the time of
has been previously hired as a project employee for the engagement of the employee.
its NECC Project, which expired in March of 2010. While generally, length of service provides
a fair yardstick for determining when an employee
Issue: initially hired on a temporary basis becomes a
Whether or not Dacles was a project permanent one, entitled to the security and benefits
employee. of regularization, this standard will not be fair, if
applied to the construction industry because
Ruling: construction firms cannot guarantee work and
YES. For an employee to be considered funding for its payrolls beyond the life of each
project-based, the employer must show that: (a) the project as they have no control over the decisions
employee was assigned to carry out a specific and resources of project proponents or owners.
project or undertaking; and (b) the duration and
scope of which were specified at the time the
employee was engaged for such project.
Being assigned to a project or a phase
thereof which begins and ends at determined or
determinable times, the services of project
employees may be lawfully terminated at the
completion of such project or phase.
 Ruling:
No, Exocet Security and Allied Services
Corporation is neither guilty of illegal dismissal nor
constructive dismissal.
The “floating status” or temporary “off-detail”
of security guards employed by private security
agencies is a form of temporary retrenchment or
lay-off. The concept has been defined as that
period of time when security guards are in between
assignments or when they are made to wait after
being relieved from a previous post until they are
transferred to a new one. It takes place when the
security agency’s clients decide not to renew their
G.R. No. 198538, September 29, 2014 contracts with the agency, resulting in a situation
Exocet Security and Allied Services where the available posts under its existing
Corporation vs. Marcelo contracts are less than the number of guards in its
roster. It also happens in instances where contracts
Facts: for security services stipulate that the client may
Exocet Security and Allied Services request the agency for the replacement of the
Corporation is engaged in the provision of security guards assigned to it, even for want of cause, such
personnel to its various clients or principals. By that the replaced security guard may be placed on
virtue of its contract with JG Summit Holdings Inc., temporary “off-detail” if there are no available posts
Exocet assigned respondent Serrano on as “close- under the agency’s existing contracts.
in” security personnel for one of JG Summit’s As the circumstance is generally outside
corporate officers, first for Johnson Robert Go and the control of the security agency or the employer,
after eight years, he was re-assigned as close-in the Court has ruled that when a security guard is
security for Lance Gokongwei and then to placed on a “floating status,” he or she does not
Gokongwei’s wife. receive any salary or financial benefit provided by
Serrano was relieved by JG Summit from law.
his duties. For more than six months after he
reported back to Exocet, Serrano was without any
reassignment. Serrano filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal against Exocet with the NLRC.
Exocet denied dismissing Serrano alleging
that, Serrano no longer reported for duty
assignment as VIP security for JG Summit, and that
he was demanding for VIP Security detail to
another client. However, since Exocet did not have
clients in need of VIP security assignment, Serrano
was temporarily assigned to general security
service.
Exocet maintained that it was Serrano who
declined the assignment on the ground that he is
not used to being a regular security guard. Serrano,
Exocet added, even refused to report for immediate
duty, as he was not given a VIP security
assignment.

