Labor Relations Reviewer (final Exam).docx

LABOR RELATIONS REVIEWER (FINAL EXAM)

1. St. Lukes Medical Center Inc. vs. Notario

2. Aliling vs. World Expressed Corp.

3. Perez v. PT&T April 9, 2009

ARTICLE 292 (b) formerly article 277 (b) Article 282 (b) of the Labor Code provides that an employer may terminate an employment for gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties. To effectuate a valid dismissal, the Labor two requirements must be met: (1) the dismissal must be for any of the causes provided in Article 282 of the Labor Code; and (2) the employee must be given an opportunity to be heard and defend himself. An employer can terminate the services of an employee only for valid and just causes which must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. Where the dismissal was without just cause and there was no due process, Article 279 of the Labor Code, as amended, mandates that the employee is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits, or their monetary equivalent computed from the time the compensation was not paid up to the time of actual reinstatement. PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS: To effect a legal dismissal, the employer must show not only a valid ground therefor, but also that procedural due process has properly been observed. When the Labor Code speaks of procedural due process, the reference is usually to the two (2)-written notice rule envisaged in Section 2 (III), Rule XXIII, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, which provides: Section 2. Standard of due process: requirements of notice. In all cases of termination of employment, the following standards of due process shall be substantially observed. For termination of employment based on just causes as defined in Article 282 of the Code:  A written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or grounds for termination, and giving to said employee reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side;  A hearing or conference during which the employee concerned, with the assistance of counsel if the employee so desires, is given opportunity to respond to the charge, present his evidence or rebut the evidence presented against him; and  A written notice [of] termination served on the employee indicating that upon due consideration of all the circumstance, grounds have been established to justify his termination. Here, the first and second notice requirements have not been properly observed, thus tainting petitioners dismissal with illegality. HEARING NOT MANDATORY; DUE PROCESS There is no need for a hearing or conference. It is enough that the parties are given a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides of the controversy and to present supporting evidence on which a fair decision can be based.

4. Distribution and Control Products Inc. v. Santos (2017) Article 249 formerly Article 279 1. Agabon v. NLRC (2004) 2. Jaka vs. Pacot (2005) 3. Culili v. Eastern Telecommunications Phils. (2011) 4. Serrano v. Gallant Maritime (2009) 5. Yap B. Thenamaris Ship’s Management (2011) 6. Bank of Lucbao vs. Managabat 7. St. Mary’s Academy v. Palacio 8. Toyto Motors Phils Corp vs. Workers Assoc. 9. Bristol Myers Squibb Inc. v. Haban 10. Yraseugui v. PAL 11. Dreamland Hotel Resort v. Johnson 12. Manila Water v. Del Rosario 13. Nacar v. Gallery Frames 14. Bani Rural Bank Inc. v. De Guzman 15. Universal Robina v. Castillo 16. Baptista v. Villanueva 17. BPI Employees Union Davao City v. BPI 18. Integrated Micorelectronics v. Pionelles 19. Golden Ace Builders v. Talde

1

20. Metroguards Security Agency Corp v. Hillongo 21. Maersk-Filipinas Crewing Inc. v. Avestruz 22. Villena v. Batangas II Electric 23. Sangwoo Phils v. Sang Woo Phils Employees Union

