case digests arts 278 - 281

8/13/2019 Case Digests Arts 278 - 281

1/44

G.R. No. 164913 September 8, 2010

St. MARY'S ACADEMY of Dipoo! Cit",Petitioner,

vs.

#ERES$#A %A&AC$, MAR$GEN CA&$(D, &E)$E &A*+$, E&A$NE MAR$E

SAN#ANDER, E&$A SA$&E, AND MA. D&RES MN#EDERAMS,Respondents.

DE& CAS#$&&,J.:

-AC#S In the late 1990s, petitioner hired respondents Calibod, Laquio, Santander, Saile,

Montederamos, andPalaio. In separate letters dated Marh !1, "000, ho#ever, petitionerin$ormed them that their re%appliation $or shool &ear "000%"001 ould not be aepted beause

the& $ailed to pass the Liensure '(amination $or )eahers *L')+. ordin- to petitioner, as

non%board passers, respondents ould not ontinue pratiin- their teahin- pro$ession pursuantto 'CS Memorandum /o. 10, S. 199 #hih requires inumbent teahers to re-ister as

pro$essional teahers pursuant to Setion " o$ Republi t *R+ /o. !2, other#ise 3no#n as

the Philippine )eahers Pro$essionali4ation t o$ 1995.)o-ether #ith $our other lassroom teahers, respondents $iled a omplaint ontestin-

their termination as hi-hl& irre-ular and premature. )he& admitted that the& are indeed non%

board passers, ho#ever, the& also ar-ued that their seurit& o$ tenure ould not simpl& be

trampled upon $or their $ailure to re-ister #ith the PRC or to pass the L') prior to the deadlineset b& R !2. 6urther, the& opined that their outri-ht dismissal #as ille-al beause some o$

them possessed ivil servie eli-ibilities and speial permits to teah.

6urthermore, petitioners retention and aeptane o$ other teahers #ho do not alsopossess the required eli-ibilit& sho#ed evident bad $aith in terminatin- respondents.

Petitioner, on the other hand, maintained that it deided to terminate their servies as

earl& as Marh !1, "000 beause it #ould be pre7udiial to the shool i$ their servies #ill be

terminated in the middle o$ the shool &ear.)he Labor rbiter ad7ud-ed petitioner -uilt& o$ ille-al dismissal beause it terminated the

servies o$ the respondents on Marh !1, "000 #hih #as learl& prior to the September 19,"000 deadline $i(ed b& PRC $or the re-istration o$ teahers as pro$essional teahers, in violation

o$ the dotrine re-ardin- the prospetive appliation o$ la#s.

8oth parties appealed to the /LRC but suh #ere denied.

Petitionerelevated the ase to the C and the C a-reed #ith the $indin-s o$ both theLabor rbiter and the /LRC that the dismissal #as e$$eted prematurel& in violation o$ e(istin-

la#s. )he C also $ound petitioners ats o$ retainin- and hirin- other equall& unquali$ied

teahers bad-es o$ bad $aith.s re-ards the $our other lassroom teahers., the C $ound them to be mere

probationar&, and not re-ular, emplo&ees. )heir emplo&ment ontrats merel& e(pired and sine

the petitioner did not #ish to rene# their ontrats, then there is no ille-al dismissal to spea3 o$.

$SS+E 1+ hether or not the dismissal o$ Respondents #as premature.

"+ ssumin- that the termination o$ Respondents #as premature, at the most Respondents are

entitled to ba3#a-es up to September 19, "000 onl&.

/E&D 1+ :es, respondents dismissal #as premature.It is undisputed that respondents #ere all non%board passers #hen the& #ere dismissed b&

petitioner on Marh !1, "000. ll the others, e(ept respondent Saile #ho is not quali$ied to ta3e


2/44

the L'), $ailed the e(amination. Petitioner harps on the $at that even i$ respondents #ere to ta3e

the L') in u-ust o$ "000, the results ould not be 3no#n in time to meet the September 19,

"000 deadline. ;o#ever, it is to be noted that the la# still allo#s those #ho $ailed the liensuree(amination bet#een 1992 and "000 to ontinue teahin- i$ the& obtain temporar& or speial

permits as para%teahers.In other #ords, as the la# has provided a spei$i time$rame #ithin

#hih respondents ould ompl&, petitioner has no ri-ht to den& them o$ this privile-e aordedto them b& la#.

Petitioner laims that it terminated respondents emplo&ment as earl& as Marh "000

beause it ould not enter into #ritten ontrats #ith respondents $or the period o$

R !2.

"+ Respondents are entitled to ba3#a-es even be&ond September 19, "000.Petitioner questions the amount o$ separation pa& a#arded to respondents ontendin- that

assumin- respondents #ere ille-all& dismissed, the& are onl& entitled to an amount omputed

$rom the time o$ dismissal up to September 19, "000 onl&. $ter September 19, "000,respondents, are alread& dismissible $or ause $or la3 o$ the neessar& liense to teah.

)his ontention deserves no merit. Petitioner annot possibl& presume that respondents

ould not timel& ompl& #ith the requirements o$ the la#. t an& rate, #e note that petitioneronl& assailed the amount o$ ba3#a-es $or the $irst time in its motion $or reonsideration o$ the

eision o$ the C. )hus, the Court annot entertain the issue $or bein- belatedl& raised. ;ene,

the a#ard o$ limited ba3#a-es overin- the period $rom Marh !1, "000 to September !0, "000

as ruled b& the Labor rbiter and a$$irmed b& both the /LRC and C is in order.

Wensha Spa Center v. Loreta Yung

G.R. No. 185122 August 16, 2010

WENSA S!A CEN"ER, #NC. an$%or &' (# )#E,Petitioners,vs.L*RE"A ". Y'NG,Respondent.


3/44

+EN*(A, J.:

-AC"S: XuZhiJie (Xu) is the president of Wensha Spa Center, Inc. (Wensha), whie!oreta "un# (!oreta) was its ad$inistrative $ana#er at the ti$e of the atter%s

ter$ination fro$ e$po&$ent. 'ccordin# to the evidence su$itted & !oreta, she

recounted that on 'u#ust *, +**, she was as-ed to eave her office ecause Xu anda en#Shui $aster were e/porin# the pre$ises. !ater that da&, Xu as-ed !oreta to #o

on eave with pa& for one $onth. She did so and returned on Septe$er *, +**.

0pon her return, Xu and his wife as-ed her to resi#n fro$ Wensha ecause, accordin#

to the en#Shui $aster, her aura did not $atch that of Xu. !oreta refused ut was

infor$ed that she coud no on#er continue wor-in# at Wensha. 1hat sa$e afternoon,

!oreta went to the 2!RC and fied a case for ie#a dis$issa a#ainst Xu and

Wensha.Wensha and Xu denied ie#a& ter$inatin# !oreta%s e$po&$ent. In their

position paper fied on 2ove$er 3, +** (ut dated 2ove$er +4, +**) , the& cai$ed

that two $onths after !oreta was hired, the& received various co$paints a#ainst her

fro$ the e$po&ees so that on 'u#ust *, +**, the& advised her to ta-e a eave of

asence for one $onth whie the& conducted an investi#ation on the $atter. 5ased on

the resuts of the investi#ation, the& ter$inated !oreta%s e$po&$ent on 'u#ust 3,

+** for oss of trust and confidence. 6owever, attriutin# the $ista-e to their for$er

counse, the& fied a re7oinder dated 8ctoer , +** wherein the& ae#ed that the& did

not dis$iss !oreta and that the& even as-ed the atter to report ac- to wor- ut !oreta

decined ecause she has aread& fied the case. 1he !aor 'riter (!') rued in favor of

Xu and Wensha, decarin# that 9asent an& proof su$itted & the co$painant, this

office finds it $ore proae that the co$painant was dis$issed due to oss of trust and

confidence.9 8n appea, the 2!RC affir$ed !'%s decision ased on the infor$ationta-en fro$ the affidavit of Princess eos Re&es (eos Re&es), Wensha%s 8perations

;ana#er, dated ;arch +, +**4, and the affidavitsof e$po&ees attached to eos

Re&es% affidavit,which were a dated 2ove$er


4/44

0nder the securit& of tenure #uarantee, a wor-er can on& e ter$inated fro$ hise$po&$ent for cause and after due process. or a vaid ter$ination & the e$po&er:() the dis$issa $ust e for a vaid cause as provided in 'rtice +=+, or for an& of theauthori?ed causes under 'rtices +=3 and += of the !aor Code@ and (+) the e$po&ee$ust e afforded an opportunit& to e heard and to defend hi$sef. ' 7ust and vaid

cause for an e$po&ee%s dis$issa $ust e supported & sustantia evidence, andefore the e$po&ee can e dis$issed, he $ust e #iven notice and an adeAuateopportunit& to e heard. In the process, the e$po&er ears the urden of provin# thatthe dis$issa of an e$po&ee was for a vaid cause. Its faiure to dischar#e this urdenrenders the dis$issa un7ustified and, therefore, ie#a.

1he onus of provin# a vaid dis$issa rests on the e$po&er, not on thee$po&ee. It is the e$po&er who ears the urden of provin# that its dis$issa of thee$po&ee is for a vaid or authori?ed cause supported & sustantia evidence.Wenshafaied in this re#ard. Its peadin#s and evidence, ta-en as a whoe, suffer fro$inconsistenc&. 1he asis of the 2!RC%s decision was ta-en fro$ the affidavitof Princess

eos Re&es (Delos Reyes)which was dated ;arch +, +**4, not in Wensha%s earierposition paper or peadin#s su$itted to the !'. ;oreover, the affidavitsof e$po&eesattached to eos Re&es% affidavit were a dated 2ove$er


5/44

-AC#S In the months o$ 6ebruar& and Marh "00>, respondents $iled several omplaints

$or ille-al dismissal, re-ulari4ation, underpa&ment, nonpa&ment o$ #a-es and other mone&laims, as #ell as laims $or moral and e(emplar& dama-es and attorne&?s $ees a-ainst the

petitioners tlanta Industries, In. *Atlanta+ and its President and Chie$ @peratin- @$$ier Robert

Chan. tlanta is a domesti orporation en-a-ed in the manu$ature o$ steel pipes. )heomplainants alle-ed that the& had attained re-ular status as the& #ere allo#ed to #or3 #ith

tlanta $or more than si( *2+ months $rom the start o$ a purported apprentieship a-reement

bet#een them and the ompan&. )he& laimed that the& #ere ille-all& dismissed #hen theapprentieship a-reement e(pired. In de$ense, tlanta and Chan ar-ued that the #or3ers #ere

not entitled to re-ulari4ation and to their mone& laims beause the& #ere en-a-ed as

apprenties under a -overnment%approved apprentieship pro-ram. )he ompan& o$$ered to hire

them as re-ular emplo&ees in the event vaanies $or re-ular positions our in the setion o$ theplant #here the& had trained. )he& also laimed that their names did not appear in the list o$

emplo&ees *Master List+ prior to their en-a-ement as apprenties.