Issue:
Whether or not Serrano was constructively
dismissed.
 time of their employment and who agreed with full
understanding that the contracts would lapse upon
completion of the project stated in their respective
contracts. Also, they were not illegally dismissed
because as project employees, the employer-
employee relationship was terminated upon
completion of the project or phase for which they
were hired.
The NLRC rendered its judgment in favor of
petitioners. NLRC ruled that in the absence of proof
that the subsequent employment of the
complainants continued to be on a project-to-
project basis under a contract of employment,
complainants are considered to have become
regular employees. The failure to present contract
of project employment means that the employees
G.R. No. 208567, November 26, 2014 are regular. The NLRC further ruled that, being
Manalo vs. TNS Philippines, Inc. regular employees, petitioners were illegally.
CA ruled in favor of TNS and stated that the
Facts: repeated re-hiring of petitioners for at least one (1)
TNS was engaged primarily in the business year did not ipso facto convert their status to
of marketing research and information, as well as regular employees.
research consultancy and other value-added
services to a wide-base of clients, both local and Issue:
international. Manalo and the others were hired by Whether or not Manalo and the others are
TNS as field personnel on various dates starting regular employees.
1996 for several projects. They were made to sign
a project-to-project employment contract. Ruling:
Thereafter, TNS would file the Yes. Article 280 of the Labor Code, as
corresponding termination report with the DOLE- amended, clearly defined a project employee as
RO. Manalo and the others were likewise assigned one whose employment has been fixed for a
office-based tasks. These office-based tasks were specific project or undertaking the completion or
not on a per project basis and petitioners did not termination of which has been determined at the
sign any contract for these jobs. These time of the engagement of the employee or where
assignments were not reported to the DOLE either. the work or service to be performed is seasonal in
A meeting among the Field Interviewers nature and the employment is for the duration of
was called by TNS’ field manager. They were told the season.
that all old FIs assigned in the "tracking" projects Additionally, a project employee is one
would be pulled out eventually and replaced by new whose termination of his employment contract is
Field Interviewers contracted from an agency which reported to the DOLE every time the project for
prompted petitioners to file a consolidated which he was engaged has been completed.
complaint for regularization before the LA. The project employment scheme used by
They were advised by TNS not to report for TNS easily circumvented the law and precluded its
work anymore because they were being pulled out employees from attaining regular employment
from their current assignments and that they were status in the subtlest way possible. Manalo and the
not being lined up for any continuing or incoming others were rehired not intermittently, but
projects because it no longer needed their services. continuously, contract after contract, month after
Manalo and the others filed a complaint for illegal month, involving the very same tasks. They
dismissal against TNS. practically performed exactly the same functions
LA dismissed the complaint on the ground over several years. Ultimately, without a doubt, the
that they were found to be project employees who functions they performed were indeed vital and
knew the nature of their positions as such at the necessary to the very business or trade of TNS.
 The supposed project employment contract
was highly doubtful. In determining the true nature
of an employment, the entirety of the contract, not
merely its designation or by which it was
denominated, is controlling. Though there is a rule
that conflicting provisions in a contract should be
harmonized to give effect to all, in this case,
however, harmonization is impossible because
project employment and probationary employment
are distinct from one another and cannot co-exist
with each other. Hence, should there be ambiguity
in the provisions of the contract, the rule is that all
doubts, uncertainties, ambiguities and
insufficiencies should be resolved in favor of labor.
This is in consonance with the constitutional policy
of providing full protection to labor.
In sum, petitioners are deemed to have
become regular employees. As such, the burden of
proving the legality of their dismissal rests upon
TNS. Having failed to discharge such burden of
proving a just or authorized cause, TNS is liable for
illegal dismissal.
 The Court found that the NLRC committed
grave abuse of discretion by dismissing
respondents based on unsubstantiated claims
made by the petitioners regarding their
employment.
Article 280 of the Labor Code distinguishes
between regular, and casual or project
employment, wherein the latter is “…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…”
A project employee is assigned to a project
which begins and ends at determined or
determinable times, and therefore may be lawfully
terminated at the completion of the project. The
G.R. No. 199388, September 3, 2014 principal test for determining project employees
Omni Hauling Services, Inc., Lolita Franco vs. from regular employees is whether or not the
Bernardo Bon employees were assigned to carry out a “specific
project or undertaking,” the duration and scope of
Facts: which were specified at the time they were
Omni Hauling Services, Inc., a company engaged for that project. The project could either
owned by petitioners Lolita and Aniceto Franco, be (1) a particular job or undertaking that is within
was awarded a one (1) year service contract6 by the regular or usual business of the employer
the local government of Quezon City to provide company, but which is distinct and separate, and
garbage hauling services. For this purpose, Omni identifiable as such, from the other undertakings of
hired respondents as garbage truck drivers and the company; or (2) a particular job or undertaking
paleros who were then paid on a per trip basis. that is not within the regular business of the
After the duration of the contract, petitioner corporation.
was awarded another contract and sought to rehire In order to prevent employers from
respondents, only if they signed contracts stating arbitrarily using the term “project” to prevent
that they were to only be rehired during the same employees from becoming regular, employers
duration. Respondents refused, stating that they claiming that their workers are project employees
were regular employees and not project should not only prove that the duration and scope
employees, and were therefore dismissed. of the employment was specified at the time they
Court ruled that an employment contract were engaged, but also that there was indeed a
would have proved whether or not respondents project. In this case, a written contract is proof that
were project employees, as such contract would respondents were informed of the duration and
have informed respondents of the duration and scope of their work and their status as project
scope of their employment, and their status as employees.
project employees. The lack of such employment As such, its absence sheds doubt upon the
contract failed to substantiate the petitioner’s petitioners claims that respondents were project
claims, and in light of there being no evidence to employees. Since no other evidence was brought
the contrary, respondents were deemed regular to substantiate petitioners’ claim, there is a
employees for having rendered one year of service, presumption of regular employment as respondents
and their subsequent dismissal was deemed illegal. have rendered one year of service, and were
engaged to perform activities which are usually
Issue: necessary or desirable in the usual business or
WON respondents are project employees trade of petitioner. Therefore, as respondents were
as alleged by petitioners, or regular employees. regular employees, the termination of their
employment was a case of illegal dismissal on the
Ruling: part of the petitioners
 was contracted by the farm to cut coconut lumber
for the hosues of their laborers.
Gamboa added that they informed Villegas
that they need the property, hence, they requested
that he vacateit, but he refused. Thus, Gamboa
surmised that Villegas filed the instant complaint to
gain leverage so he would not be evicted from the
land he is occupying. He further argued that during
his employment, Villegas was paid in accordance
with the rate mandated by law and that his claim for
illegal dismissal was merely a fabrication as he was
the one who opted not to work.
The Labor Arbiter found thatthere was
illegal dismissal. On appeal, the NLRC set aside
and vacated the Labor Arbiter's decision.

