Labor Digests | Daway

SIBI, Juli Ann Rosette M. 2012 48548 Labor Digests - Labor Law: Labor Standards – Ma’am Daway Antonio J. Romares v. NLRC & Pilimico Foods Corp. Employee classification: Employer recognition FACTS: Artemio J. Romares was hired by PILMICO Foods Corporation, as a mason in its Maintenance/Projects/ Engineering Department. He served a total of 15 months, with a maximum of a one-year interval in between each contract. The complainant insisted that the repeated hiring shows that his job was necessary and desirable in the operation of respondent’s business. The fact that he had also served a total of 15 years, means he should be considered as a regular employee. With such, the termination without cause is a violation of Romares’ security of tenure. ISSUE: Whether or not Romares is a regular employee or not RULING: The Court held Romares is a regular employee and thus his termination was illegal. The Court explained that though the performance is not continuous or merely intermittent, the law deems that the repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity or indispensability of the activity to the business of the herein respondents. The Court emphasized how the limited period specified in the contracts were imposed by the respondents precisely to circumvent the constitutional guarantee on security of tenure

Philippine Federation etc. v. NLRC & Victoria Employee classification: employer determination/designation FACTS: Victoria Abril was employed by herein petitioner PFCCI as (1) Junior Auditor or Field Examiner, then later as (2) Cashier-designate, within the years 1985 to 1988. Abril went on leave, gave birth, and upon her return, one Vangie Santos took her position. She was subsequently offered the Regional Field Officer position on a probationary status. After six months, she was still made to work under a new contract until over a year later, her employment was terminated without cause. ISSUE: Whether or not the termination was legal or not RULING: The Court held that the contract was ambiguous for the terms are the following: (1) She was probationary (contract for 6 months); (2) One-year fixed term employment contract afterwards; (3) also a project employee. Considering such, the court held that because the contracts were ambiguous and were actually contracts of adhesion, and thus, it must be construed in favor of labor. Allowing that Abril’s termination would be in violation of security of tenure. Furthermore, having worked for the 6-month probationary period, and thus she should be deemed a regular employee and thus can only be terminated for just/authorized causes.

Romeo Basan et. al. (6 others) & NLRC v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines Regular employees: Nature of work: primary standard to determine regular employment FACTS: Seven employees (Romeo Basan + 6 others) who were hired as temporary route helpers to act as substitutes for it absent regular route helpers for a fixed period in anticipation of high volume of work in its plants or sales offices. They were dismissed without just cause, without prior notice and subsequent hearing. The defense of Coca-Cola was that Basan and the 6 others are only fixed-term employees for not more than 5 months, but in total, they compounded to over a year. ISSUE: Whether or not Basan and the 6 others are fixed-term employees and were thus validly dismissed

RULING: The Court held that they were illegally dismissed for they were regular employees and not fixedterm. In this case, the Court held that the most important determining factor is the nature of the work of the route helpers hired by Coca-Cola bottlers. “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.” Thus, even if it was intermittent hiring, controlling is the nature of the work which was clearly necessary to the business. Furthermore, the employer failed to present any employment contract or document to show that the employee’s agreed to the fixed-term employment.

Atok Big Wedge Co Inc v. Jesus P. Gison Regular employees: Art 295(280) When applicable: employer-employee relationship not in dispute FACTS: Atty. Jesus Gison was hired (retained) by Atok Big Wedge, a mining company, for legal advice, representation and other tasks related to such for 11 years. When Atty. Gison turned 56, he asked for SSS benefits but his client, Atok Big Wedge through the manager, refused, saying that Atty. Gison was not their employer. The retainer contract was later terminated, hence Atty. Gison’s action alleging illegal dismissal, unfair labor practices and payment of benefits. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Gison was a regular employee and was therefore illegally dismissed RULING: The Court held that Art. 280, which was used by Atty. Gison to sustain his argument that he was a regular employee, having worked for more than a year for Atok Big Wedge. However, the Court held that Art. 280 was only applicable for purposes of determining the rights of an employee to certain benefits.