$SS+E hether or not respondents #ere re-ular emplo&ees o$ tlanta.

/E&D :'S. 8ased on ompan& operations at the time material to the ase, Costales,lmoite, Sebolino and Sa-un #ere alread& renderin- servie to the ompan& as emplo&ees

be$ore the& #ere made to under-o apprentieship. )he ompan& itsel$ reo-ni4ed the

respondents? status throu-h relevant operational reords % in the ase o$ Costales and lmoite, theCPS monthl& report $or eember "00! #hih the /LRC relied upon and, $or Sebolino and

Sa-un, the prodution and #or3 shedule $or Marh to 1", "00>ited b& the C. Said

douments are su$$iient to establish the emplo&ment o$ the respondents be$ore their

en-a-ement as apprenties. )he Master Listo$ emplo&ees that the petitioners heavil& rel& uponas proo$ o$ their position that the respondents #ere not tlanta?s emplo&ees, at the time the&

#ere en-a-ed as apprenties, is unreliable and does not inspire belie$.

)he $at that respondents #ere alread& renderin- servie to the ompan& #henthe& #ere made to under-o apprentieship renders the apprentieship a-reements irrelevant as

$ar as the $our are onerned. )he respondents oupied positions suh as mahine operator,

saleman and e(truder operator % tas3s that are usuall& neessar& and desirable in tlanta?s usualbusiness or trade as manu$aturer o$ plasti buildin- materials. )hese tas3s and their nature

harateri4ed the $our as re-ular emplo&ees under rtile "0 o$ the Labor Code. )hus, #hen

the& #ere dismissed #ithout 7ust or authori4ed ause, #ithout notie, and #ithout the

opportunit& to be heard, their dismissal #as ille-al under the la#.'ven i$ #e reo-ni4e the ompan&?s need to train its emplo&ees throu-h

apprentieship, #e an onl& onsider the $irst apprentieship a-reement $or the purpose. ith the

e(piration o$ the $irst a-reement and the retention o$ the emplo&ees, tlanta had, to all intentsand purposes, reo-ni4ed the ompletion o$ their trainin- and their aquisition o$ a re-ular

emplo&ee status. )o $oist upon them the seond apprentieship a-reement $or a seond s3ill

#hih #as not even mentioned in the a-reement itsel$, is a violation o$ the Labor Code?simplementin- rules and is an at mani$estl& un$air to the emplo&ees, to sa& the least.

G.R. No. 163033 7tober 2, 2009


6/44

SAN M$G+E& CR%RA#$N,Petitioner,

vs.ED+ARD &. #EDS$,Respondent.

6atsA

)his is a petition $or revie# on ertiorari, under Rule 5> o$ the Rules o$ Court, see3in- to annul and set aside the eision o$ the

Court o$ ppeals.

@n September >, 1991, respondent 'duardo )eodosio #as hired b& San Mi-uel Corporation *SMC+ as a asual $or3li$t operator

in its 8aolod Cit& 8re#er&.!s a $or3li$t operator, respondent #as tas3ed #ith loadin- and unloadin- pallet5o$ beer ases#ithin the bre#er& premises. Respondent ontinuousl& #or3ed $rom September >, 1991 until Marh 199", a$ter #hih he #as=as3ed to rest= $or a #hile. month a$ter, or sometime in pril 199", respondent #as rehired $or the same position, and a$terservin- $or about $ive to si( months, he #as a-ain =as3ed to rest.= $ter three #ee3s, he #as a-ain rehired as a $or3li$t operator.

;e ontinued to #or3 as suh until u-ust 199!.>

Sometime in u-ust 199!, respondent #as made to si-n an ='mplo&ment #ith a 6i(ed Period=2ontrat b& SMC, #herein it #asstipulated, amon- other thin-s, that respondents emplo&ment #ould be =$rom u-ust , 199! to u-ust !0, 199>, or uponessation o$ the instabilit&B$lutuation o$ the mar3et demand, #hihever omes $irst.= )herea$ter, respondent #or3ed at the plant

#ithout interruption as a $or3li$t operator.

@n Marh "0, 199>, respondent #as trans$erred to the plants bottlin- setion as a ase piler. In a letterdated pril 10, 199>,

respondent $ormall& in$ormed SMC o$ his opposition to his trans$er to the bottlin- setion. ;o#ever, he protested the trans$er.

'mplo&ment shall be terminated on in ompliane #ith the 'mplo&ment #ith a 6i(ed Period ontrat.9SMCe(plained that this #as due to the reor-ani4ation and streamlinin- o$ its operations. )herea$ter, respondent si-ned a Reeipt andRelease11doument in $avor o$ SMC and aepted his separation pa&, thereb& releasin- all his laims a-ainst SMC.

@n , respondent $iled a Complaint1"a-ainst SMC be$ore /LRC.

ISMISS'% )he /LRC anhored its deision on the $at that respondent si-ned a =Reeipt and Release= upon reeivin- his

separation pa& $rom SMC. It upheld the validit& o$ the said Reeipt and Release doument, $indin- the same to have beenvoluntaril& e(euted b& the respondent and the onsideration there$or appears to be reasonable under the irumstanes.12)herespondent $iled a motion $or reonsideration, but it #as denied in a Resolution1dated Ma& "2, "000.

ISMISS'% )he C reversed the 7ud-ment in $avor o$ 'duardo.

IssueA

1+ #hether the respondent #as a re-ular emplo&ee o$ SMC

"+ #hether the respondent #as ille-all& dismissed and

!+ #hether the respondent is entitled to his monetar& laims and dama-es.

;eldA

1+ :es. )here are t#o 3inds o$ re-ular emplo&ees under rt."0 o$ LC, namel&A *1+ those #ho are en-a-ed to per$ormativities #hih are usuall& neessar& or desirable in the usual business or trade o$ the emplo&er and *"+ those #hohave rendered at least one &ear o$ servie, #hether ontinuous or bro3en, #ith respet to the ativit& in #hih the& areemplo&ed."!Simpl& stated, re-ular emplo&ees are lassi$ied into *1+ re-ular emplo&ees % b& nature o$ #or3 and *"+

re-ular emplo&ees % b& &ears o$ servie. )he $ormer re$ers to those emplo&ees #ho per$orm a partiular ativit& #hihis neessar& or desirable in the usual business or trade o$ the emplo&er, re-ardless o$ their len-th o$ servie #hile the

latter re$ers to those emplo&ees #ho have been per$ormin- the 7ob, re-ardless o$ the nature thereo$, $or at least a &ear."5I$ the emplo&ee has been per$ormin- the 7ob $or at least one &ear, even i$ the per$ormane is not ontinuous or merel&
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_163033_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_163033_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_163033_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_163033_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_163033_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_163033_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_163033_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_163033_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_163033_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_163033_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_163033_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_163033_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_163033_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_163033_2009.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_163033_2009.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_163033_2009.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_163033_2009.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_163033_2009.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_163033_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_163033_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_163033_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_163033_2009.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_163033_2009.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_163033_2009.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_163033_2009.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_163033_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_163033_2009.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_163033_2009.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_163033_2009.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_163033_2009.html#fnt24


7/44

intermittent, the la# deems the repeated and ontinuin- need $or its per$ormane as su$$iient evidene o$ the neessit&,

i$ not indispensabilit&, o$ that ativit& to the business.">

8ased on the irumstanes surroundin- respondents emplo&ment b& SMC, this Court is onvined that he hasattained the status o$ a re-ular emplo&ee lon- be$ore he e(euted the emplo&ment ontrat #ith a $i(ed period.lthou-h respondent #as initiall& hired b& SMC as a asual emplo&ee, respondent has attained the status o$ a re-ular

emplo&ee. Respondent #as initiall& hired b& SMC on September >, 1991 until Marh 199". ;e #as rehired $or the

same position in pril 199" #hih lasted $or $ive to si( months. $ter three #ee3s, he #as a-ain rehired as a $or3li$toperator and he ontinued to #or3 as suh until u-ust 199!. )hus, at the time he si-ned the 'mplo&ment #ith a 6i(edPeriod ontrat, respondent had alread& been in the emplo& o$ SMC $or at least t#ent&%three *"!+ months.

"+ :es. ;avin- -ained the status o$ a re-ular emplo&ee, respondent is entitled to seurit& o$ tenure and ould onl& bedismissed on 7ust or authori4ed auses and a$ter he has been aorded due proess. lso, SMC annot ta3e re$u-e in theReeipt and Release doument si-ned b& the respondent. Denerall&, deeds o$ release, #aivers, or quitlaims annot baremplo&ees $rom demandin- bene$its to #hih the& are le-all& entitled or $rom ontestin- the le-alit& o$ their dismissal,sine quitlaims are loo3ed upon #ith dis$avor and are $ro#ned upon as ontrar& to publi poli&. here, ho#ever, the

person ma3in- the #aiver has done so voluntaril&, #ith a $ull understandin- thereo$, and the onsideration $or thequitlaim is redible and reasonable, the transation must be reo-ni4ed as a valid and bindin- underta3in-.!5)he

burden o$ provin- that the quitlaim or #aiver #as voluntaril& entered into rests on the emplo&er.!>

SMC $ailed to dishar-e this burden. )his is buttressed b& the $at that be$ore the respondent si-ned the doument, he

alread& in$ormed SMC in the letter dated , that even i$ he #ould be ompelled to reeive his separation pa&and be $ored to si-n a #aiver to that e$$et, he #as not #aivin- his ri-ht to question his dismissal and to laim

emplo&ment bene$its. )his learl& proves that respondent did not $reel& and voluntaril& onsent to the e(eution o$ thedoument.

!+ /o moral and e(emplar& dama-es. In the present ase, respondent $ailed to su$$iientl& establish that his dismissal #asdone in bad $aith #as ontrar& to morals, -ood ustoms or publi poli& and #as arbitrar& and oppressive to labor,

thus entitlin- him to the a#ard o$ moral and e(emplar& dama-es. :es to a#ard o$ attorne&s $ees, b& reason o$ hisille-al dismissal, respondent #as $ored to liti-ate and inur e(penses to protet his ri-hts and interest.

G.R. No. 164913 September 8, 2010

St. MARY'S ACADEMY of Dipoo! Cit",Petitioner,vs.

#ERES$#A %A&AC$, MAR$GEN CA&$(D, &E)$E &A*+$, E&A$NE MAR$E

SAN#ANDER, E&$A SA$&E, AND MA. D&RES MN#EDERAMS,Respondents.

DE& CAS#$&&,J.:

-AC#S In the late 1990s, petitioner hired respondents Calibod, Laquio, Santander, Saile,Montederamos, andPalaio. In separate letters dated Marh !1, "000, ho#ever, petitioner

in$ormed them that their re%appliation $or shool &ear "000%"001 ould not be aepted beause

the& $ailed to pass the Liensure '(amination $or )eahers *L')+. ordin- to petitioner, asnon%board passers, respondents ould not ontinue pratiin- their teahin- pro$ession pursuant

to 'CS Memorandum /o. 10, S. 199 #hih requires inumbent teahers to re-ister as

pro$essional teahers pursuant to Setion " o$ Republi t *R+ /o. !2, other#ise 3no#n asthe Philippine )eahers Pro$essionali4ation t o$ 1995.

)o-ether #ith $our other lassroom teahers, respondents $iled a omplaint ontestin-

their termination as hi-hl& irre-ular and premature. )he& admitted that the& are indeed non%

board passers, ho#ever, the& also ar-ued that their seurit& o$ tenure ould not simpl& betrampled upon $or their $ailure to re-ister #ith the PRC or to pass the L') prior to the deadline
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_163033_2009.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_163033_2009.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_163033_2009.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_163033_2009.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_163033_2009.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_163033_2009.html#fnt35


8/44

set b& R !2. 6urther, the& opined that their outri-ht dismissal #as ille-al beause some o$

them possessed ivil servie eli-ibilities and speial permits to teah.

6urthermore, petitioners retention and aeptane o$ other teahers #ho do not alsopossess the required eli-ibilit& sho#ed evident bad $aith in terminatin- respondents.

Petitioner, on the other hand, maintained that it deided to terminate their servies as

earl& as Marh !1, "000 beause it #ould be pre7udiial to the shool i$ their servies #ill beterminated in the middle o$ the shool &ear.

)he Labor rbiter ad7ud-ed petitioner -uilt& o$ ille-al dismissal beause it terminated the

servies o$ the respondents on Marh !1, "000 #hih #as learl& prior to the September 19,"000 deadline $i(ed b& PRC $or the re-istration o$ teahers as pro$essional teahers, in violation

o$ the dotrine re-ardin- the prospetive appliation o$ la#s.

8oth parties appealed to the /LRC but suh #ere denied.

Petitionerelevated the ase to the C and the C a-reed #ith the $indin-s o$ both theLabor rbiter and the /LRC that the dismissal #as e$$eted prematurel& in violation o$ e(istin-

la#s. )he C also $ound petitioners ats o$ retainin- and hirin- other equall& unquali$ied

teahers bad-es o$ bad $aith.

s re-ards the $our other lassroom teahers., the C $ound them to be mereprobationar&, and not re-ular, emplo&ees. )heir emplo&ment ontrats merel& e(pired and sine

the petitioner did not #ish to rene# their ontrats, then there is no ille-al dismissal to spea3 o$.

$SS+E 1+ hether or not the dismissal o$ Respondents #as premature.

"+ ssumin- that the termination o$ Respondents #as premature, at the most Respondents are

entitled to ba3#a-es up to September 19, "000 onl&.

/E&D 1+ :es, respondents dismissal #as premature.

It is undisputed that respondents #ere all non%board passers #hen the& #ere dismissed b&

petitioner on Marh !1, "000. ll the others, e(ept respondent Saile #ho is not quali$ied to ta3e

the L'), $ailed the e(amination. Petitioner harps on the $at that even i$ respondents #ere to ta3ethe L') in u-ust o$ "000, the results ould not be 3no#n in time to meet the September 19,

"000 deadline. ;o#ever, it is to be noted that the la# still allo#s those #ho $ailed the liensure

e(amination bet#een 1992 and "000 to ontinue teahin- i$ the& obtain temporar& or speialpermits as para%teahers.In other #ords, as the la# has provided a spei$i time$rame #ithin

#hih respondents ould ompl&, petitioner has no ri-ht to den& them o$ this privile-e aorded

to them b& la#.Petitioner laims that it terminated respondents emplo&ment as earl& as Marh "000

beause it ould not enter into #ritten ontrats #ith respondents $or the period


9/44

and Montederamos is un#arranted. ;o#ever, #e ta3e e(eption to the ase o$ respondent Saile

#ho, as alle-ed b& petitioner, #as not quali$ied to ta3e the L') as she onl& had three out o$ the

minimum 10 required eduational units to be admitted to ta3e the L') pursuant to Setion 1> o$R !2.

"+ Respondents are entitled to ba3#a-es even be&ond September 19, "000.

Petitioner questions the amount o$ separation pa& a#arded to respondents ontendin- thatassumin- respondents #ere ille-all& dismissed, the& are onl& entitled to an amount omputed

$rom the time o$ dismissal up to September 19, "000 onl&. $ter September 19, "000,

respondents, are alread& dismissible $or ause $or la3 o$ the neessar& liense to teah.)his ontention deserves no merit. Petitioner annot possibl& presume that respondents

ould not timel& ompl& #ith the requirements o$ the la#. t an& rate, #e note that petitioner

onl& assailed the amount o$ ba3#a-es $or the $irst time in its motion $or reonsideration o$ the

eision o$ the C. )hus, the Court annot entertain the issue $or bein- belatedl& raised. ;ene,the a#ard o$ limited ba3#a-es overin- the period $rom Marh !1, "000 to September !0, "000

as ruled b& the Labor rbiter and a$$irmed b& both the /LRC and C is in order.

Wensha Spa Center v. Loreta Yung

G.R. No. 185122 August 16, 2010

WENSA S!A CEN"ER, #NC. an$%or &' (# )#E,Petitioners,vs.L*RE"A ". Y'NG,Respondent.

+EN*(A, J.:

-AC"S: XuZhiJie (Xu) is the president of Wensha Spa Center, Inc. (Wensha), whie!oreta "un# (!oreta) was its ad$inistrative $ana#er at the ti$e of the atter%s

ter$ination fro$ e$po&$ent. 'ccordin# to the evidence su$itted & !oreta, she

recounted that on 'u#ust *, +**, she was as-ed to eave her office ecause Xu and

a en#Shui $aster were e/porin# the pre$ises. !ater that da&, Xu as-ed !oreta to #o

on eave with pa& for one $onth. She did so and returned on Septe$er *, +**.

0pon her return, Xu and his wife as-ed her to resi#n fro$ Wensha ecause, accordin#

to the en#Shui $aster, her aura did not $atch that of Xu. !oreta refused ut was

infor$ed that she coud no on#er continue wor-in# at Wensha. 1hat sa$e afternoon,

!oreta went to the 2!RC and fied a case for ie#a dis$issa a#ainst Xu andWensha.Wensha and Xu denied ie#a& ter$inatin# !oreta%s e$po&$ent. In their

position paper fied on 2ove$er 3, +** (ut dated 2ove$er +4, +**) , the& cai$ed

that two $onths after !oreta was hired, the& received various co$paints a#ainst her

fro$ the e$po&ees so that on 'u#ust *, +**, the& advised her to ta-e a eave of

asence for one $onth whie the& conducted an investi#ation on the $atter. 5ased on

the resuts of the investi#ation, the& ter$inated !oreta%s e$po&$ent on 'u#ust 3,


10/44

+** for oss of trust and confidence. 6owever, attriutin# the $ista-e to their for$er

counse, the& fied a re7oinder dated 8ctoer , +** wherein the& ae#ed that the& did

not dis$iss !oreta and that the& even as-ed the atter to report ac- to wor- ut !oreta

decined ecause she has aread& fied the case. 1he !aor 'riter (!') rued in favor of

Xu and Wensha, decarin# that 9asent an& proof su$itted & the co$painant, this

office finds it $ore proae that the co$painant was dis$issed due to oss of trust and

confidence.9 8n appea, the 2!RC affir$ed !'%s decision ased on the infor$ation

ta-en fro$ the affidavit of Princess eos Re&es (eos Re&es), Wensha%s 8perations

;ana#er, dated ;arch +, +**4, and the affidavitsof e$po&ees attached to eos

Re&es% affidavit,which were a dated 2ove$er


11/44

pett& $atters that, to the Court%s $ind, are not sufficient to support Wensha%s ae#edoss of trust and confidence. 1o e a vaid cause for ter$ination of e$po&$ent, the actor acts constitutin# reach of trust $ust have een done intentiona&, -nowin#&, andpurpose&@ and the& $ust e founded on cear& estaished facts.;ore i$portant&, therecords are ereft of evidence that !oreta was du& infor$ed of the char#es a#ainst her

and that she was #iven the opportunit& to respond to those char#es prior to herdis$issa. If there were indeed char#es a#ainst !oreta that Wensha had to investi#ate,then it shoud have infor$ed her of those char#es and reAuired her to e/pain her side.Wensha shoud aso have -ept records of the investi#ation conducted whie !oreta wason eave.1he aw reAuires that two notices e #iven to an e$po&ee prior to a vaidter$ination: the first notice is to infor$ the e$po&ee of the char#es a#ainst her with a

warnin# that she $a& e ter$inated fro$ her e$po&$ent and #ivin# her reasonaeopportunit& within which to e/pain her side, and the second notice is the notice to thee$po&ee that upon due consideration of a the circu$stances, she is ein# ter$inatedfro$ her e$po&$ent. 1his is a reAuire$ent of due process and cear&, !oreta did notreceive an& of those reAuired notices.

2evertheess, ecause of the strained reations etween the parties, !oreta%sreinstate$ent was no on#er feasie hence, Wensha was ordered to pa& !oretaher fuac-wa#es, other privie#es, and enefits, or their $onetar& eAuivaent, and separationpa& rec-oned fro$ the date of her dis$issa.

A#&AN#A $ND+S#R$ES, $NC. ANDR R(ER# C/AN, %E#$#$NERS, )S.