Issue:
Whether or not Villegas is a regular
employee.
G.R. No. 179654, September 22, 2014
Hacienda Leddy/Ricardo Gamboa, Jr. vs. Ruling:
Villegas Yes.
In the instant case, Villegas had worked
Facts: with the Gamboas for more than 20 years of
Villegas was an employee of hacienda service. Even Gamboa admitted that by act of
Leddy, previously owned by Ricardo Gambao Sr. generosity and compassion, Villegas was given a
then succeeded by his son Ricardo Gamboa Jr., privilege of erecting his house inside the hacienda
and also in the owner’s Coconut lumber business during his employment. While it may indeed be an
from 1960 as a sugar farmer. act of good will on the part of the Gamboas, still,
During his employment up to the time of his such act is usually done by the employer either out
dismissal, Villegas performed sugar farming job 8 of gratitude for the employee’s service or for the
hours a day, 6 days a week work, continuously for employer's convenience as the nature of the work
not less than 302 days a year (for which services calls for it.
he was paid ₱45.00 per day). He likewise worked in Indeed, petitioner's length of service is an
petitioner's coconut lumber business where he was indication of the regularity of his employment. Even
paid ₱34.00 a day for 8 hours work. assuming that he was doing odd jobs around the
The son suddenly went to Villegas’ house in farm, such long period of doing said odd jobs is
1993 and told him that his services were no longer indicative that the same was either necessary or
required. Hence, Villegas filed the instant complaint desirable to petitioner's trade or business. Owing to
for illegal dismissal. the length of service alone, he became a regular
Such dismissal was denied by Gamboa who employee, by operation of law, one year after he
confirmed that Villegas had worked in their farm was employed.
before, doing casual and odd jobs and was even Article 280 of the Labor Code, describes a
given the benefit of occupying a small portion of the regular employee as
land where his house was erected. His argument one who is either:
was that said employee ceased work in 1992. o (1) engaged to perform activities
However, later, Gamboa apparently retracted and which are necessary or desirable in the usual
instead insisted that the farm records reveal that business or trade of the employer;
the only time Villegas rendered service for the o (2) those casual employees who
hacienda was only in the year 1993, specifically have rendered at least one year of service, whether
February 9, 1993 and February 11, 1993 when he continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in
which he is employed.
 What determines whether a certain illegal dismissal, arguing that they were not project
employment is regular or casual is not the will and employees, but regular employees who may only
word of the employer, to which the desperate be dismissed for just or authorized causes.
worker often accedes, much less the procedure of The LA ruled in favor of Skillex and held that
hiring the employee or the manner of paying his respondents were not regular employees. The
salary. It is the nature of the activities performed in NLRC reversed the LA’s ruling and held that they
relation to the particular business or trades were regular employees.
considering all circumstances, and in some cases
the length of time of its performance and its Issue:
continued existence. Whether or not respondents are project
employees.