Tomas Lao Construction, LVM Construction Corp., Thomas & James Developers Inc. v. NLRC Regular employees: Extended period FACTS: 11 employees of Tomas Lao Construction, LVM Construction, and Thomas & James Developers Phil Inc were dismissed after they refused to sign a new contract referring to them as project employees, even after they were considered as regular employees for the longest time. According to petitioners, the employees were to be part of a work pool of 3 different construction companies under the Lao Group of Companies. They would be hired and re-hired on a per project basis. Obviously, they refused to sign considering they have been employed as regulars for numerous years. Thus, the petitioners withheld their salaries and when they still refused to sign, they were viewed as uninterested with regard to keeping their positions. They were eventually terminated. ISSUE: Whether or not the employees are considered as regular employees and were thus terminated illegally RULING: The Court held that they were regularly employees. While they were indeed hired on a per project basis, the fact remains that the petitioners were hired and re-hired for seven years, over a long span of time, making them regular employees. “Thus, where the employment of project employees is extended long after the supposed project has been finished, the employees are removed from the scope of project employees and are considered regular employees.” While they were free to seek other employment while not working on a project, the continuous rehiring prevents them from doing so. If indeed, the intention was to suspend them after the project, they should have submitted reports of termination—but they didn’t because workers would be rehired by the other company under the Lao Group.

Beta Electric Corp. v. NLRC and Luzviminda Petilla Regular employees: Repeated renewal of contract FACTS: Private respondent Luzviminda Petilla was employed at Beta Electric Corporation as a clerk typist. Her contract was “renewed” four times, totaling to some 6 months. By the end of June, she was terminated for no cause at all. Thus, she filed an illegal dismissal complaint.

ISSUE: Whether or not Petilla was illegally dismissed or not RULING: The Court held that for all intents and purposes she was a probationary employee, who eventually became a regular employee after she worked beyond the 6 month limit created by law. The Court found that though her employment was of a contract-to-contract basis, it did not alter the nature of the work she was employed in, which was necessary or desirable in the usual business. Thus, the “contract-to-contract” basis employment was an “artifice” to prevent her from acquiring tenure, on the guise of hiring her only for “seasonal increases in volume of work.”

Omni Hauling Services Inc. v. Bernardo Bon and 17 others Project employment: Principal test of project employment FACTS: Respondents herein were hired by petitioner in line with Omni’s one year service contract with the Quezon City Government for hauling garbage. When service contract was renewed, respondents were made to sign. They refused, claiming they were regulars , and their refusal led to their eventual termination. ISSUE: Whether or not Bernardo Bon and the 17 others were illegally terminated RULING: The Court held that they were illegally terminated because there was no evidence that the employee was informed of the duration and scope of the project employment, which is supposed to be evidenced by an employment contract. Without such proof, they would be considered as a regular employee. The principal test of project employment is that (1) that the employee is assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking, (2) the duration of which was specified at the time they were engaged for that project, and that (3) the employee was informed of the contract. If not, that project employee is considered as a regular employee.

Isidro Quebral v. Angbus Construction (2016, J. Bernabe) Project employment: Effect of absence of written contract FACTS: Isidro Quebral and 10 others were hired by Angelfe Management for 1 project only. They were then hired by Angbus, a separate business entity, three years into the Angelfe contract, upon the latter’s completion. After several years of work at Angbus Construction, they were summarily dismissed without just or authorized cause. The defense of Angbus was that they were only project employees and were hired only on a per project basis. However, they were unable to present employment contracts for it, and were thus ravaged by flooding as evidenced by the chairman of Brgy. Rosario. ISSUE: Whether or not the absence of a project employment contract means they are regular employees RULING: The Court held that the absence of the employment contract means the employer has no proof that the employees were informed of the duration and scope of their employment. The Court made no consideration of the “flood” because the storage of the employment records at Pasig violates Sec. 11, Rule X, Book III. The Pasig storage place wasnot the main branch or where the branch where the employees are assigned. Thus, the Court without any clear justification for the absence of employment contracts, presumed that the employees are regular employees and can thus only be dismissed for just and authorized causes.