A%R$&$# R. SE(&$N, /$M ). CS#A&ES, A&)$N ). A&M$#E, AND SE%/

S. SAG+N, RES%NDEN#S. G.R. No. 18320, 5r" 26, 2011, . (R$N, po5e5te.

-AC#S In the months o$ 6ebruar& and Marh "00>, respondents $iled several omplaints

$or ille-al dismissal, re-ulari4ation, underpa&ment, nonpa&ment o$ #a-es and other mone&laims, as #ell as laims $or moral and e(emplar& dama-es and attorne&?s $ees a-ainst thepetitioners tlanta Industries, In. *Atlanta+ and its President and Chie$ @peratin- @$$ier Robert

Chan. tlanta is a domesti orporation en-a-ed in the manu$ature o$ steel pipes. )he

omplainants alle-ed that the& had attained re-ular status as the& #ere allo#ed to #or3 #ithtlanta $or more than si( *2+ months $rom the start o$ a purported apprentieship a-reement

bet#een them and the ompan&. )he& laimed that the& #ere ille-all& dismissed #hen the

apprentieship a-reement e(pired. In de$ense, tlanta and Chan ar-ued that the #or3ers #erenot entitled to re-ulari4ation and to their mone& laims beause the& #ere en-a-ed as

apprenties under a -overnment%approved apprentieship pro-ram. )he ompan& o$$ered to hire

them as re-ular emplo&ees in the event vaanies $or re-ular positions our in the setion o$ the

plant #here the& had trained. )he& also laimed that their names did not appear in the list o$emplo&ees *Master List+ prior to their en-a-ement as apprenties.

$SS+E hether or not respondents #ere re-ular emplo&ees o$ tlanta.

/E&D :'S. 8ased on ompan& operations at the time material to the ase, Costales,

lmoite, Sebolino and Sa-un #ere alread& renderin- servie to the ompan& as emplo&eesbe$ore the& #ere made to under-o apprentieship. )he ompan& itsel$ reo-ni4ed the


12/44

respondents? status throu-h relevant operational reords % in the ase o$ Costales and lmoite, the

CPS monthl& report $or eember "00! #hih the /LRC relied upon and, $or Sebolino and

Sa-un, the prodution and #or3 shedule $or Marh to 1", "00>ited b& the C. Saiddouments are su$$iient to establish the emplo&ment o$ the respondents be$ore their

en-a-ement as apprenties. )he Master Listo$ emplo&ees that the petitioners heavil& rel& upon

as proo$ o$ their position that the respondents #ere not tlanta?s emplo&ees, at the time theere en-a-ed as apprenties, is unreliable and does not inspire belie$.

)he $at that respondents #ere alread& renderin- servie to the ompan& #hen

the& #ere made to under-o apprentieship renders the apprentieship a-reements irrelevant as$ar as the $our are onerned. )he respondents oupied positions suh as mahine operator,

saleman and e(truder operator % tas3s that are usuall& neessar& and desirable in tlanta?s usual

business or trade as manu$aturer o$ plasti buildin- materials. )hese tas3s and their nature

harateri4ed the $our as re-ular emplo&ees under rtile "0 o$ the Labor Code. )hus, #henthe& #ere dismissed #ithout 7ust or authori4ed ause, #ithout notie, and #ithout the

opportunit& to be heard, their dismissal #as ille-al under the la#.

'ven i$ #e reo-ni4e the ompan&?s need to train its emplo&ees throu-h

apprentieship, #e an onl& onsider the $irst apprentieship a-reement $or the purpose. ith thee(piration o$ the $irst a-reement and the retention o$ the emplo&ees, tlanta had, to all intents

and purposes, reo-ni4ed the ompletion o$ their trainin- and their aquisition o$ a re-ularemplo&ee status. )o $oist upon them the seond apprentieship a-reement $or a seond s3ill

#hih #as not even mentioned in the a-reement itsel$, is a violation o$ the Labor Code?s

implementin- rules and is an at mani$estl& un$air to the emplo&ees, to sa& the least.

G.R. No. 163033 7tober 2, 2009

SAN +#G'EL C*R!*RA"#*N,Petitioner,vs.E'AR* L. "E**S#*,Respondent.

acts:

1his is a petition for review on certiorari, under Rue 4 of the Rues of Court, see-in# toannu and set aside the ecision of the Court of 'ppeas.

8n Septe$er 4,


13/44

cessation of the instaiit&Dfuctuation of the $ar-et de$and, whichever co$es first.91hereafter, respondent wor-ed at the pant without interruption as a for-ift operator.

8n ;arch +*,


14/44

inter$ittent, the aw dee$s the repeated and continuin# need for its perfor$anceas sufficient evidence of the necessit&, if not indispensaiit&, of that activit& tothe usiness.+4

5ased on the circu$stances surroundin# respondent%s e$po&$ent & S;C, this

Court is convinced that he has attained the status of a re#uar e$po&ee on#efore he e/ecuted the e$po&$ent contract with a fi/ed period. 'thou#hrespondent was initia& hired & S;C as a casua e$po&ee, respondent hasattained the status of a re#uar e$po&ee. Respondent was initia& hired & S;Con Septe$er 4,


15/44

RA+& G. &CS$N EDD$E (. #MA*+$N . %&D#

Velasco, Jr., J:

FACTSA @n /ovember 1, 1990, respondent Philippine Lon- istane )elephone Compan& *PL)+ and

the Seurit& and Sa$et& Corporation o$ the Philippines *SSCP+ entered into a Seurit& Servies

-reement *-reement+ #hereb& SSCP #ould provide armed seurit& -uards to PL) to be assi-ned to

its various o$$ies. Pursuant to suh a-reement, petitioners Raul Losin and 'ddie )omaquin, amon-

other seurit& -uards, #ere posted at a PL) o$$ie.

@n u-ust !0, "001, respondent issued a Letter dated u-ust !0, "001 terminatin- the -reement

e$$etive @tober 1, "001.

espite the termination o$ the -reement, ho#ever, petitioners ontinued to seure the premises o$

their assi-ned o$$ie. )he& #ere alle-edl& direted to remain at their post b& representatives o$

respondent. In support o$ their ontention, petitioners provided the Labor rbiter #ith opies o$ petitioner

Losins pa& slips $or the period o$


16/44

)hus, PL) $iled a Motion $or Reonsideration o$ the /LRCs Resolution, #hih #as also denied.

Consequentl&, PL) $iled a Petition $or Certiorari #ith the C as3in- $or the nulli$iation o$ the

Resolution issued b& the /LRC as #ell as the Labor rbiters eision. )he C rendered the assailed

deision -rantin- PL)s petition and dismissin- petitioners omplaint.

)he C applied the $our%$old test in order to determine the e(istene o$ an emplo&er%emplo&ee

relationship bet#een the parties but did not $ind suh relationship. It determined that SSCP #as not a

labor%onl& ontrator and #as an independent ontrator havin- substantial apital to operate and ondut

its o#n business. )he C $urther bolstered its deision b& itin- the -reement #hereb& it #as stipulated

that there shall be no emplo&er%emplo&ee relationship bet#een the seurit& -uards and PL).

nent the pa& slips that #ere presented b& petitioners, the C noted that those #ere issued b& SSCP and

not PL) hene, SSCP ontinued to pa& the salaries o$ petitioners a$ter the -reement.

6rom suh assailed deision, petitioners $iled a motion $or reonsideration, #hih #as denied, in

the assailed resolution.

;ene, this petition.

ISS!:hether or not petitioners beame emplo&ees o$ respondent a$ter the -reement bet#een SSCP

and respondent #as terminated.

R"ING::'S.

)he petition is -ranted.

In the ordinar& ourse o$ thin-s, responsible business o#ners or mana-ers #ould not allo#

seurit& -uards o$ an a-en& #ith #hom the o#ners or mana-ers have severed ties #ith to ontinue to

sta& #ithin the business premises. )his is beause upon the termination o$ the o#ners or mana-ers

a-reement #ith the seurit& a-en&, the a-en&s underta3in- o$ liabilit& $or an& dama-e that the seurit&

-uard #ould ause has alread& been terminated. t the ver& least, responsible business o#ners or


17/44

mana-ers #ould inquire or learn #h& suh seurit& -uards #ere remainin- at their posts, and #ould have

a lear understandin- o$ the irumstanes o$ the -uards sta&. It is but lo-ial that responsible business

o#ners or mana-ers #ould be a#are o$ the situation in their premises.

6rom the $ore-oin- irumstanes, reason ditates that #e onlude that petitioners remained at

their post under the instrutions o$ respondent. e an $urther onlude that respondent ditated upon

petitioners that the latter per$orm their re-ular duties to seure the premises durin- operatin- hours. )his,

to our mind and under the irumstanes, is su$$iient to establish the e(istene o$ an emplo&er%emplo&ee

relationship

)o reiterate, #hile respondent and SSCP no lon-er had an& le-al relationship #ith the

termination o$ the -reement, petitioners remained at their post seurin- the premises o$ respondent

#hile reeivin- their salaries, alle-edl& $rom SSCP. Clearl&, suh a situation ma3es no sense, and the

denials pro$$ered b& respondent do not shed an& li-ht to the situation. It is but reasonable to onlude that,#ith the behest and, presumabl&, diretive o$ respondent, petitioners ontinued #ith their servies.

'videntl&, suh are indicia o$ ontrol that respondent e(erised over petitioners.

Suh po#er o$ ontrol has been e(plained as the Eri-ht to ontrol not onl& the end to be ahieved

but also the means to be used in reahin- suh end.F ith the onlusion that respondent direted

petitioners to remain at their posts and ontinue #ith their duties, it is lear that respondent e(erised the

po#er o$ ontrol over them thus, the e(istene o$ an emplo&er%emplo&ee relationship.

'videntl&, respondent havin- the po#er o$ ontrol over petitioners must be onsidered as

petitioners emplo&erGG$rom the termination o$ the -reement on#ardsGGas this #as the onl& time that

an& evidene o$ ontrol #as e(hibited b& respondent over petitioners and in li-ht o$ our rulin-

inAbella. )hus, as aptl& delared b& the /LRC, petitioners #ere entitled to the ri-hts and bene$its o$

emplo&ees o$ respondent, inludin- due proess requirements in the termination o$ their servies.

8oth the Labor rbiter and /LRC $ound that respondent did not observe suh due proess

requirements. ;avin- $ailed to do so, respondent is -uilt& o$ ille-al dismissal.

G.R. No. 1/1/0 Apr 12, 2011

!#L#!!#NE CAR#"Y SWEE!S"A3ES *--#CE


18/44

4*AR *- #REC"*RS an$ REYNAL* !. +AR"#N, pettoners

s.

+AR#E )EAN C. LA!#, respon$ent

+EN*(A, J.

-ats

!apid is a casua cer- of PCS8 of 5ataan

Fue$o is a Chief !otter& 8perations 8fficer of PCS8 5ataan.

June >, +**4 G !apid confronted, ad$outhed and shouted invectives at

Fue$o, in the presence of other e$po&ees and patients see-in# assistancefro$ the PCS8.

Fue$o fied and ad$inistrative co$paint for ;isconduct and iscourtes& of

officia function.

1he PCS8 !e#a epart$ent sent a $e$o to !apid as-in# the atter to respond

to the affidavitEco$paint of Fue$o

1he PCS8 !e#a ept. su$itted its reco$$endation to the PCS8 F; and

5oard for the issuance of the for$a char#e a#ainst !apid

'u#ust , +**4 E PCS8 su$itted a cop& of the resoution of the !e#a ept. on

the issuance of the or$a Char#e as we as an unsi#ned cop& of the or$a

char#e.

8ctoer +, +**4 G the PCS8 5oard resoved to confir$ the reco$$endation to

ter$inate the services of !apid due to iscourtes& in the Course of 8fficia uties

and Frave ;isconduct.

!apid appeaed to CSC: is$issed.

CSC decision: !apid was never for$a& char#ed, however, PCS8%s faiure to

oserve due process is irreevant. 1he rea issue is the ter$ination of !apid%s

casua e$po&$ent. 1he fact that !apid was e$po&ed & the PCS8 as a casua

e$po&ee $eans that she does not en7o& securit& of tenure. !apid%s services are

ter$inae an&ti$e, there ein# no need to show cause.

!apid fie a petition for review efore the C': Franted.


19/44

C' decision: Whie it was previous& hed that casua e$po&ees were not

protected & securit& of tenure as the& $a& e re$oved fro$ the service with or

without cause, a recent case decided & the Court hed otherwise. 1he Court

rued that since there was no evidence supportin# the char#e a#ainst the

respondent therein, it coud not sustain his reco$$ended dis$issa on the $ere

#round that he was a casua e$po&ee for even a casua or te$porar& e$po&ee

en7o&s securit& of tenure and cannot e dis$issed e/cept for cause enu$erated

in Sec. ++, Rue XIH of the 8$nius Civi Service Rues and Re#uations and

other pertinent aws.

#SS'EWhether or not casua e$po&ees en7o& the ri#ht to securit& of tenure.

EL YES.

1he Court rued in ;ora case: Bven casua or te$porar& e$po&ee en7o&s

securit& of tenure and cannot e dis$issed e/cept for cause enu$erated in Sec.++, Rue XIH of the 8$nius Civi Service Rues and Re#uations and other

pertinent aws.

1he& $a& e aidEoff an& ti$e efore the e/piration of the e$po&$ent period

provided an& of the foowin# occurs: () when their services are no on#er

needed@ (+)funds are no on#er avaiae@ (3) the pro7ect has aread& een

co$petedDfinished@ or () their perfor$ance are eow par (CSC or$ 2o. **)

BAua& i$portant, the& are entited to due process especia& if the& are to e

re$oved for $ore serious causes or for causes other than the reasons$entioned in CSC or$ 2o. **. 1his is pursuant to Section +, 'rtice IX(5) of

the Constitution and Section of the Civi Service !aw. 1he reason for this is

that their ter$ination fro$ the service coud carr& a penat& affectin# their ri#hts

and future e$po&$ent in the #overn$ent

1he action of PCS8 cear& vioated !apid%s asic ri#hts as a casua e$po&ee.

's pointed out & the CSC itsef, !apid was 2BHBR for$a& char#ed with the

ad$inistrative offenses of iscourtes& in the Course of 8fficia uties and Frave

;isconduct.

Section 3(+), 'rtice XIII of the Constitution #uarantees the ri#hts of a wor-ers

not 7ust in ter$s of sefEor#ani?ation, coective ar#ainin#, peacefu concerted

activities, the ri#ht to stri-e with Auaifications, hu$ane conditions of wor-, and a

ivin# wa#e ut aso to securit& of tenure.


20/44

Section +(3), 'rtice IXE5 of the Constitution provides that no officer or e$po&ee

of the civi service sha e re$oved or suspended e/cept for cause provided &

aw.

Section (a) of the Civi Service !aw provides that no officer or e$po&ee in the

Civi Service sha e suspended or dis$issed e/cept for cause as provided &

aw after due process.

Petitione denied.

!apid aowed to continue renderin# services unti the end of the ter$ of her

te$porar& e$po&$ent.

E:D+S $N#&. CNS#R+C#$N CR%., petitio5er . G+$&&ERM ($SC/C,

-ERNAND EREDA, -ERD$NAND MAR$AN, GREGR$ (E&&$#A AND M$G+E&(($&&, re;po5e7t empo"ee;or those emplo&ed in onnetion #ith a partiular onstrution pro7et or phase


21/44

thereo$ and suh emplo&ment is oterminous #ith eah pro7et or phase o$ the pro7et to #hih the& are

assi-ned. )he seond is 3no#n as non%pro7et emplo&ees or those emplo&ed #ithout re$erene to an&

partiular onstrution pro7et or phase o$ a pro7et. )he seond ate-or& is #here respondents arelassi$ied. s suh the& are re!r empo"ee;o$ petitioners. It is lear $rom the reords o$ the ase

that #hen one pro7et is ompleted, respondents #ere automatiall& trans$erred to the ne(t pro7et

a#arded to petitioners. )here #as no emplo&ment a-reement -iven to respondents #hih learl& spelledout the duration o$ their emplo&ment, the spei$i #or3 to be per$ormed and that suh is made lear to

them at the time o$ hirin-. /onetheless, assumin- that respondents #ere initiall& hired as pro7et

emplo&ees, petitioners must be reminded that a pro7et emplo&ee ma& aquire the status o$ a re-ularemplo&ee #hen the $ollo#in- $ators onurA *1+ )here is a ontinuous rehirin- o$ pro7et emplo&ees

even a$ter essation o$ a pro7et 5< *"+ )he tas3s per$ormed b& the alle-ed Epro7et emplo&eeF are vital,

neessar& and indespensable to the usual business or trade o$ the emplo&er. In this ase, the evidene on

reord sho#s that respondents #ere emplo&ed and assi-ned ontinuousl& to the various pro7ets o$petitioners. s painters, the& per$ormed ativities #hih #ere neessar& and desirable in the usual

business o$ petitioners, #ho are en-a-ed in subontratin- 7obs $or paintin- o$ residential units,

ondominium and ommerial buildin-s. s re-ular emplo&ees, respondents are entitled to be reinstated

#ithout loss o$ seniorit& ri-hts.

G.R. No. 16910 A!;t 8, 2010

D.M. CNS+N$, $NC.,Petitioner,

vs.

AN#N$ G(RES, MAGE&&AN DA&$SAY, GD-RED %ARAGSA, EM$&$

A&E#A 5< GENERS ME&,Respondents.

%ERAA,J.:

-AC#S Respondents ntonio Dobres, Ma-ellan alisa&, Dodo$redo Para-sa, 'milio leta andDeneroso Melo #or3ed as arpenters in the onstrution pro7ets o$ petitioner .M. Consun7i,In., a onstrution ompan&, on several oasions andBor at various times. )heir termination

$rom emplo&ment $or eah pro7et #as reported to the epartment o$ Labor and 'mplo&ment

*@L'+, in aordane #ith Poli& Instrution /o. "0, #hih #as later superseded b&epartment @rder /o. 19, series o$ 199!. Respondents last assi-nment #as at Huad 5%Pro7et in

Dlorietta, &ala, Ma3ati, #here the& started #or3in- on September 1, 199. @n @tober 15,

199, respondents sa# their names inluded in the /otie o$ )ermination posted on the bulletinboard at the pro7et premises.

Respondents $iled a Complaint #ith the rbitration 8ranh o$ the /ational Labor Relations

Commission */LRC+ a-ainst petitioner .M. Consun7i, In. and avid M. Consun7i $or ille-al

dismissal, and non%pa&ment o$ 1!th month pa&, $ive *>+ da&s servie inentive leave pa&,dama-es and attorne&s $ees.

Petitioner .M. Consun7i, In. and avid M. Consun7i ountered that respondents, bein- pro7et

emplo&ees, are overed b& Poli& Instrution /o. "0, as superseded b& epartment @rder /o.

19, series o$ 199! #ith respet to their separation or dismissal. Respondents #ere emplo&ed perpro7et underta3en b& petitioner ompan& and #ithin var&in- estimated periods indiated in their


22/44

respetive pro7et emplo&ment ontrats. Citin- the emplo&ment reord o$ eah respondent,

petitioner and avid M. Consu7i averred that respondents servies #ere terminated #hen their

phases o$ #or3 $or #hih their servies #ere en-a-ed #ere ompleted or #hen the pro7etsthemselves #ere ompleted. Petitioner ontended that sine respondents #ere terminated b&

reason o$ the ompletion o$ their respetive phases o$ #or3 in the onstrution pro7et, their

termination #as #arranted and le-al.

Respondents replied that the Huad 5%Pro7et at Dlorietta, &ala, Ma3ati Cit& #as estimated tota3e t#o &ears to $inish, but the& #ere dismissed #ithin the t#o%&ear period. )he& had no prior

notie o$ their termination. ;ene, -rantin- that the& #ere pro7et emplo&ees, the& #ere still

ille-all& dismissed $or non%observane o$ proedural due proess.

@n @tober 5, 1999, the Labor rbiter rendered a eisiondismissin- respondents omplaint.

)he Labor rbiter $ound that respondents #ere pro7et emplo&ees, that the& #ere dismissed $rom

the last pro7et the& #ere assi-ned to #hen their respetive phases o$ #or3 #ere ompleted, and

that petitioner .M. Consun7i, In. and avid M. Consun7i reported their termination o$ servies

to the aordane #ith the requirements @L' in o$ la#.

Respondents appealed the Labor rbiters eision to the /LRC.

In a Resolution dated


23/44

)he C stated that althou-h respondents #ere pro7et emplo&ees, the& #ere entitled to 3no# the

reason $or their dismissal and to be heard on #hatever laims the& mi-ht have. )he appellate

ourt stated that had respondents been -iven prior notie, the& #ould not have reported $or #or3on @tober 15, 199. ;ene, the Court o$ ppeals ordered petitioner and avid M. Consun7i to

pa& respondents P"0,000.00 eah as nominal dama-es $or la3 o$ advane notie o$ their

termination.

$SS+E hether or not respondents, as pro7et emplo&ees, are entitled to nominal dama-es $orla3 o$ advane notie o$ their dismissal.

/E&D/o.

pro7et emplo&ee is de$ined under rtile "0 o$ the Labor Code as one #hose =emplo&ment

has been $i(ed $or a spei$i pro7et or underta3in- the ompletion or termination o$ #hih hasbeen determined at the time o$ the en-a-ement o$ the emplo&ee or #here the #or3 or servies to

be per$ormed is seasonal in nature and the emplo&ment is $or the duration o$ the season.=

s pro7et emplo&ees, respondents termination is -overned b& Setion 1 *+ and Setion " *III+,

Rule KKIII *)ermination o$ 'mplo&ment+, 8oo3 o$ the @mnibus Rules Implementin- theLabor Code.

Setion 1 *+, Rule KKIII, 8oo3 o$ the @mnibus Rules Implementin- the Labor Code statesA

Setion 1. Seurit& o$ tenure. *a+ In ases o$ re-ular emplo&ment, the emplo&er shall not

terminate the servies o$ an emplo&ee e(ept $or 7ust or authori4ed auses as provided b& la#,and sub7et to the requirements o$ due proess.

( ( ( (

*+ In ases o$ pro7et emplo&ment or emplo&ment overed b& le-itimate ontratin- or sub%

ontratin- arran-ements, no emplo&ee shall be dismissed prior to the ompletion o$ the pro7et

or phase thereo$ $or #hih the emplo&ee #as en-a-ed, or prior to the e(piration o$ the ontratbet#een the prinipal and ontrator, unless the dismissal is $or 7ust or authori4ed ause sub7et

to the requirements o$ due proess or prior notie, or is brou-ht about b& the ompletion o$ the

phase o$ the pro7et or ontrat $or #hih the emplo&ee #as en-a-ed."5

Reords sho# that respondents #ere dismissed a$ter the e(piration o$ their respetive pro7etemplo&ment ontrats, and due to the ompletion o$ the phases o$ #or3 respondents #ere

en-a-ed $or. ;ene, the ited provisions requirements o$ due proess or prior notie #hen anemplo&ee is dismissed $or 7ust or authori4ed ause *under rtiles "" and "! o$ the LaborCode+ prior to the ompletion o$ the pro7et or phase thereo$ $or #hih the emplo&ee #as

en-a-ed do not appl& to this ase.

6urther, Setion " *III+, Rule KKIII, 8oo3 o$ the @mnibus Rules Implementin- the Labor

Code providesA
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_169170_2010.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/aug2010/gr_169170_2010.html#fnt24


24/44

Setion ". Standard o$ due proessA requirements o$ notie. In all ases o$ termination o$

emplo&ment, the $ollo#in- standards o$ due proess shall be substantiall& observed.

( ( ( (

III. I$ the termination is brou-ht about b& the ompletion o$ the ontrat or phase thereo$,no prior notie is required.

In this ase, the Labor rbiter, the /LRC and the Court o$ ppeals all $ound that respondents

#ere validl& terminated due to the ompletion o$ the phases o$ #or3 $or #hih respondents

servies #ere en-a-ed. )he above rule learl& states, =I$ the termination is brou-ht about b& theompletion o$ the ontrat or phase thereo$, no prior notie is required.=

;ene, prior or advane notie o$ termination is not part o$ proedural due proess i$ the

termination is brou-ht about b& the ompletion o$ the ontrat or phase thereo$ $or #hih the

emplo&ee #as en-a-ed. Petitioner, there$ore, did not violate an& requirement o$ proedural due

proess b& $ailin- to -ive respondents advane notie o$ their termination thus, there is no basis$or the pa&ment o$ nominal dama-es.

In sum, absent the requirement o$ prior notie o$ termination #hen the termination is brou-htabout b& the ompletion o$ the ontrat or phase thereo$ $or #hih the #or3er #as hired,

respondents are not entitled to nominal dama-es $or la3 o$ advane notie o$ their termination.

;'R'6@R', the petition is DR/)'.

G.R. No. 1832?0 Mr7@ 10, 2010

$&&$AM +Y CNS#R+C#$N CR%. 5


25/44

as a pro7et emplo&ee althou-h he had al#a&s been assi-ned to #or3 on one pro7et a$ter another

#ith some intervals. ;e $urther alle-ed that petitioner ompan& terminated him $rom #or3 a$ter

it shut do#n operations beause o$ la3 o$ pro7ets. ;e learned later, ho#ever, that althou-h itopened up a pro7et in 8atan-as, it did not hire him ba3 $or that pro7et.

In repl&, petitioner ar-ued that it #as in the onstrution business. 8& the nature o$ suhbusiness, it had to hire and en-a-e the servies o$ pro7et onstrution #or3ers, inludin-

respondent )rinidad, #hose emplo&ments had to be o%terminous #ith the ompletion o$ spei$iompan& pro7ets. 6or this reason, ever& time the ompan& emplo&ed )rinidad, he had to

e(eute an emplo&ment ontrat #ith it, alledAppointment as Project Worker.

Labor rbiter rendered a deision, dismissin- respondent )rinidads omplaint $or un7ustdismissal. /LRC a$$irmed its deision. 8ut C reversed the /LRCs $indin-s.

$SS+E

hether or not the C orretl& ruled that petitioner ompan&s repeated rehirin- o$

respondent )rinidad over several &ears as pro7et emplo&ee $or its various pro7ets automatiall&entitled him to the status o$ a re-ular emplo&ee.

/E&D

Denerall&, len-th o$ servie provides a $air &ardsti3 $or determinin- #hen an emplo&ee

initiall& hired on a temporar& basis beomes a permanent one, entitled to the seurit& andbene$its o$ re-ulari4ation. 8ut this standard #ill not be $air, i$ applied to the onstrution

industr&, simpl& beause onstrution $irms annot -uarantee #or3 and $undin- $or its pa&rolls

be&ond the li$e o$ eah pro7et. nd -ettin- pro7ets is not a matter o$ ourse. Constrution

ompanies have no ontrol over the deisions and resoures o$ pro7et proponents or o#ners.)here is no onstrution ompan& that does not #ish it has suh ontrol but the realit&,

understood b& onstrution #or3ers, is that #or3 depended on deisions and developments over

#hih onstrution ompanies have no sa&.

6or this reason, the Court held in Caseres v. Universal Robina Sugar MillingCorporation1J that the repeated and suessive rehirin- o$ pro7et emplo&ees do not quali$&

them as re-ular emplo&ees, as len-th o$ servie is not the ontrollin- determinant o$ theemplo&ment tenure o$ a pro7et emplo&ee, but #hether the emplo&ment has been $i(ed $or aspei$i pro7et or underta3in-, its ompletion has been determined at the time o$ the

en-a-ement o$ the emplo&ee.

Republic of the Philippines


26/44

SUPREME COURTManila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 164315 July 3, 2009

ALCATEL PHILIPPINES, INC., and YOLANDA DELOS REYES, Petitioners,vs.RENE R. RELOS, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO, J.:

The Facts

Alcatel is a domestic corporation primarily engaged in the business of installation andsupply of telecommunications equipment. Petitioner Delos Reyes was a formerAdministrative Officer of Alcatel.

On 4 January 1988, Alcatel offered respondent "temporary employment asEstimator/Draftsman Civil Works to assist in the preparation of manholes and conduitdesign for the proposal preparation for PLDT X-5 project for the period 4 January 1988to 28 February 1988."6 On 1 March 1988, Alcatel again offered respondent "temporaryemployment as Estimator/Draftsman to assist in the PLDTs X-4 IOT project for the

period 1 March 1988 to 30 April 1988."7

Subsequently, Alcatel undertook the PLDT 1342 project (project) which involved theinstallation of microwave antennas and towers in Eastern Visayas and EasternMindanao for the Philippine Long Distance Company. On 1 February 1991, Alcateloffered respondent "temporary employment as Civil Works Inspector, to assist in theimplementation of the PLDT 1342 Project, for the period 1 February 1991 to 31 March1991."8 Upon the expiration of his contract, respondent was again offered temporaryemployment this time as Civil Works Engineer from 1 April 1991 to 30 September1991.9 Respondent was offered temporary employment in the same capacity five moretimes from 1 October 1991 to 31 July 1992.10 Then, on 1 August 1992, Alcatel hiredrespondent as "project employee for the PLDT 1342 project to work as Civil Engineerfrom the period of 1 August 1992 to 31 July 1993."11 Alcatel renewed respondentscontract twice from 1 August 1993 to 31 December 1993.12 In a letter dated 22December 1993,13 Alcatel informed respondent that the civil works portion of theproject was near completion; however, the remaining works encountered certain delaysand had not been completed as scheduled. Alcatel then extended respondentsemployment for another three months or until 31 March 1994. Thereafter, Alcatelemployed respondent as a Site Inspector until 31 December 1995.14


27/44

On 11 December 1995, Alcatel informed respondent that the project would becompleted on 31 December 1995 and that his contract with Alcatel would expire on thesame day.15 Alcatel asked respondent to settle all his accountabilities with thecompany and advised him that he would be called if it has future projects that require

his expertise.

In March 1997, respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, separation pay, unpaidwages, unpaid overtime pay, damages, and attorneys fees against Alcatel. Respondentalleged that he was a regular employee of Alcatel and that he was dismissed during theexistence of the project.

The Issues

Alcatel raises the following issues:

1. Whether respondent was a regular employee or a project employee; and

2. Whether respondent was illegally dismissed.

The Ruling of the Court

Alcatel argues that respondent was a project employee because he worked on distinctprojects with the terms of engagement and the specific project made known to him atthe time of the engagement. Alcatel clarifies that respondents employment wascoterminous with the project for which he was hired and, therefore, respondent was not

illegally dismissed but was validly dismissed upon the expiration of the term of hisproject employment. Alcatel explains that its business relies mainly on the projects itenters into and thus, it is constrained to hire project employees to meet the demands ofspecific projects.

On the other hand, respondent insists that he is a regular employee because he wasassigned by Alcatel on its various projects since 4 January 1988 performing functionsdesirable or necessary to Alcatels business. Respondent adds that his employmentcontracts were renewed successively by Alcatel for seven years. Respondent contendsthat, even assuming that he was a project employee, he became a regular employeebecause he was re-hired every termination of his employment contract and heperformed functions necessary to Alcatels business. Respondent also claims that hewas illegally dismissed because he was dismissed during the existence of the project.

The principal test for determining whether a particular employee is a project employeeor a regular employee is whether the project employee was assigned to carry out aspecific project or undertaking, the duration and scope of which were specified at thetime the employee is engaged for the project.18 "Project" may refer to a particular job orundertaking that is within the regular or usual business of the employer, but which is


28/44

distinct and separate and identifiable as such from the undertakings of the company.Such job or undertaking begins and ends at determined or determinabletimes.191avvphi1

In our review of respondents employment contracts, we are convinced that respondent

was a project employee. The specific projects for which respondent was hired and theperiods of employment were specified in his employment contracts. The services herendered, the duration and scope of each employment are clear indications thatrespondent was hired as a project employee.

We do not agree with respondent that he became a regular employee because he wascontinuously rehired by Alcatel every termination of his contract. In Maraguinot, Jr. v.NLRC,20 we said:

A project employee or a member of a work pool may acquire the status of a regularemployee when the following concur:

1) There is a continuous rehiring of project employees even after the cessation of aproject; and

2) The tasks performed by the alleged "project employee" are vital, necessary andindispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer.21 (Emphasis ours)

While respondent performed tasks that were clearly vital, necessary and indispensableto the usual business or trade of Alcatel, respondent was not continuously rehired byAlcatel after the cessation of every project. Records show that respondent was hired byAlcatel from 1988 to 1995 for three projects, namely the PLDT X-5 project, the PLDT X-

4 IOT project and the PLDT 1342 project. On 30 April 1988, upon the expiration ofrespondents contract for the PLDT X-4 IOT project, Alcatel did not rehire respondentuntil 1 February 1991, or after a lapse of 33 months, for the PLDT 1342 project.Alcatels continuous rehiring of respondent in various capacities from February 1991 toDecember 1995 was done entirely within the framework of one and the same project the PLDT 1342 project. This did not make respondent a regular employee of Alcatel asrespondent was not continuously rehired after the cessation of a project. Respondentremained a project employee of Alcatel working on the PLDT 1342 project.

The employment of a project employee ends on the date specified in the employmentcontract. Therefore, respondent was not illegally dismissed but his employmentterminated upon the expiration of his employment contract. Here, Alcatel employedrespondent as a Site Inspector until 31 December 1995.


29/44

G.R. No. 177/7 )anuar9 1/, 2011

R*4#NS*NS GALLER#A%R*4#NS*NS S'!ER+AR3E" C*R!*RA"#*N an$%or

)ESS +AN'EL,Petitioners,

vs.

#RENE R. RANCE(,Respondent.

NAC'RA, J.

Facts:

Respondent was a proationar& e$po&ee of petitioner Super$ar-et for a periodof 4 $onths, or fro$ 8ctoer 4,


30/44

8n 'u#ust *,


31/44

#n the nstant ase, ua;9 asreguar e:po9ees at the t:e o; ther engage:ent. Where no stan$ar$s are :a$e

?no=n to an e:po9ee at the t:e, he sha c2atura&, petitioner Super$ar-et cannot ee/pected to retain respondent as a re#uar e$po&ee considerin# that sheost P +*,+


32/44

S;S Per$orated Materials In.?s president. Petitioner ;inrih


33/44

ontention that the& lost trust and on$idene in respondent as a mana-erial emplo&ee #as not

-iven redene $or la3 o$ notie to e(plain the supposed loss o$ trust and on$idene and

absene o$ an evaluation o$ respondents per$ormane. @n appeal, the /LRC reversed thedeision o$ the L. )he /LRC held that the respondent voluntaril& resi-ned as evidened b& the

lan-ua-e used in his resi-nation letter and demand letters. )he C reversed the /LRC

resolutions. Contrar& to the /LRC rulin-, the C held that #ithholdin- respondents salar& #asnot a valid e(erise o$ mana-ement prero-ative as there is no suh thin- as a mana-ement

prero-ative to #ithhold #a-es temporaril&. Petitioners averments o$ respondents $ailure to

report to #or3 #ere $ound to be unsubstantiated alle-ations not orroborated b& an& otherevidene, insu$$iient to 7usti$& said #ithholdin- and la3in- in probative value. )he maliious

#ithholdin- o$ respondents salar& made it impossible or unaeptable $or respondent to

ontinue #or3in-, thus, ompellin- him to resi-n. )he respondents immediate $ilin- o$ a

omplaint $or ille-al dismissal ould onl& mean that his resi-nation #as not voluntar&. s aprobationar& emplo&ee entitled to seurit& o$ tenure, respondent #as ille-all& dismissed. )he C

ruled out atual reinstatement, ho#ever, reasonin- out that anta-onism had aused a severe strain

in their relationship. It #as o$ the vie# that separation pa& equivalent to at least one month pa&

#ould be a more equitable disposition.

$SS+E

hether or not respondent #as onstrutivel& dismissed b& petitioners #hih determination is,

in turn, hin-ed on $indin- out *i+ #hether or not the temporar& #ithholdin- o$ respondentssalar&B#a-es b& petitioners #as a valid e(erise o$ mana-ement prero-ative and *ii+ #hether or

not respondent voluntaril& resi-ned.

R+&$NG

Mana-ement prero-ative re$ers =to the ri-ht o$ an emplo&er to re-ulate all aspets o$

emplo&ment, suh as the $reedom to presribe #or3 assi-nments, #or3in- methods, proesses tobe $ollo#ed, re-ulation re-ardin- trans$er o$ emplo&ees, supervision o$ their #or3, la&%o$$ and

disipline, and dismissal and reall o$ #or3.= lthou-h mana-ement prero-ative re$ers to =the

ri-ht to re-ulate all aspets o$ emplo&ment,= it annot be understood to inlude the ri-ht totemporaril& #ithhold salar&B#a-es #ithout the onsent o$ the emplo&ee. )o santion suh an

interpretation #ould be ontrar& to rtile 112 o$ the Labor Code. n& #ithholdin- o$ an

emplo&ees #a-es b& an emplo&er ma& onl& be allo#ed in the $orm o$ #a-e dedutions under

the irumstanes provided in rtile 11! o$ the Labor Code. s orretl& pointed out b& theL, =absent a sho#in- that the #ithholdin- o$ omplainants #a-es $alls under the e(eptions

provided in rtile 11!, the #ithholdin- thereo$ is thus unla#$ul.= )he Court $inds petitioners

evidene insu$$iient to prove that respondent did not #or3 $rom /ovember 12 to /ovember !0,"00>. s an be -leaned $rom respondents Contrat o$ Probationar& 'mplo&ment and the

e(han-es o$ eletroni mail messa-es bet#een ;artmannshenn and respondent, the latters

duties as mana-er $or business development entailed ultivatin- business ties, onnetions, andlients in order to ma3e sales. Suh duties alled $or meetin-s #ith prospetive lients outside

the o$$ie rather than reportin- $or #or3 on a re-ular shedule. In other #ords, the nature o$

respondents 7ob did not allo# lose supervision and monitorin- b& petitioners. /either #as there

an& presribed dail& monitorin- proedure established b& petitioners to ensure that respondent


34/44

#as doin- his 7ob. )here$ore, -rantin- that respondent $ailed to ans#er ;artmannshenns mobile

alls and to repl& to t#o eletroni mail messa-es and -iven the $at that he admittedl& $ailed to

report to #or3 at the S;S plant t#ie eah #ee3 durin- the sub7et period, suh annot be ta3ento si-ni$& that he did not #or3 $rom /ovember 12 to /ovember !0, "00>. lthou-h it annot be

determined #ith ertaint& #hether respondent #or3ed $or the entire period $rom /ovember 12 to

/ovember !0, "00>, the onsistent rule is that i$ doubt e(ists bet#een the evidene presented b&the emplo&er and that b& the emplo&ee, the sales o$ 7ustie must be tilted in $avor o$ the latter in

line #ith the poli& mandated b& rtiles " and ! o$ the Labor Code to a$$ord protetion to labor

and onstrue doubts in $avor o$ labor. 6or petitioners $ailure to satis$& their burden o$ proo$,respondent is presumed to have #or3ed durin- the period in question and is, aordin-l&, entitled

to his salar&. hat made it impossible, unreasonable or unli3el& $or respondent to ontinue

#or3in- $or S;S #as the unla#$ul #ithholdin- o$ his salar&. 6or said reason, he #as $ored to

resi-n. Respondent #as onstrutivel& dismissed and, there$ore, ille-all& dismissed. lthou-hrespondent #as a probationar& emplo&ee, he #as still entitled to seurit& o$ tenure. Setion ! *"+

rtile 1! o$ the Constitution -uarantees the ri-ht o$ all #or3ers to seurit& o$ tenure. In usin-

the e(pression =all #or3ers,= the Constitution puts no distintion bet#een a probationar& and a

permanent or re-ular emplo&ee. )his means that probationar& emplo&ees annot be dismissede(ept $or ause or $or $ailure to quali$& as re-ular emplo&ees. )his Court has held that

probationar& emplo&ees #ho are un7ustl& dismissed durin- the probationar& period are entitled toreinstatement and pa&ment o$ $ull ba3#a-es and other bene$its and privile-es $rom the time

the& #ere dismissed up to their atual reinstatement.

G.R. No. 16?1?3 A!;t 2?, 2010

CAR&S DE CAS#R,Petitioner,vs.

&$(ER#Y (RADCAS#$NG NE#R, $NC. 5< EDGARD*+$G+E,Respondents.

(rio5, .

-AC#S)he petitioner #or3ed as a hie$ buildin- administrator at respondent L8/I. @n Ma&

!1, 1992, L8/I dismissed de Castro on the -rounds o$ serious misondut, $raud, and #ill$ulbreah o$ the trust reposed in him as a mana-erial emplo&ee. lle-edl&, de Castro ommitted the

$ollo#in- atsA *1+ Soliitin- andBor reeivin- mone& $or his o#n bene$it $rom

suppliersBdealersBtraders representin- =ommissions= $or 7ob ontrats *"+ iversion o$ ompan&

$unds b& soliitin- and reeivin- on di$$erent oasions a total o$ P15,000.00 in =ommissions=

$rom &in- $or a 7ob ontrat *!+ )he$t o$ ompan& propert& *5+ isrespetBdisourtes& to#ardsa o%emplo&ee, $or usin- o$$ensive lan-ua-e a-ainst the ompan&s suppl& mana-er

*>+isorderl& behavior, $or hallen-in- /i-uidula to a $i-ht durin- #or3in- hours #ithin theompan& premises *2+)hreat and oerion *+ buse o$ authorit& and *+ Slander, $or utterin-

libelous statements a-ainst /i-uidula. Petitioner then $iled a omplaint $or ille-al dismissal #ith

the /LRC. ;e denied the alle-ations made b& the respondent. )he Labor rbiter ruled thatpetitioner #as ille-all& dismissed. )he Labor rbiter $ound the a$$idavits o$ L8/Is #itnesses to

be devoid o$ merit, notin- that *1+ #itnesses /i-uidula and 8alais had alterations #ith de Castro


35/44

prior to the e(eution o$ their respetive a$$idavits *"+ the a$$idavit o$ Cristino Samarita, one o$

the suppliers $rom #hom de Castro alle-edl& as3ed $or ommissions, stated that it #as not de

Castro, but 8alais, #ho personall& as3ed $or mone& and *!+


36/44

G.R. No. 17217 )u9 /, 200/

AA* C*N"RAC"*RS EEL*!+EN" C**!ERA"#E BAC*EC*,represente$


37/44

intentiona&, -nowin#& and purpose&, without 7ustifiae e/cuse, as distin#uished fro$

an act done careess&, thou#htess&, heedess& or inadvertent&. It $ust rest on

sustantia #rounds and not on the e$po&er%s aritrariness, whi$s, caprices or

suspicion@ otherwise, the e$po&ee woud eterna& re$ain at the $erc& of the

e$po&er. Such #round of dis$issa has never een intended to afford an occasion for

ause ecause of its su7ective nature.

15. G.R. No. 17885 -e


38/44

8n ece$er 3, +**3, !aor 'riter (!') Rene Joseph R. dea Cru? rendered a ecision

dis$issin# the co$paint for ie#a dis$issa, incudin# the other cai$s of respondent, for ac-

of $erit, e/cept that it ordered the pa&$ent of her 3th $onth pa& in the a$ount of P3,>4*.**.

8n appea, the 2ationa !aor Reations Co$$ission (2!RC), 1hird ivision, in its ecision

reversed the 'riter%s 7ud#$ent. Petitioner was ordered to reinstate respondent as a teacher,

who sha e credited with oneE&ear service of proationar& e$po&$ent, and to pa& her 3th$onth pa& and ac-wa#es, respective&. Petitioner%s $otion for reconsideration was denied in

the 2!RC%s Resoution dated Januar& 3, +**.

I$putin# #rave ause of discretion on the part of the 2!RC, petitioner went up to the C' via a

petition for certiorari. 1he C', in its ecision dated affir$ed the 2!RC decision and dis$issed

the petition. It i-ewise denied petitioner%s $otion for reconsideration.

#SS'Ewhether or not the respondent is a proationar& or per$anent e$po&ee.

EL' proationar& e$po&ee or proationer is one who is on tria for an e$po&er, durin#which the atter deter$ines whether or not he is Auaified for per$anent e$po&$ent. 1he

e$po&er has the ri#ht, or is at iert&, to choose who wi e hired and who wi e decined. 's

a co$ponent of this ri#ht to seect his e$po&ees, the e$po&er $a& set or fi/ a proationar&

period within which the atter $a& test and oserve the conduct of the for$er efore hirin# hi$

per$anent&.

1he #enera rue on the $a/i$u$ aowae period of proationar& e$po&$ent is found in'rtice += of the !aor Code, which states that Proationar& e$po&$ent sha not e/ceed si/

() $onths fro$ the date the e$po&ee started wor-in#, uness it is covered & an

apprenticeship a#ree$ent stipuatin# a on#er period. 1he services of an e$po&ee who has

een en#a#ed on a proationar& asis $a& e ter$inated for a 7ust cause or when he fais to

Auaif& as a re#uar e$po&ee in accordance with reasonae standards $ade -nown & the

e$po&er at the ti$e of his en#a#e$ent.

1his upper i$it on the ter$ of proationar& e$po&$ent, however, does not app& to a casses

of occupations. or 9acade$ic personne9 in private schoos, coe#es and universities,

proationar& e$po&$ent is #overned & Section


39/44

who have satisfactori& co$peted their proationar& period sha e considered re#uar or

per$anent.

'cade$ic Personne are a those who are for$a& en#a#ed in actua teachin# service or in

research assi#n$ents, either on fuEti$e or partEti$e asis@ as we as those who possess

certain prescried acade$ic functions direct& supportive of teachin#, such as re#istrars,

irarians, #uidance counseors, researchers, and other si$iar persons. 1he& incude schoo

officias responsie for acade$ic $atters, and $a& incude other schoo officias.

1he co$$on practice is for the e$po&er and the teacher to enter into a contract, effective for

one schoo &ear. 't the end of the schoo &ear, the e$po&er has the option not to renew the

contract, particuar& considerin# the teacher%s perfor$ance. If the contract is not renewed, the

e$po&$ent reationship ter$inates. If the contract is renewed, usua& for another schoo &ear,

the proationar& e$po&$ent continues. '#ain, at the end of that period, the parties $a& opt torenew or not to renew the contract. or the entire duration of this threeE&ear period, the teacher

re$ains under proation. 0pon the e/piration of his contract of e$po&$ent, ein# si$p& on

proation, he cannot auto$atica& cai$ securit& of tenure and co$pe the e$po&er to renew

his e$po&$ent contract. It is when the &ear& contract is renewed for the third ti$e that the

teacher then is entited to re#uar or per$anent e$po&$ent status. It is i$portant that the

contract of proationar& e$po&$ent specif& the period or ter$ of its effectivit&. 1he faiure to

stipuate its precise duration coud ead to the inference that the contract is indin# for the fu

threeE&ear proationar& period.

1he period of proation $a& e reduced if the e$po&er, convinced of the fitness and efficienc&

of a proationar& e$po&ee, vountari& e/tends a per$anent appoint$ent even efore the

threeE&ear period ends. 5ut asent an& circu$stances which un$ista-a& show that an

areviated proationar& period has een a#reed upon, the threeE&ear proationar& ter$

#overns.

1here shoud e no Auestion that the e$po&$ent of the respondent, as teacher, in petitioner

schoo on 'pri =, +**+ is proationar& in character, consistent with standard practice in private

schoos. She had rendered service as such on& fro$ 'pri =, +**+ unti ;arch 3, +**3. Shehas not co$peted the reAuisite threeE&ear period of proationar& e$po&$ent. She cannot, &

ri#ht, cai$ per$anent status. 's aove discussed, proationar& e$po&ees en7o& securit& of

tenure durin# the ter$ of their proationar& e$po&$ent such that the& $a& on& e ter$inated

for cause as provided for & aw, or if at the end of the proationar& period, the e$po&ee faied

to $eet the reasonae standards set & the e$po&er at the ti$e of the e$po&ee%s

en#a#e$ent. 5ut this #uarantee of securit& of tenure appies on& durin# the period of proation.

8nce that pertiod e/pires, the constitutiona protection can no on#er e invo-ed. 0ndenia&,


40/44

respondent was hired as a proationar& teacher and, as such, it was incu$ent upon petitioner

to show & co$petent evidence that she did not $eet the standards set & the schoo. 1his

reAuire$ent, petitioner faied to dischar#e. 1o note, the ter$ination of respondent was effected

& that etter statin# that she was ein# reieved fro$ e$po&$ent ecause the schoo

authorities ae#ed& decided, as a costEcuttin# $easure, that the position of 9Principa9 was to

e aoished. 2owhere in that etter was respondent infor$ed that her perfor$ance as a schooteacher was ess than satisfactor&.

1hus, in i#ht of our ruin# of Bspiritu Santo Parochia Schoo v. 2!RC that, in the asence of an

e/press period of proation for private schoo teachers, the threeE&ear proationar& period

provided & the ;anua of Re#uations for Private Schoos $ust app& i-ewise to the case of

respondent. In other words, asent an& concrete and co$petent proof that her perfor$ance as

a teacher was unsatisfactor& fro$ her hirin# on 'pri =, +**+ up to ;arch 3, +**3, respondent

is entited to continue her threeE&ear period of proationar& period, such that fro$ ;arch 3,

+**3, her proationar& e$po&$ent is dee$ed renewed for the foowin# two schoo &ears.1herefore, the award of ac-wa#es and 3th $onth pa& as a conseAuence of the findin# of

ie#a dis$issa in favor of respondent shoud e confined to the threeE&ear proationar& period.

S5 Mi!e Corportio5 ;. E, or upon essation o$ the instabilit&B$lutuation o$ the mar3et demand,

#hihever omes $irst.F )herea$ter, respondent #or3ed at the plant #ithout interruption as a

$or3li$t operator.

@n Marh "0,199>, respondent #as then trans$erred to the plants bottlin- setion as a

ase pillar but it #as opposed b& him b& means o$ #ritin- a letter o$ opposition to the petitioner

and he requested that he be trans$erred to his $ormer position as a $or3li$t operator sine he

#ould be more e$$etive as suh but the petitioner did not respond to his letter. In an undated

letter, respondent in$ormed SMC that he #as appl&in- $or the vaant position o$ bottlin- re# as

he #as interested in beomin- a re-ular emplo&ee o$ SMC but the ompan& noti$ied the


41/44

respondent that his emplo&ment shall be terminated on in ompliane #ith the

'mplo&ment #ith a 6i(ed Period ontrat and that his dismissal #as due to the reor-ani4ation

and streamlinin- o$ its operations.

)he respondent in$ormed SMC that despite the $at that he #ould be ompelled to reeive

his separation pa& and #ould be $ored to si-n a #aiver to that e$$et, this does not mean that he#ould be #aivin- his ri-ht to question his dismissal and to laim emplo&ment bene$its as

provided in the Colletive 8ar-ainin- -reement *C8+ and ompan& poliies. )herea$ter,

respondent si-ned a Reeipt and Release doument in $avor o$ SMC and aepted his separation

pa&, thereb& releasin- all his laims a-ainst SMC.

Respondent $iled a omplaint a-ainst SMC be$ore the Labor rbiter $or ille-al dismissal

and underpa&ment o$ #a-es and other bene$its. )he Labor rbiter dismissed the omplaint $or

la3 o$ merit. --rieved, respondent sou-ht reourse be$ore the /LRC #herein it dismissed the

appeal and a$$irmed the deision o$ Labor rbiter. )he respondent $iled a motion $or

reonsideration, but it #as denied in a Resolution. Respondent then $iled be$ore the C a petition$or ertiorari #herein the deision o$ Labor rbiter and the Commission are reversed and set

aside.

;ene, this Petition.

$;;e;

1+ #hether the respondent #as a re-ular emplo&ee o$ SMC and

"+ #hether the respondent #as ille-all& dismissed

;eldA

5 t@e fir;t i;;e.

:es. *Please read rtile "0 o$ the Labor Code+

)here are t#o 3inds o$ re-ular emplo&ees, namel&A *1+ those #ho are en-a-ed to per$orm

ativities #hih are usuall& neessar& or desirable in the usual business or trade o$ the emplo&er

case digests arts 278 - 281

Documents