Ruling:
No, respondents are regular employees and
are thus illegally dismissed by Skillex.
Under Art 280, there are two kinds of
regular employees, namely:
1) those who were engaged to perform
activities which are usually necessary or desirable
in the usual business or trade of the employer; and
2) those casual employees who became
regular after one year of service, whether
G.R. No. 200857, October 22, 2014 continuous or broken, but only with respect to the
FVR Skills and Services Exponents, Inc. activity for which they have been hired.
(SKILLEX) vs. Seva The primary standard in determining regular
employment is the reasonable connection between
Facts: the particular activity performed by the employee
Respondents were employees of Skillex, an and the employer’s business or trade.
independent contractor engaged in the business of Even before the service contract with
providing janitorial and other manpower services. Robinsons, the respondents were already under
Some of them had already been under the Skillex’s the petitioner’s employ. Skillex presented no
employ since 1998. evidence to refute respondents’ claim that there
Skillex entered into a Contract of Janitorial was no gap between the projects they were
Service with Robinsons Land Corp., wherein they assigned to and that Skillex continuously availed of
agreed that Skillex shall supply janitorial, their services by constantly deploying them.
manpower and sanitation services to Robinsons Although the respondents were assigned as
Place Ermita for a period of 1 year. Pursuant to contractual employees to the petitioner’s various
such agreement respondents were deployed to clients, under the law, they remain to be the
Robinsons. petitioner’s regular employees, who are entitled to
Halfway through the service contract, the all the rights and benefits of regular employment.
petitioner asked the respondents to execute
individual contracts which stipulated that their
respective employments shall end on December
31, 2008, unless earlier terminated. Respondents
were also threatened that they would not be given
their salaries if they would not sign the contracts.
The contract of janitorial services between
Skillex and Robinsons was no longer extended.
Respondents were dismissed by Skillex as they
were project employees whose duration of
employment was dependent on the service contract
with Robinsons. Respondents filed a complaint for
 However, the LA rendered a decision ruling
that Lopez was illegally dismissed. The LA did not
give credence to Irvine's argument that the lack of
its project in Cavite resulted in the interruption of
Lopez's employment in view of Irvine's
contradictory averment that Lopez was merely
employed on temporary detail and that he only
doubled as a guard.
Granting that Lopez's work as a laborer or
as a guard was really affected by the suspension of
the operations of Irvine in Cavite, the LA still
discredited Irvine's lay-off claims considering that
the return-to-work order Irvine supposedly sent to
Lopez was not even attached to its pleadings.
Hence, without any proof that Lopez was asked to
return to work, the LA concluded that the dismissal
of Lopez went beyond the six-month period fixed by
Article 286 of the Labor Code and was therefore
deemed to be a permanent one effectuated without
a valid cause and due process. The NLRC upheld
the ruling of the LA.
The CA, however, reversed the ruling of the
G.R. No. 207253, August 20, 2014 NLRC. It concluded that Lopez was merely
Lopez vs. Irvine Construction Corporation temporarily laid off, and, thus, he could not have
been dismissed. That there were no indicia that
Facts: Lopez was actually prevented by Irvine from
Irvine Construction Corp. is a construction returning to work or was deprived of any work
firm initially hired Lopez as laborer in November assignments or duties, thus Lopez’s complaint for
1994 and, thereafter, designated him as a guard at illegal dismissal was prematurely filed.
its warehouse in Cavite in the year 2000 working
from 7 o'clock in the morning until 4 o'clock in the Issue:
afternoon, without any rest day. Whether or not Lopez is a project employee.
However, he was subsequently terminated.
He thus filed a complaint for illegal dismissal Ruling:
against Irvine before the NLRC. The principal test for determining whether
Irvine denied Lopez's claims, alleging that particular employees are properly characterized as
he was employed only as a laborer who, however, "project employees" as distinguished from "regular
sometimes doubled as a guard. As laborer, Lopez's employees," is whether or not the "project
duty was to bring construction materials from the employees" were assigned to carry out a "specific
suppliers' vehicles to the company warehouse project or undertaking," the duration and scope of
when there is a construction project in Cavite. That which were specified at the time the employees
he was temporarily laid-off after the Cavite project were engaged for that project.
was finished but was eventually asked to return to In order to safeguard the rights of workers
work through a letter allegedly sent to him within against the arbitrary use of the word "project" to
the six (6) month period under Article 286 of the prevent employees from attaining the status of
Labor Code which pertinently provides that "[t]he regular employees, employers claiming that their
bona-fide suspension of the operation of a business workers are project employees should not only
or undertaking for a period not exceeding six (6) prove that the duration and scope of the
months x x x shall not terminate employment." As employment was specified at the time they were
such, Irvine argued that Lopez's filing of the engaged, but also that there was indeed a project.
complaint for illegal dismissal was premature. No substantial evidence had been presented by
Irvine to show that Lopez had been assigned to
carry out a "specific project or undertaking," with its a complaint before the NLRC. In support of their
duration and scope specified at the time of claims for regularization and money claims, they
engagement. alleged that they performed functions necessary
In view of the weight accorded by the courts and desirable in ABS-CBN's business.
to factual findings of labor tribunals such as the To avoid paying what is due them,
NLRC, the Court, absent any cogent reason to hold respondents purportedly resorted to using said
otherwise, concurs with its ruling that Lopez was Talent Contracts and/or Project Assignment Forms
not a project but a regular employee. which denominated petitioners as talents, despite
As a regular employee, Lopez is entitled to the fact that they are not actors or TV hosts of
security of tenure, and, hence, dismissible only if a special skills. As a result of this, petitioners merely
just or authorized cause exists therefor. earned monthly salary that is lower than that of the
regular rank-and-file employees.
LA resolved the case in favor of petitioners.
NLRC upheld the decision. CA reversed the
findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. It
discounted the existence of an employer-employee
relation between the parties.