2

1. Lynvil Fishing Enterprises Inc. v. Ariola

2. Sonza v. ABS CBN Broadcasting Corp 3. Consolidated Broadcasting System Inc. v. Oberio

4. Orosco vs. CA

5. William Uy Construction Corp v. Trinidad

6. DM Consunji Inc. v. Jamin

3

ARTICLE 295 FORMERLY ARTICLE 280 Jurisprudence, laid two conditions for the VALIDITY OF A FIXED-CONTRACT AGREEMENT between the employer and employee: a. First, 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 upon the employee and absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent; or b. Second, it satisfactorily appears that the employer and the employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance exercised by the former or the latter. Being an exclusive talent does not by itself mean that one is an employee. In the broadcast industry, EXCLUSIVITY IS NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME AS CONTROL. REGULAR EMPLOYEES The test to determine whether employment is regular or not is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer. Also, if the employee has been performing the job for at least one year, even if the performance is not continuous or merely intermittent, the law deems the repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity, if not indispensability of that activity to the business. A COLUMNIST IN A NEWSPAPER IS NOT A REGULAR EMPLOYEE OF THE NEWSPAPER WHICH PUBLISHES THE COLUMN. The newspaper’s power to approve or reject publication of any specific article she wrote for her column cannot be the control contemplated in the "control test," as it is but logical that one who commissions another to do a piece of work should have the right to accept or reject the product. The important factor to consider in the "control test" is still the element of control over how the work itself is done, not just the end result thereof. …the so-called control as to time, space, and discipline are dictated by the very nature of the newspaper business itself. REPEATED HIRING IN THE CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS OF A DRIVER DOES NOT RESULT INTO REGULAR EMPLOYMENT. Generally, length of service provides a fair yardstick for determining when an employee initially hired on a temporary basis becomes a permanent one, entitled to the security and benefits of regularization. But this standard will not be fair, if applied to the construction industry, simply because construction firms cannot guarantee work and funding for its payrolls beyond the life of each project. And getting projects is not a matter of course. Construction companies have no control over the decisions and resources of project proponents or owners. There is no construction company that does not wish it has such control but the reality, understood by construction workers, is that work depended on decisions and developments over which construction companies have no say. REPEATED AND CONTINUOUS HIRING OF A CARPENTER IN A CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS, FOR 31 YEARS, RESULTS INTO REGULAR EMPLOYMENT. Surely, length of time is not the controlling test for project employment. Nevertheless, it is vital in determining if the employee was hired for a specific undertaking or tasked to perform functions vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business or

trade of the employer. Here, [private] respondent had been a project employee several times over. His employment ceased to be coterminous with specific projects when he was repeatedly re-hired due to the demands of petitioners business. 7. Aro et al vs. NLRC

PROJECT EMPLOYEES

The Court agrees with the findings of the CA that petitioners were project employees. It is not disputed that petitioners were hired for the construction of the Cordova Reef Village Resort in Cordova, Cebu. By the nature of the contract alone, it is clear that petitioners' employment was to carry out a specific project. Hence, the CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it affirmed the findings of the Labor Arbiter. 8. Universal Robina Surar Milling

REGULAR EMPLOYEES

9. GMA Network Inc. v. Pabriga

REGULAR EMPLOYEES – Pabriga is a regular employee.

10. Pasos v. PNCC

4

Under the system, the plantation workers or the mill employees do not work continuously for one whole year but only for the duration of the growing of the sugarcane or the milling season. Their seasonal work, however, does not detract from considering them in regular employment since in a litany of cases, this Court has already settled that seasonal workers who are called to work from time to time and are temporarily laid off during the off–season are not separated from the service in said period, but are merely considered on leave until re–employment. Be this as it may, regular seasonal employees, like the respondents in this case, should not be confused with the regular employees of the sugar mill such as the administrative or office personnel who perform their tasks for the entire year regardless of the season. The NLRC, therefore, gravely erred when it declared the respondents regular employees of URSUMCO without qualification and that they were entitled to the benefits granted, under the CBA, to URSUMCO’S regular employees In order to safeguard the rights of workers against the arbitrary use of the word “project” to prevent employees from attaining the status of regular employees, employers claiming that their workers are project employees should not only prove that the duration and scope of the employment was specified at the time they were engaged, but also that there was indeed a project. As discussed above, the project could either be (1) a particular job or undertaking that is within the regular or usual business of the employer company, but which is distinct and separate, and identifiable as such, from the other undertakings of the company; or (2) a particular job or undertaking that is not within the regular business of the corporation. As it was with regard to the distinction between a regular and casual employee, the purpose of this requirement is to delineate whether or not the employer is in constant need of the services of the specified employee. If the particular job or undertaking is within the regular or usual business of the employer company and it is not identifiably distinct or separate from the other undertakings of the company, there is clearly a constant necessity for the performance of the task in question, and therefore said job or undertaking should not be considered a project. These jobs and undertakings are clearly within the regular or usual business of the employer company and are not identifiably distinct or separate from the other undertakings of the company. There is no denying that the manning of the operations center to air commercials, acting as transmitter/VTR men, maintaining the equipment, and acting as cameramen are not undertakings separate or distinct from the business of a broadcasting company. The principal test used to determine whether employees are project employees is whether or not the employees were assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking, the duration or scope of which was specified at the time the employees were engaged for that project.

11. Gapayao v. Fulo

Jurisprudence has identified the three types of employees mentioned in the provision: (1) regular employees or those who have been engaged to perform activities that are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer; (2) project employees or those whose employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of their engagement, or those whose work or service is seasonal in nature and is performed for the duration of the season; and (3) casual employees or those who are neither regular nor project employees. Farm workers generally fall under the definition of seasonal employees. We have consistently held that seasonal employees may be considered as regular employees.56 Regular seasonal employees are those called to work from time to time. The nature of their relationship with the employer is such that during the off season, they are temporarily laid off; but reemployed during the summer season or when their services may be needed. They are in regular employment because of the nature of their job, and not because of the length of time they have worked.

12. Millenium Erectors Corp. v. CA

A reading of the records reveals that the deceased was indeed a farm worker who was in the regular employ of petitioner. From year to year, starting January 1983 up until his death, the deceased had been working on petitioner’s land by harvesting abaca and coconut, processing copra, and clearing weeds. His employment was continuous in the sense that it was done for more than one harvesting season. Moreover, no amount of reasoning could detract from the fact that these tasks were necessary or desirable in the usual business of petitioner. REGULAR EMPLOYEE—respondent is a regular employee not a project employee. A project employee is one whose "employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season." Respondent was a regular, not a project employee. As the Court has consistently held, the service of project employees are coterminus [sic] with the project and may be terminated upon the end or completion of that project or project phase for which they were hired. Regular employees, in contrast, enjoy security of tenure and are entitled to hold on to their work or position until their services are terminated by any of the modes recognized under the Labor Code. Petitioner’s various payrolls dating as early as 2001 show that respondent had been employed by it. As aptly observed by the appellate court, these documents, rather than sustaining petitioner’s argument, only serve to support respondent’s contention that he had been employed in various projects, if not for 16 years, at the very least two years prior to his dismissal. Assuming arguendo that petitioner hired respondent initially on a per project basis, his continued rehiring, as shown by the sample payrolls converted his status to that of a regular employee. Following Cocomangas Beach Hotel Resort v. Visca,16 the repeated and continuing need for respondent’s services is sufficient evidence of the necessity, if not indispensability, of his services to petitioner's business and, as a regular employee, he could only be dismissed from employment for a just or authorized cause.

5

13. Caparoso et al v. CA

Art. 280. Regular and Casual Employment. - The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season. Under Article 280 of the Labor Code, a regular employee is (1) one who is engaged to perform activities that are necessary or desirable in the usual trade or business of the employer, or (2) a casual employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in which he is employed. However, even if an employee is engaged to perform activities that are necessary or desirable in the usual trade or business of the employer, it does not preclude the fixing of employment for a definite period. (fixed employee) The Court thus laid down the criteria under which fixed-term employment could not be said to be in circumvention of the law on security of tenure, thus: 1. 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 upon the employee and absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent; or 2. It satisfactorily appears that the employer and the employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance exercised by the former or the latter.

14. Spouses Lim v. Legaspi Hope Christian School

15. DM Consunji v. Gobres et al

16. Mercado et al v. AMA Computer College.

6

For a private school teacher to acquire permanent status in employment, the following requisites must concur: (1) the teacher is a full-time teacher; (2) the teacher must have rendered three consecutive years of service; and (3) such service must have been satisfactory In cases of project employment or employment covered by legitimate contracting or sub-contracting arrangements, no employee shall be dismissed prior to the completion of the project or phase thereof for which the employee was engaged, or prior to the expiration of the contract between the principal and contractor, unless the dismissal is for just or authorized cause subject to the requirements of due process or prior notice, or is brought about by the completion of the phase of the project or contract for which the employee was engaged. Given the clear constitutional and statutory intents, we cannot but conclude that in a situation where the probationary status overlaps with a fixed-term contract not specifically used for the fixed term it offers, Article 281 should assume primacy and the fixed-period character of the contract must give way. This conclusion is immeasurably strengthened by the petitioners and the AMACCs hardly concealed expectation that the employment on probation could lead to permanent status, and that the contracts are renewable unless the petitioners fail to pass the schools standards. If the school were to apply the probationary standards (as in fact it says it did in the present case), these standards must not only be reasonable but must have also been communicated to

17. Brent School v. Zamora

18. Pure Foods Corporation v. NLRC

the teachers at the start of the probationary period, or at the very least, at the start of the period when they were to be applied. These terms, in addition to those expressly provided by the Labor Code, would serve as the just cause for the termination of the probationary contract. The details of this finding of just cause must be communicated to the affected teachers as a matter of due process. While we can grant that the standards were duly communicated to the petitioners and could be applied beginning the 1st trimester of the school year 2000-2001, glaring and very basic gaps in the schools evidence still exist. The exact terms of the standards were never introduced as evidence; neither does the evidence show how these standards were applied to the petitioners. Without these pieces of evidence, there is nothing to consider and pass upon as valid or invalid for each of the petitioners. Inevitably, the non-renewal or effectively, the termination of employment of employees on probationary status lacks the supporting finding of just cause that the law requires and, hence, is illegal. FIXED PERIOD EMPLOYEE Since the entire purpose behind the development of legislation culminating in the present Article 280 of the Labor Code clearly appears to have been, as already observed, to prevent circumvention of the employee's right to be secure in his tenure, the clause in said article indiscriminately and completely ruling out all written or oral agreements conflicting with the concept of regular employment as defined therein should be construed to refer to the substantive evil that the Code itself has singled out: agreements entered into precisely to circumvent security of tenure. It should have no application to instances where a fixed period of employment was agreed upon knowingly and voluntarily by the parties, without any force, duress or improper pressure being brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent, or where it satisfactorily appears that the employer and employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance whatever being exercised by the former over the latter. Unless thus limited in its purview, the law would be made to apply to purposes other than those explicitly stated by its framers; it thus becomes pointless and arbitrary, unjust in its effects and apt to lead to absurd and unintended consequences. Alegre's employment was terminated upon the expiration of his last contract with Brent School without the necessity of any notice. The advance written advice given the Department of Labor with copy to said petitioner was a mere reminder of the impending expiration of his contract, not a letter of termination, nor an application for clearance to terminate which needed the approval of the Department of Labor to make the termination of his services effective. In any case, such clearance should properly have been given, not denied. FIXED-PERIOD EMPLOYEES Brent vs. Zamora laid down the criteria under which term employment cannot be said to be in circumvention of the law on security of tenure: 1. 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 upon the employee and absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent; or 2. It satisfactorily appears that the employer and the employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance exercised by the former or the latter. None of these criteria had been met in the present case. It could not be supposed that private respondents KNOWINGLY and VOLUNTARILY agreed to the 5-month employment contract. Cannery workers are never on equal terms with their employers. Almost always, they agree to any terms of an employment contract just to get employed considering that it is difficult to find work given their ordinary qualifications. Their

7

19. Leyte Geothermal Power Progressive Employees Union v. PNOC

20. Salazar v. NLRC

21. Fonterra Brands Phil v. Lagardo 8

freedom to contract is empty and hollow because theirs is the freedom to starve if they refuse to work as casual or contractual workers. Indeed, to the unemployed, security of tenure has no value. It could not then be said that petitioner and private respondents "dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance whatever being exercised by the former over the latter. The five-month period specified in private respondents employment contracts having been imposed precisely to circumvent the constitutional guarantee on security of tenure should, therefore, be struck down or disregarded as contrary to public policy or morals. PROJECT EMPLOYEES They are PROJECT EMPLOYEES Article 280 of the Labor Code contemplates four (4) kinds of employees: (a) regular employees or those who have been “engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer”; (b) project employees or those “whose employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking[,] the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee”; (c) seasonal employees or those who work or perform services which are seasonal in nature, and the employment is for the duration of the season; and (d) casual employees or those who are not regular, project, or seasonal employees. Jurisprudence has added a fifth kind— a fixedterm employee. By entering into such a contract, an employee is deemed to understand that his employment is coterminous with the project. He may not expect to be employed continuously beyond the completion of the project. It is of judicial notice that project employees engaged for manual services or those for special skills like those of carpenters or masons, are, as a rule, unschooled. However, this fact alone is not a valid reason for bestowing special treatment on them or for invalidating a contract of employment. Project employment contracts are not lopsided agreements in favor of only one party thereto. The employer’s interest is equally important as that of the employee[s’] for theirs is the interest that propels economic activity. While it may be true that it is the employer who drafts project employment contracts with its business interest as overriding consideration, such contracts do not, of necessity, prejudice the employee. Neither is the employee left helpless by a prejudicial employment contract. After all, under the law, the interest of the worker is paramount. On the last issue, we rule that petitioner is a project employee and, therefore, not entitled to separation pay. The applicable provision is Article 280 of the Labor Code which defines the term “project employee,” thus: Art. 280. Regular and Casual Employment. — The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific period or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season. (Emphasis ours.) In the case at bench, it was duly established that private respondent hired petitioner as project or construction engineer specifically for its Monte de Piedad building project. Accordingly, as project employee, petitioner’s services are deemed coterminous with the project, that is, petitioner’s services may be terminated as soon as the project for which he was hired is completed. There can be no dispute that petitioner’s dismissal was due to the completion of the construction of the building The SC found that respondents were hired by A.C. Sicat as project employees for a fixed term. According to the SC – “As held by this Court, fixed-term employment contracts are not limited, as they are under the present Labor Code, to those by nature seasonal or for specific projects with predetermined dates of completion; they also include those to which the parties by free choice have assigned a specific date of

termination. The determining factor of such contracts is not the duty of the employee but the day certain agreed upon by the parties for the commencement and termination of the employment relationship.” The SC agreed with the CA’s finding that the termination of respondents’ employment with A.C. Sicat was simply due to the expiration of their employment contracts, which A.C. Sicat could refuse to renew as a matter of managerial prerogative. What is interesting is that the SC seems to consider respondents’ contracts as fixedterm contracts, yet at the same time it said, “In the case at bar, it is clear that respondents were employed by A.C. Sicat as project employees.”

22. Basan v. Coca Cola Bottles

Hence, not all fixed-term employees are project employees, although it would seem that all project employees are at the same time fixedterm employees. In any event, what is interesting here is that we now have precedent for considering trade merchandising representatives hired for a specific project, such as the promotion of certain products, as fixed-term employees whose contracts, once expired, their employer can refuse to renew as a matter of managerial prerogative. To quote the SC: “Respondents, by accepting the conditions of the contract with A.C. Sicat, were well aware of and even acceded to the condition that their employment thereat will end on said pre-determined date of termination. They cannot now argue that they were illegally dismissed by the latter when it refused to renew their contracts after its expiration. This is so since the non-renewal of their contracts by A.C. Sicat is a management prerogative, and failure of respondents to prove that such was done in bad faith militates against their contention that they were illegally dismissed. The expiration of their contract with A.C. Sicat simply caused the natural cessation of their fixed-term employment thereat.” 2 KINDS OF REGULAR EMPLOYEES; MAGSALIN DOCTRINE; BRENT vs. ZAMORA GUIDELINES (Magsalin v NLRC: MAGSALIN DOCTRINE) the nature of work of route helpers hired by Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. is necessary and desirable in its usual business or trade thereby qualifying them as regular employees, to wit: Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc., is one of the leading and largest manufacturers of softdrinks in the country. Respondent workers have long been in the service of petitioner company. Respondent workers, when hired, would go with route salesmen on board delivery trucks and undertake the laborious task of loading and unloading softdrink products of petitioner company to its various delivery points. In determining whether an employment should be considered regular or non-regular, 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. The standard, supplied by the law itself, is whether the work undertaken is necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, a fact that can be assessed by looking into the nature of the services rendered and its relation to the general scheme under which the business or trade is pursued in the usual course. It is distinguished from a specific undertaking that is divorced from the normal activities required in carrying on the particular business or trade. But, although the work to be performed is only for a specific project or seasonal, where a person thus engaged has been performing the job for at least one year, even if the performance is not continuous or is merely intermittent, the law deems the repeated and continuing need for its performance as being sufficient to indicate the necessity or desirability of that activity to the business or trade of the employer. The employment of such person is also then deemed to be regular with respect to such activity and while such activity exists. The argument of Coca Cola that its usual business or trade is softdrink manufacturing and that the work assigned to workers as sales route helpers so involves merely "postproduction activities," one which is not indispensable in the manufacture of its products, scarcely can be

9

persuasive. If, as so argued by company, only those whose work are directly involved in the production of softdrinks may be held performing functions necessary and desirable in its usual business or trade, there would have then been no need for it to even maintain regular truck sales route helpers. The nature of the work performed must be viewed from a perspective of the business or trade in its entirety and not on a confined scope. The repeated rehiring of respondent workers and the continuing need for their services clearly attest to the necessity or desirability of their services in the regular conduct of the business or trade of petitioner company. While this Court, in Brent School, Inc. vs. Zamora, has upheld the legality of a fixed-term employment, it has done so, however, with a stern admonition that where from the circumstances it is apparent that the period has been imposed to preclude the acquisition of tenurial security by the employee, then it should be struck down as being contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order and public policy. The pernicious practice of having employees, workers and laborers, engaged for a fixed period of few months, short of the normal six-month probationary period of employment, and, thereafter, to be hired on a day-to-day basis, mocks the law. Any obvious circumvention of the law cannot be countenanced. A contract of employment is impressed with public interest. The provisions of applicable statutes are deemed written into the contract, and "the parties are not at liberty to insulate themselves and their relationships from the impact of labor laws and regulations by simply contracting with each other." Pursuant to Art. 280 of the Labor Code, regular employees are classified into: (1) regular employees by nature of work; (refers to those employees who perform a particular activity which is necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, regardless of their length of service) (2) regular employees by years of service (refers to those employees who have been performing the job, regardless of the nature thereof, for at least a year.)

23. Convoy Marketing Corp v. Albia

24. Jamias v. NLRC

10

25. Gadia v. Sykes Asia,

26. Innodata Knowledge Services v. Inting

1. Zuellig Freight and Cargo Systems vs. NLRC

MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE The mere change in the corporate name is not considered under the law as the creation of a new corporation; hence, the renamed corporation remains liable for the illegal dismissal of its employee separated under that guise. Article 283. Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. — The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, x x x.

2. Pecson vs. Robinsons Supermarket Corp

3. Gatbonton v. NLRC (preventive suspension)

11

MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE; REASSIGNMENT; RURAL BANK OF CANTILA INC V. JULVE JURISPRUDENTIAL GUIDELINES DOCTRINE: It is the employer’s prerogative, based on its assessment and perception of its employees’ qualifications, aptitudes, and competence, to move them around in the various areas of its business operations in order to ascertain where they will function with maximum benefit to the company. An employee’s right to security of tenure does not give him such a vested right in his position as would deprive the company of its prerogative to change his assignment or transfer him where he will be most useful. MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE; PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION DOCTRINE: Preventive suspension is a disciplinary measure for the protection of the company’s property pending investigation of any alleged malfeasance or misfeasance committed by the employee. The employer may place the worker concerned under preventive suspension if his continued employment poses a serious and imminent threat to the life or property of the employer or of his co-workers. However, when it is determined that there is no sufficient basis to justify an employee’s preventive suspension; the latter is entitled to the payment of salaries during the time of preventive suspension.

ARTICLE 296 (FORMERLY ARTICLE 281) 1. Tamson’s Enterprises Inc. v. CA

No. The pertinent law governing the present case is Article 281 of the Labor Code which provides as follows: Art. 281. Probationary employment. Probationary employment shall not exceed six months from the date the employee started working, unless it is covered by an apprenticeship agreement stipulating a longer period. The services of an employee who has been engaged in a probationary basis may be terminated for a just cause or when he fails 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. An employee who is allowed to work after a probationary period shall be considered a regular employee. There is probationary employment where the employee upon his engagement is made to undergo a trial period during which the employer determines his fitness to qualify for regular employment based on reasonable standards made known to him at the time of engagement. The probationary employment is intended to afford the employer an opportunity to observe the fitness of a probationary employee while at work, and to ascertain whether he will become an efficient and productive employee. While the employer observes the fitness, propriety and efficiency of a probationer to ascertain whether he is qualified for permanent employment, the probationer, on the other hand, seeks to prove to the employer that he has the qualifications to meet the reasonable standards for permanent employment. Thus, the word probationary, as used to describe the period of employment, implies the purpose of the term or period, not its length. It is settled that even if probationary employees do not enjoy permanent status, they are accorded the constitutional protection of security of tenure. This means they may only be terminated for a just cause or when they otherwise fail to qualify as regular employees in accordance with reasonable standards made known to them by the employer at the time of their engagement. For failure of the petitioners to support their claim of unsatisfactory performance by Sy, this Court shares the view of the CA that Sys employment was unjustly terminated to prevent her from acquiring a regular status in circumvention of the law on security of tenure.As the Court previously stated, this is a common and convenient practice of unscrupulous employers to circumvent the law on security of tenure. Security of tenure, which is a right of paramount value guaranteed by the Constitution, should not be denied to the workers by such a stratagem. The Court cannot permit such a subterfuge, if it is to be true to the law and social justice.

2. Hacienda Primera Development Corporation v. Villegas

12

In this case, the petitioners failed to comply with the requirement of a written notice. Notably, Sy was merely verbally informed that her employment would be terminated, as admitted by the petitioners. Considering that the petitioners failed to observe due process in dismissing her, the dismissal had no legal sanction. It bears stressing that a workers employment is property in the constitutional sense. DOCTRINE: Due process dictates that a probationary employee be apprised beforehand of the condition of his employment and of the terms of advancement therein, unless he is deemed to have been hired from day one as a regular employee. A probationary employee is one who is on trial by the employer during which the employer determines whether or not said employee is qualified for permanent employment. A probationary appointment is made to afford the employer an opportunity to observe the fitness of a probationary employee while at work, and to ascertain whether he will become a proper and efficient employee. The word probationary as used to describe the period of employment implies the purpose of the term or period, but not its length.

ART. 281. Probationary Employment.–Probationary employment shall not exceed six (6) months from the date the employee started working, unless it is covered by an apprenticeship agreement stipulating a longer period. The services of an employee who has been engaged on a probationary basis may be terminated for a just cause or when he fails 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. An employee who is allowed to work after a probationary period shall be considered a regular employee. The probationary employment of teachers in private schools is not governed purely by the Labor Code. The Labor Code is supplemented with respect to the period of probation by special rules found in the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools.24 On the matter of probationary period, Section 92 of the 1992 Manual of Regulations for Private Schools regulations states: Section 92. Probationary Period. – Subject in all instances to compliance with the Department and school requirements, the probationary period for academic personnel shall not be more than three (3) consecutive years of satisfactory service for those in the elementary and secondary levels, six (6) consecutive regular semesters of satisfactory service for those in the tertiary level, and nine (9) consecutive trimesters of satisfactory service for those in the tertiary level where collegiate courses are offered on a trimester basis. (Emphasis supplied.)

3. Universidad De Sta. Isabel v. Sambajon 4. Univac Development v. Soriano

Art. 281. Probationary Employment. — Probationary employment shall not exceed six (6) months from the date the employee started working, unless it is covered by an apprenticeship agreement stipulating a longer period. The services of an employee who has been engaged on a probationary basis may be terminated for a just cause or when he fails 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. An employee who is allowed to work after a probationary period shall be considered a regular employee. Probationary employment shall be governed by the following rules: x x x x (c) The services of an employee who has been engaged on probationary basis may be terminated only for a just or authorized cause, when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with the reasonable standards prescribed by the employer. (d) In all cases of probationary employment, the employer shall make known to the employee the standards under which he will qualify as a regular employee at the time of his engagement. Where no standards are made known to the employee at that time, he shall be deemed a regular employee. It is undisputed that respondent was hired as a probationary employee.1âwphi1 As such, he did not enjoy a permanent status. Nevertheless, he is accorded the constitutional protection of security of tenure which means that he can only be dismissed from employment for a just cause or when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known to him by the employer at the time of his engagement. Pursuant to well-settled doctrine, petitioner’s failure to specify the reasonable standards by which respondent’s alleged poor performance was evaluated as well as to prove that such standards were made known to him at the start of his employment, makes respondent a regular employee. In other words, because of this omission on the part of petitioner, respondent is deemed to have been hired from day one as a regular employee.

13

5. Abbott Laboratories v. Alcaraz

The employer is made to comply with two (2) requirements when dealing with a probationary employee: first, the employer must communicate the regularization standards to the probationary employee; and second, the employer must make such communication at the time of the probationary employee’s engagement. If the employer fails to comply with either, the employee is deemed as a regular and not a probationary employee. Keeping with these rules, an employer is deemed to have made known the standards that would qualify a probationary employee to be a regular employee when it has exerted reasonable efforts to apprise the employee of what he is expected to do or accomplish during the trial period of probation. This goes without saying that the employee is sufficiently made aware of his probationary status as well as the length of time of the probation.

6. Colegio de Santisimo Rosarion

The exception to the foregoing is when the job is self-descriptive in nature, for instance, in the case of maids, cooks, drivers, or messengers. Also, in Aberdeen Court, Inc. v. Agustin, it has been held that the rule on notifying a probationary employee of the standards of regularization should not be used to exculpate an employee who acts in a manner contrary to basic knowledge and common sense in regard to which there is no need to spell out a policy or standard to be met. In the same light, an employee’s failure to perform the duties and responsibilities which have been clearly made known to him constitutes a justifiable basis for a probationary employee’s non-regularization. Cases dealing with employment on probationary status of teaching personnel are not governed solely by the Labor Code as the law is supplemented, with respect to the period of probation, by special rules found in the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools (the Manual). With regard to the probationary period, Section 92 of the 1992 Manual provides: Section 92. Probationary Period. – Subject in all instances to compliance with the Department and school requirements, the probationary period for academic personnel shall not be more than three (3) consecutive years of satisfactory service for those in the elementary and secondary levels, six (6) consecutive regular semesters of satisfactory service for those in the tertiary level, and nine (9) consecutive trimesters of satisfactory service for those in the tertiary level where collegiate courses are offered on a trimester basis. In this case, petitioners’ teachers who were on probationary employment were made to enter into a contract effective for one school year. Thereafter, it may be renewed for another school year, and the probationary employment continues. At the end of the second fixed period of probationary employment, the contract may again be renewed for the last time. Such employment for fixed terms during the teachers’ probationary period is an accepted practice in the teaching profession. However, this scheme “of fixed-term contract is a system that operates during the probationary period and for this reason is subject to Article 281 of the Labor Code,” which provides:brary x x x The services of an employee who has been engaged on a probationary basis may be terminated for a just cause or when he fails 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. An employee who is allowed to work after a probationary period shall be considered a regular employee. In this case, petitioners’ teachers who were on probationary employment were made to enter into a contract effective for one school year. Thereafter, it may be renewed for another school year, and the probationary employment continues. At the end of the second fixed period

14

7. Phil. Daily Inquirer v. Magtibay

of probationary employment, the contract may again be renewed for the last time. Such employment for fixed terms during the teachers’ probationary period is an accepted practice in the teaching profession. No. The same Labor Code also gives the employer a period within which to determine whether a particular employee is fit to work for him or not. This employer’s prerogative is spelled out in the following provision: Art. 281. Probationary employment. P ̶ robationary employment shall not exceed six (6) months from the date the employee started working, unless it is covered by an apprenticeship agreement stipulating a longer period. The services of an employee who has been engaged on a probationary basis may be terminated for a just cause or when he fails 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. An employee who is allowed to work after a probationary period shall be considered a regular employee.

8. Alcira v. NLRC

Within the limited legal six-month probationary period, probationary employees are still entitled to security of tenure. It is expressly provided in the afore-quoted Article 281 that a probationary employee may be terminated only on two grounds: (a) for just cause, or (b) when he fails 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. DOCTRINES (Art. 281 [Now Art. 296: Probationary Employment]): The computation of the 6-month probationary period is reckoned from the date of appointment up to the same calendar date of the 6th month following. Apprising the employee that he will be subjected to a performance evaluation on a particular date after his hiring is substantial compliance with the legal requirement of making known to the probationary employee the standards that would qualify the employee for regular employment Even if probationary employees do not enjoy permanent status, they are accorded the constitutional protection of security of tenure. But this constitutional protection ends on the expiration of the probationary period. On that date, the parties are free to either renew or terminate their contract of employment.

9. Mercado v. AMA Computer College (Probi status of fixed term employees) 10. Oyster Plaza Hotel v. Melivo

15

16