Roy D. Pasos v. Philippine National Construction Corporation (2013, J. Villarama Jr.) Project employment: Application of Rule on Reportorial Requirement FACTS: Roy D. Pasos was hired by Philippine National Construction Corporation as a Clerk a the NAIA – II Project for a period of three months, then said employment contract extended two more times. He was then rehired for an accounting position, of which he was terminated from. The employers said that the termination was

due to his absence from work which was not considered as he was not entitled to sick leaves for he was only a project employee. Hence, this action to assail his dismissal. ISSUE: Whether or not Pasos was considered a project employee, and thus, be granted reinstatement due to illegal dismissal RULING: The Supreme Court held that Pasos was not a project employee and has attained regular employment status due to repeated hiring and rehiring (which shows the necessity of the job). Furthermore, it was found Pasos was not included in the list of terminated employees due to completion of a project as submitted by the respondent corporation. The Court found that per DOLE Department Order No. 19 (Guidelines Governing the Employment of Workers in the Construction Industry), the reportorial requirement was indispensable to the proof of a valid termination. Pasos’ absence on the list shows that he was not considered as a project employee by the respondent corporation, and was thus illegally dismissed. Sickness is not a valid or authorized cause for dismissal.

MacArthur Malicdem and Hermegenildo Flores v. Marulas Industrial Corp. (2014, J. Mendoza) Project employment: Application of rule in non-construction industries FACTS: Malicdem and Flores were both hired by Marulas Industrial Corp, a company that produces sacks, as extruder operators (they operate the sack-making machines). For four years (2006-2010), the petitioners were hired on a yearly basis. At the end of each year, they were made to sign quitclaims and at the start of the year, they were made to sign new contracts. However in 2010, they were no longer rehired and were told to stop reporting to work. The Labor Arbiter, NLRC and CA ruled that there was no illegal dismissal and said this was merely a regular termination through lapse of the period stipulated in the contract. The Court of Appeals even laid emphasis on the fact that they were merely project employees and thus controlling is not years of service but the project or activity being done. This, despite the fact that the employees had already completed the 6-month probationary period. ISSUE: Whether or not the refusal to rehire Malicdem and Flores was a form of illegal dismissal despite them being only project employees? RULING: The Supreme Court held that this scheme of hiring and rehiring even after completion of the probationary period as circumventing labor laws, preventing employees from attaining regular employment. There are two main reasons for such: (1) the fact that they had completed probationary period and the Labor Code clearly stipulates that after the 6-month probationary period, the employee is automatically deemed regular if he continues to work; and (2) the two elements discussed in Maraguinot Jr. v. NLRC were present: (2a) that the employee was hired continuously as opposed to intermittently, rehired by said employer for the same tasks or nature of tasks, and (2b) those tasks are vital, necessary, and indispensable. While these were created for construction companies to comply with, the Supreme Court held it was also applicable in other situations.

Hacienda Leddy/Ricardo Gamboa Jr. v. Paquito Villegas (2014, J. Peralta) Casual Employees: Nature of Work FACTS: Paquito Villegas has been working as a sugar farmer and an employee in the coconut lumber business for the owner of Hacienda Leddy, Ricardo Gamboa Sr., for nearly twenty years. His son, however, needing the property of which Villegas’ house stands on (an offer made by his father out of gratuity to Villegas), and thus dismissed Villegas for no other reason, so he would be able to use the property in full. Gamboa Jr. justified his decision by saying that Villegas himself abandoned the job, that he was not a regular employee anyway and was merely a casual worker for piece-rate, doing odd jobs at the farm. When Villegas filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, Gamboa Jr. said that Villegas only filed it out of spite for being kicked out of the property, and insisted again that Gamboa Jr. was definitely not a regular employee. ISSUE: Whether or not Paquito Villegas is a regular employee or a casual worker only

RULING: The Supreme Court held here that Villegas was a regular employee for two main reasons: first, there is a connection between nature of the activities performed in relation to the particular business or trades, and second, the length of time in the performance of said work and its continued existence. The two reasons all in all show that indeed Villegas was a regular employee and not just a casual worker. Casual workers are (1) employed to perform a job, work or service, which is merely incidental to the business of the employer; and (2) are only employed for a definite period made known at the time of engagement. With such, Villegas was found to have been illegally dismissed.

Fortunato Mercado et. al. (15 others) v. NLRC & Aurora Cruz (1991, J. Padilla) Casual employees: One Year service FACTS: Fortunato Mercado and 15 others, including his wife and son, are all farmworkers in the properties belonging to Aurora Cruz and the incporators of Sto. Niño Realty. When they were dismissed, they all assailed that they were illegally dismissed for no clear grounds. The respondents herein insist that the farmworkers were only seasonal employees and were thus not covered by the provisions on labor standards in the Labor Code. The petitoners however said they have become regular employees after rendering years of service as farmers, working 13 hours a day for herein respondents. ISSUE: Whether or not paragraph 2 of Art. 295 (previously 280) applies to project employees in paragraph 1 of the same provision, thus making the petitioners herein, regular employees for having served more than one year for the employer RULING: The Supreme Court denied the petition of the farmers and said that per statutory construction, the second part of paragraph 2 only modifies the first part of the paragraph and not the entire provision. So, the “1 year condition” in the second part of paragraph 2 does not apply to seasonal employees such as farmers. Thus, the herein farmers were not illegally dismissed.

Alumamay O. Jamias (plus 2 Jennifers) v. NLRC & Innodata Philippines Inc., Innodata Processing Corp. Fixed-term employees FACTS: Alumamay and the two Jennifers were hired as manual editors for a fixed period of year at Innodata Philippines Inc. When the period was over, the petitioners herein filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, saying that Innodate “made it appear that they had been hired as project employees in order to prevent them from becoming regular employees.” They insist that the one-year fixed term was a violation of their security of tenure, per the cases of Villanueva v. NLRC and Servidad v. NLRC, and that they were clearly regular employees for the nature of their work is reasonably connected to the business or trade of the respondent company. ISSUE: Whether or not fixed-term employment contracts are violations of the right to security of tenure and thus the employee petitioners herein were illegally dismissed RULING: The Supreme Court said that fixed-term employment contracts are not violations of the right to security of tenure, and the rulings of Villanueva and Servidad were not on all fours with the case herein. In the cases cited, the Supreme Court found provisions that intentionally violated the law, such as a double probationary period, in which the employer would be allowed to dismiss the employee for a whole year instead of the provided 6 months. In this case, their employment contract was clear, that employment shall only be until 12 months (or 1 full year). Furthermore, in employment contracts for a fixed term of one year, what is determinant is not the necessity and desirability of the work performed by the employees, but it is actually the fact that the employer and the employee have agreed upon the day certain. Thus, the herein petitioners were not dismissed illegally.

Fuji Television Network Inc v. Espiritu Fixed-term employment FACTS: Arelene Espiritu is a news correspondent for Fuji, as a stinger. She subsequently got lung cancer and was forced to sign a non-renewal contract. She then assailed that she was illegally dismissed. Fuji then alleged that she is an independent-contractor, and can thus be terminated for contract purposes. ISSUE: Whether or not Arlene Espiritu is a regular employee or an independent contractor hired for her unique skills or special services RULING: The Court held that Arlene Espiritu was not an independent contractor, but was instead a fixed-term employee. The Court then emphasized that employees under fixed-term contracts cannot be independent contractors BUT a regular employee can be one with a fixed-term contract.

E. Ganzon Inc v. Fortunato Ando Jr. Fixed-term employment: Project employment and fixed-term employment FACTS: Fortunato Ando was hired as a finishing construction man for two different projects (Bahay Pamulinawen Project in Laoag, Ilocos Norte and EGI West Insular Project in Quezon City), covered by three different project employment contracts, two for Bahay Pamulinawen with a three-month between each contract, and one contract with EGI West Insular Project. On April 2011, he was terminated from work, and he thus filed this complaint for illegal dismissal. Ando insists that he is a regular employee, considering the repeated hiring, it was evident that the work her performed was necessary and desirable to the business/trade of the employer. ISSUE: Whether or not Ando is a regular employee, and was thus illegally dismissed RULING: The Supreme Court held that Ando was clearly a project employee, for he was hired for (1) a specific and identifiable project which is either (a) a job or undertaking within the regular or usual business of the employer company which is distinct and separate from other undertakings of the company, or (b) simply a job within the regular business of the corporation; and (2) it was for a definite period and was agreed upon by both parties without any undue influence by the employer on the employee. Project employees are different from fixedterm employees because for the latter, the determinant factor is the day certain though that day may not be known when for the commencement and termination of the employment relationship, but for the former, the determinant factor is really the activity that the employee is called upon to perform and not the day certain agreed upon, and only needs to be reasonably determinable (e.g. until the project is finished).

GMA Network Inc. v. Carlos P. Pabriga Fixed-term employment: Project employment and fixed-term employment FACTS: The respondent employees herein are television technicians, ‘pinch-hitters’ who only occupy the job when the original one on the job is unavailable., Due to miserable working conditions, they were forced to file complaints with the Regional Arbitration Board. Upon hearing of the complaint, petitioner employer barred them from entry and reporting from work without any clear reason why. Thus, a complaint for illegal dismissal was filed but the Labor Arbiter dismissed said complaint, saying that they were merely employees covered by fixed-term contracts. When the term ended, the necessity for the said job disappeared and they were later terminated. ISSUE: Whether or not herein respondents are regular employees or fixed-term employees RULING: The Court held that the private respondents herein that the Brent doctrine which delineates requirements for fixed-term contracts: (1) that the fixed period of employment was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties without any force, duress, or improper pressure being brought to bear, and (2) it satisfactorily appears that the employer and the employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms

with no moral dominance; is hardly applicable in not only this situation, but in almost every employeremployee relationship. In this case, the Court found that the employees herein were in no position to refuse to sign the cash vouchers which were used as evidence of the fixed-term relationship, because it would be equivalent to not being paid for their services. Clearly, the employees were forced to be in fixed-term contracts, even if they were really regular employees who deserved to be paid accordingly.

Antonio E. Unica v. ANSCOR Swire Ship Management Corporation (2014, J. Peralta) Fixed-term employment: No implied renewal of employment contract FACTS: Antonio Unica is a seaman, while the respondent is a ship manning corporation. Unica’s contract for employment expired on October 25, 2000, but he was only repatriated on November 14, 2000. Unica insisted that due to the extension of his stay, his contract was renewed, and thus upon repatriation, he was illegally dismissed. ISSUE: Whether or not there was an implied renewal of petitioner’s contract of employment with ANSCOR RULING: While the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC both held that an implied renewal was present, the Court of Appeals, as upheld by the Supreme Court in this decision, found otherwise. Although petitioner’s employment contract already expired, it cannot be expected that he be repatriated at that time already, since the ship was still in the middle of the sea. Clearly, it was impossible for Unica to safely disembark immediately upon the expiration of his contract.

Fonterra Brands Phils Inc. v. Leonardo Largado (2015, J. Velasco Jr.) Fixed-term employment: Non-renewal of contract, a management prerogative FACTS: Zytron Marketing provided Fonterra Brands Philippines with trade marketing representatives, among them being Leonardo Largado and Teotimo Estrellado, herein respondents. When Fonterra’s contract with Zytron was terminated, Leonardo and Teotimo, wanting to remain as TMRs of Fonterra, moved to the marketing company contracted by Fonterra, A.C. Sicat. A.C. Sicat accepted their employment for a term of fivemonths. However, when that term ended, they both assailed illegal dismissal against Fonterra, Zytron and A.C. Sicat for the latter’s refusal to renew their contracts. ISSUE: Whether or not refusal to renew fixed-term contracts is a ground for illegal dismissal RULING: The Supreme Court held that refusal to renew fixed-term contracts is actually management prerogative on the part of A.C. Sicat, and thus, A.C. Sicat’s refusal to renew Leonardo’s and Teotimo’s contracts, without bad faith, cannot serve as a ground for illegal dismissal. However, the respondents do not have grounds to file a complaint of illegal dismissal against Zytron of whom they voluntarily terminated employment with in order to move to A.C. Sicat, and against Fonterra Brands, for A.C. Sicat was found to be legitimate job contractor: (1) it carries on a distinct and independent business; (2) it has substantial capital or investment; (3) the agreement between the principal and contractor/subcontractor assures the contractual employees entitlement to all labor and occupational safety and health standards.

Philippine Tobacco Flue-Curing and Redrying Corporation v. NLRC (1998, J. Panganiban) Seasonal employees FACTS: Two groups of seasonal employees, namely the Lubat group and the Luris group have filed complaints for illegal dismissal against the herein petitioner, after it closed its tobacco business due for retrenchment purposes. The Lubat group, who worked at the tobacco farm for the 1993 season, were not allowed to work for the 1994 season. The Luric group on the other hand, worked at farm for the 1994 season, and questioned the amount of separation pay given to them. For the latter group, the Court held that retrenchment was not proven, and thus, the separation pay to be awarded should be recomputed and that it should be remanded back to the

Regional Arbitration Board for recomputation. The Lubat group however, is assailing payment for separation pay as well, insisting that the period of which they were “off-season” was not a period of unemployment but of leave from the 1993 season. ISSUE: Whether or not the Lubat group is entitled to separation pay even if they were “terminated” at the end of the 1993 season RULING: The Supreme Court herein held that during “off-season”, seasonal employees are not considered “terminated”, but are considered to be on-leave until the next season, therefore still considered as employees. Following this doctrine, the Court found that the Lubat group was illegally dismissed when the petitioner company did not allow them to report for work during the 1994 season and should be awarded separation pay for such, and the Lubat group also has the right to separation pay for the unjustifiable closure of the petitioner’s business.