Issue:
Whether or not Begino and the others are
regular employees.

G.R. No. 199166, April 20, 2015 Ruling:

Begino vs. ABS-CBN Corp. YES. Notwithstanding the nomenclature of
their Talent Contracts and/or Project Assignment
Facts: Forms and the terms and condition embodied
ABS-CBN engaged the services of Begino therein, petitioners are regular employees of ABS-
and Del Valle as Cameramen/Editors for TV CBN.
Broadcasting. Their services were engaged by ABS The test to determine whether employment
thru regularly renewed Talent Contracts, with terms is regular or not is the reasonable connection
ranging from 3 months to 1 year. They were given between the activity performed by the employee in
Project Assignment Forms which detailed the relation to the business or trade of the employer. As
duration of a particular project as well as the budget cameramen/editors and reporters, petitioners were
and the daily technical requirements thereof. undoubtedly performing functions necessary and
Petitioners were tasked with coverage of news essential to ABS-CBN’s business of broadcasting
items for subsequent daily airings in respondents’ television and radio content.
TV Patrol Bicol Program. Aside from the fact that said program is a
Although their contracts stated that “nothing regular weekday fare of the ABS-CBN’s Regional
therein shall be deemed or construed to establish Network Group in Naga City, the record shows that
an employer-employee relationship between the petitioners were continuously re-hired by
parties,” they had to perform their work in respondents over the years. The repeated hiring of
accordance with ABS-CBN’s professional petitioners for its long-running news program
standards, and were barred from engaging in positively indicates that the latter were ABS-CBN’s
similar work for a person or entity directly in regular employees.
competition with or adverse to the interests of ABS-
CBN or promoting any product or service without its
prior written consent.
Claiming that they were regular employees
of ABS-CBN, petitioners filed against respondents
G.R. No. 199554, February 18, 2015
Paz vs. Northern Tobacco Redrying Co., Inc.

Facts:
Northern Tobacco, a flue-curing and
redrying of tobacco leaves business, employs
seasonal workers tasked to sort, process, store and
transport tobacco leaves during the tobacco season
of March to September.
Paz was hired by Northern Tobacco as a
seasonal sorter. And since then, she has been
rehired by Northern Tobacco every tobacco
season.
When Paz turned 63 years old, Northern
Tobacco informed her that she was considered
retired under company policy. She filed a complaint
for illegal dismissal and payment of retirement
benefits. She later on amended her complaint to
include payment of retirement benefits and other
monetary claims. She alleged that the retirement
pay, which is ₱12,000.00, seemed inadequate for
her 29 years of service.

Issue:
Whether or not Paz was illegally dismissed.

Ruling: