Caramol V. Nlrc

...

Alegre protested against the termination and argued that although his contract would end on July 17, 1976, he is already considered a regular employee and could not be removed without valid cause because his services were necessary to Brent, and his employment had lasted for five years. However, his employment contract was executed when the Labor Code of the Philippines had not yet been promulgated.

The Regional Director considered the school’s report as an application for clearance to terminate employment, but in the end refused to give such clearance. Instead, the Regional Director required that Alegre should be recognized as a permanent employee to his former position without loss of seniority rights and with full back wages.

Issue: Whether or not the Labor Code of the Philippines anathematized “fixed period employment”

Held: No. The Termination Pay law, RA 1052 recognizes the validity of “fixed period employment”. The contract between Alegre and Brent was executed on July 18, 1971, which is a time when the Labor Code of the Philippines did not exist, Even if the Labor Code hasn’t existed yet at this time, the validity of term employment was not questioned.

Although the entire purpose behind the development of Article 280 of the Labor Code is to uphold the right of workers to have a secured tenure, it should have no application to situations where both the parties agreed upon a fixed period of employment. Unless the law needs to be applied in situations beyond what its framers intended, it is unnecessary because it will lead to absurd and unintended consequences.

Rationale:

Cosmos Bottling v. NLRC

G.R. No. 106600. March 29, 1996

KAPUNAN, J.:

Facts: Cosmos Bottling Corporation hired Gil C. Castro for a brief period from Sept. 5, 1988 to Oct. 4, 1988. He was again hired for another brief period from May 30, 1989 to Nov. 6, 1989. After the 2 successful terms, Castro was recommended for re-employment with the company’s Maintenance Team for the Davao project on Nov. 22, 1989. On Dec. 22, 1989. Therefore, he was re-hired to work with the Maintenance Division of Davao Project that had the responsibility to install its annex plant machines for the Davao Plant. However, Castro’s employment was terminated on May 21, 1990, on the grounds that the Davao project has already been completed. Furthermore, Cosmos Bottling Corporation terminated the contracts of 228 regular employees on May 27, 1990. However, Castro’s name was not part of those 228 regular employees.

Consequently, Gil Castro filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC-RAB and he argued that he was a regular employee, which meant that he could not be dismissed without a just and valid cause. The company, however, refuted his claim and said that he was only a project employee and his employment depended on the project that he was hired for. That it is justifiable as to why his contract was terminated when the project was completed.

Once both Cosmos Bottling and Castro submitted their respective position papers, reply and rejoinder thereto, the Labor Arbiter decided in favor of Castro and declared that he is a regular employee. However, due to the recent retrenchment, his employment was validly terminated. Upon appeal, the NLRC ruled that Cosmos Bottling Corporation is guilty for illegally dismissing Castro and ordered the company to reinstate him.

Issue: Whether or not Gil Castro should be considered a regular employee

Held: No. According to the Supreme Court, was not illegally dismissed by the company because he was not a regular employee to begin with. Based on the first paragraph of Article 280, one is considered a regular employee when he or she is does activities that are necessary for the daily functions of the company. Furthermore, a project employee is defined as someone who has been hired for a specific project and the completion/termination of the employment is determined either by the time of the engagement of the employee or if the work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature. Moreover, the second paragraph of the Article 280 that’s that casual employees are those who do not fall under the definition of the first paragraph. However the principal test for determining whether an employee is a project employee or a regular employee is whether or not the project employee was assigned to carry out a specific project for the duration of which were specified at the time the employee was engaged for that period.

Cosmos Bottling is known for handling identifiable projects that are separate from its main business. An example would be how the company formed a special team that was assigned to install and dismantle its annex plant machines in various plants all over the country. When Gil Castro was hired for periods of one month, five months, and another five months, he was assigned to the company’s Maintenance Division, which had the responsibility for the installation and dismantling of its annex plant machines. Evidently, the duration and scope of of these projects have already been determined and made known to Gil Castro when he was hired, which means that this can be treated as "projects" within the meaning of the "first" kind. Therefore, Castro’s employment can lawfully be terminated at the end or completion of the project.

Even if an employee worked on a specific project for more than a year, it is not a guarantee that his status as project employee will be converted to regular or permanent employment. On the second paragraph of Article 280 of the Labor Code, it is stated that an employee who has served for at least a year, shall be considered a regular employee. But this is only exclusive to casual employees and not to project employees. Therefore, Castro’ protest is completely baseless.

Rationale: WHEREOF the termination of Castro’s employment cannot be considered an illegal dismissal because he is considered a project employee, due to how he was only hired for a brief period of time for a special project.

.

Phil Fishing Boat v. CIR

G.R. No. L-30592, February 25, 1982

TEEHANKEE, J.:

Facts: The San Diego Fishery Enterprises, Inc. is a domestic corporation that operates in the business of deep-sea fishing, while both the Philippine Fishing Boat Officers and Engineers Union and Samahan ng Mangdaragat sa Filipinas