Oyster Plaza Hotel v. Errol O. Melivo (2016, J. Mendoza) Probationary employees: Definition/purpose FACTS: Errol Melivo was hired by the petitioner as a trainee room boy for the hotel in August 2008, and was then hired as a probationary room boy in November 2008. After the expiry of the probationary period, Melivo was allowed to work until September 2009, wherein his supervisor verbally told him that because his contract was expiring (a contract which he had no copy of) and thus he must stop reporting for work. The LA, NLRC and CA all held that Melivo was illegally dismissed, and held Oyster Plaza solidarily liable with its corporate agents. ISSUE: Whether or not Melivo was illegally dismissed RULING: The Court held Melivo was indeed illegally dismissed for he had already attained regularity after he completed the six months of probationary employment when he was hired as a trainee. In the case of Holiday Inn Manila v. NLRC, the Court held that the complainant’s 3-week on-the-job training served as her probationary employment period. When she was later placed on probation, the Court in Holiday Inn found that she was already “deemed qualified” and was considered as a regular employee. The same goes for Melivo, who after 5 months of being trainee-status, when he was hired as probationary employee, he was deemed to have been found qualified for the position and thus obtained regular status.

Canadian Opportunities Unlimited Inc. v. Bart Q. Dalangin (2012, J. Brion) Probationary employees: Duration: Rule/exception FACTS: Bart Dalangin was hired by herein petitioner as an Immigration and Legal Manager on a probationary status. One month into the job however, the managers were starting to see faults in his character and personality as he frequently broke company policy by not abiding by the one-hour lunch break for example, and treated rank-and-file employees horribly. Chief Operations Officer Annie Abad then encouraged him to join a company values formation seminar which Dalangin turned down almost immediately, thus proving to them that Dalangin was disinterested in understanding the work the company does and the values it abides by. Thus, they gave him a memo explaining that his actions are acts of obstinacy, and later on, he was dismissed. Dalangin questioned his dismissal, saying that as a probationary employee, he can only be dismissed on just or authorized causes and that proper procedure must be followed. ISSUE: Whether or not Dalangin was illegally dismissed RULING: The Supreme Court held that Dalangin was not illegally dismissed, for this was an exercise of management prerogative. The duration of probationary employment is generally six months, but this can be shortened upon finding of the employer that the probationary employee is not qualified for permanent employment for not having reached the standards set by law. The Court then took into consideration that the notice of violation prior to the actual

dismissal was too immediate, and was not the “reasonable time” contemplated by the law, and awarded Dalangin nominal damages.

Univac Development Inc., v. William M. Soriano (2013, J. Peralta) Probationary employees: Limitations on Employer’s right to terminate probationary employment/effect if reasonable standard is not made known at the time of engagement: deemed regular employee FACTS: William Soriano was hired by the petitioners as a legal assistant. However, they later claimed that Soriano was performing unsatisfactorily. He was later terminated 8 days prior to the completion of his six month probationary period, for “cost-cutting measures”. Soriano filed a case of illegal dismissal against his employers, but the employers insisted that this was “management prerogative”, and that Soriano abandoned his job to review for the bar exams. ISSUE: Whether or not Soriano was illegally dismissed RULING: The Supreme Court held that Soriano was illegally dismissed. The Court found that the petitioners herein failed to prove employee was informed of the standards and qualifications to be employed. The Court then delineated the three limitations in which the probationary employee may be terminated by the employer: (1) it must be exercised in accordance with the specific requirements of the contract; (2) the dissatisfaction on the part of the employer must be real and in good faith, not feigned so as to circumvent the contract of the law; and (3) there must be no unlawful discrimination in the dismissal. In this case, it is clear that the limitation not followed is the second one, for the employer failed to prove a just cause and that the “satisfaction” level of the employer was not relayed to the employee at the time of engagement.

Cebu Stevedoring Co. Inc. v. Regional Director, Arsenio Gelig & Maria Luz Quijano (1988, J. Regalado) Probationary employees: Absorbed employees FACTS: Respondents Arsenio Gelig and Maria Luz Quijano were employees of the defunct Cebu Customs Arrastre Service. Upon abolishing of CCAS, Gelig and Quijano were absorbed by herein petitioners. Five months later however, the two were dismissed for no clear reason at all. The petitioners insist that the respondents are merely “casual employees” under probation and thus, they were allowed to terminate the said respondents without clearance from the Ministry of Labor and without paying separation pay. The respondents however question the idea that they were “casual employees” under probation, for they were hired for the same work of which they spent ten years doing in CCAS. Thus, it can be expected that they understand and are already qualified for the job. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondents are merely casual employees under probation and thus, holding the petitioner’s liable RULING: The Supreme Court said that the respondents cannot possibly be considered as “under probation” for upon their hiring and absorption from CCAS, they already possessed the qualifications of the job they were then applying for at Cebu Stevedoring. The Court emphasized how prior to the closure, both Gelig and Quijano were already clerks and were trusted to handle their respective jobs accordingly.

Abbot Laboratories Philippines et. al. v. Pearlie Ann F. Alcaraz (2013, J. Perlas-Bernabe) Probationary employees: Standards to qualify as a regular employee FACTS: Pearlie Ann Alcaraz was hired by petitioner as a Regulatory Affairs Manager, through a newspaper ad last March 2005. Two months later, Alcaraz’s practices were questioned for she was being too strict with the employees whom Alcaraz found to be undisciplined. On May 2005, Alcaraz was called to a meeting with her bosses and was told that she failed to meet the regularization standards of the company ALSU. When she was

finally dismissed, she assailed that she was not informed of the standards on which her regularization would be based and that they connived to illegally dismiss her. ISSUE: Whether or not Alcaraz’s termination was valid or legal RULING: The Supreme Court herein held that Alcaraz’s termination was legal for the two requisites were complied with: (1) employer communicated the regularization standards to the probationary employee; and (2) the employwer made such communication at the time of the probationary employee’s engagement. Without the two requisites, the Court said that the employee would be considered as a regular employee instead. However, the Court awarded nominal damages to Alcaraz for it found that ALSU and petitioners failed to follow their own procedure as to termination of probationary employees for they (1) did not conduct formal reviews and discussions with the employee twice with regard to his/her probationary status. There was also no submission of a Performance Improvement Plan. The Court emphasized that while it is Abbot’s management prerogative to promulgate its own company rules and even subsequently amend them, this right equally demands that when it does create its own policies, it accords upon itself the obligation faithfully implement them.

Jeanette Manalo et. al. and 3 others v. TNS Philippines Inc. (2014, J. Mendoza) Probationary employees: Project employees and probationary employees cannot co-exist FACTS: Manalo and the rest of the petitioners herein were hired by respondent company as field personnel on project-to-project employment contracts. Field personnel conducted public surveys about consumer goods, products, merchandise and/or services of its clients. Upon knowing that older field personnel would soon be let go in favor of contractual employees, the petitioners filed a complaint for regularization. When they were told not to return to work, complaints for illegal dismissal were consolidated with the complaints for regularization. The Labor Arbiter found that the employees were indeed project employees only and that their termination was co-terminous with the conclusion of a particular research project. Furthermore, it was later revealed that their contract had a provision that allowed the employer to terminate the employee upon finding that the employee was not “qualified”, clearly denoting a probationary employment, allowing the employer to terminate employment. ISSUE: Whether or not herein petitioners are project employees or probationary employees and were thus validly dismissed RULING: The Supreme Court found that the employees, were project employees at the start, but were no longer project employees after they have been hired and rehired with no period in the middle that would allow the employees to obtain work elsewhere. Furthermore, the termination report requirement was not dutifully complied with, and the absence of such only bolsters the regularity of the petitioners’ employment. The Court then laid emphasis on the provisions denoting probationary employment and that the nature of project employment, when mixed with probationary employment would allow for the circumvention of security of tenure. By allowing the rules on probationary employment to apply to project employment, the contract successfully allows an employer to terminate the agreement anytime within the contract period as long as they find that the employee is not living up to the standards relayed to him, which would render the creation of the contract and its terms useless. Thus, the Court held that such provisions denoting probationary employment cannot be in the same contract as project employment contracts.

Jocelyn Herrera-Manaois v. St. Scholastica College (2012, C.J. Sereno) Private school teachers-rule FACTS: Herein petitioner Jocelyn Herrera-Manaois is applying to be a full-time teacher at St. Scholastica’s college. Upon knowing that she was to complete her master’s degree soon, the Dean of the college allowed her employment on a probationary status until she completes her master’s thesis. Three years later, she still failed to

obtain said master’s degree, and thus her employment was terminated. The Dean also laid emphasis on how her master’s degree on Creative Writing can be put to better use in another college, considering they have refurbished their curriculum. She argued that having completed her probationary employment of three years, she should be considered as a regular, full-time teacher. Hence, this complaint for illegal dismissal. ISSUE: Whether or not Herrera-Manaois, as a private school teacher, is exempted from the rule that completion of probationary employment shall render an employee as a permanent employee RULING: The Supreme Court held that indeed, private school teachers are exempted from the general rule on probationary employment for integrated into every employment contract for private school teachers on the tertiary level are the 1992 Manual of Regulations for Private Schools by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS),* which explicitly says that in order to obtain full-time employment, one must have completed a master’s degree, and that in order to obtain permanency, one must be a full-time teacher. *In 2017, what is applicable is the 2008 Manual of Regulations for Private Higher Education by the Commission on Higher Education, released through CHED Memorandum Order No. 40 in 2008.

Universidad de Sta Isabel v. Marvin-Julian L. Sambajon Jr. (2014, J. Villarama Jr.) Private school teachers: Probationary v. Fixed term employees in Private schools FACTS: Marvin-Julian Sambajon is a probationary employee/teacher at the Universidad de Sta. Isabel. He had recently obtained his master’s degree, and thus wrote the Human Resources Department for the appropriate salary adjustment and re-ranking. However, Sambajon requested that his salary adjustment retroact to a point where he was still considered a probationary employee, to the ire of the administration. Eventually, the administration informed him that they were no longer renewing his contract for the upcoming semester, effectively preventing him from completing the probationary employment, as six semesters or three years are required by the DOLE-CHED-DECS-TESDA Order No. 01, s1996 Guidelines on Status of Employment of Teachers and of Academic Personnel in Private Educational Institutions in order to obtain permanent employment. Thus, Sambajon filed a case for illegal dismissal. ISSUE: Whether or not the non-renewal of a probationary teacher’s contract for the upcoming semester is considered as illegal dismissal RULING: The Supreme Court held that the non-renewal in this case was indeed considered as illegal dismissal, for there was no justifiable cause to terminate the probationary employment considering Sambajon had above average reviews prior to his termination. The Court, in the case, also held that the concept that Sambajon’s contract was that of fixed-term employment and thus the end of the contract is equivalent to termination of employment, is dangerous unless qualified by the Labor Code provisions on probationary employment with regard to termination of contract. This is because probationary employment leads to regular employment, while fixed-term employment is terminated upon the end of the contract. By saying Sambajon’s probationary employment contract is one of fixed-term, allows the employer to escape regularization of a probationary employee with the argument that the contract has ended instead of renewing it. The Labor Code provision places a qualification for that termination which is “just cause” or “failure to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the employer to the employee at the time of his engagement.”

Colegio del Santisimo Rosario v. Emmanuel Rojo Private school teachers: Due process; Employer should show how standards have been applied FACTS: Emmanuel Rojo had just finished the three semesters of teaching secondary school required of probationary employees prior to being regular, permanent employees, when the petitioner school informed him that they would no longer be renewing his contract for the upcoming semester, thus preventing him from obtaining regular employment. Rojo filed a complaint saying he was illegally dismissed, but herein petitioner school insisted that their refusal to renew the contract does not equate to illegal termination.

ISSUE: Whether or not the termination of the employment due to expiry of contract is considered as illegal dismissal RULING: The Court in this case held that mere expiry of contract without renewal is not illegal dismissal per se, if such is supported by the proper grounds for termination of probationary employment as mandated in the Labor Code (just cause and/or failure to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the employer to the employee at the time of his engagement). The Court emphasized how important it is to ensure that the employee is aware of the standards one must abide by to qualify for employment while under probationary employment for it would be against due process to terminate a probationary employee for not abiding by standards he/she was not informed of. The Court also drew the line between fixed term employment and probationary employment as was discussed in the case of USI v. Sambajon Jr.