46. Rowell Industrial Corporation vs.

CA their own workers if they have sufficient basis to refuse an employee a

regular status. Management has rights which should also be protected.
VOL. 517, MARCH 7, 2007 691 Same;  Same; Same;  Guidelines.—Although Article 280 of the Labor
Rowell Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals Code, as amended, does not forbid fixed term employment, it must,
G.R. No. 167714. March 7, 2007.* nevertheless, meet any of the following guidelines in order that it cannot be
ROWELL INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF said to circumvent security of tenure: (1) that the fixed period of employment
APPEALS and JOEL TARIPE, respondents. was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties, without any force,
Labor Law;  Employer-Employee Relationship;  Article 280 of the Labor duress or improper pressure being brought to bear upon the employee and
Code, as amended, classifies employees into three categories, namely, (1) absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent; or (2) it satisfactorily
regular employees, (2) project employees, and (3) casual employees; appears that the employer and employee dealt with each other on more or
Regular employees are classified into (a) regular employees by nature of less equal terms with no moral dominance whatever being exercised by the
work, and, (b) regular employees by years of service.—Article 280 of the former on the latter.
Labor Code, as amended, classifies employees into three categories, Same;  Same; Same;  Contracts of Adhesion;  Words and Phrases; A
namely: (1) regular employees or those whose work is necessary or contract in which the terms prepared by only one party and the other party
desirable to the usual business of the employer; (2) project employees or merely affixes his signature signifying his adhesion thereto is called contract
those whose employment has been fixed for a specific project or of adhesion, an agreement in which the parties bargaining are not on equal
undertaking, the completion or termination of which has been determined at footing, the weaker party’s participation being reduced to the alternative “to
the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to take it or leave it.”—Petitioner RIC failed to controvert the claim of
be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of respondent Taripe that he was made to sign the contract of employment,
the season; and (3) casual employees or those who are neither regular nor prepared by petitioner RIC, as a condition for his hiring. Such contract in
project employees. Regular employees are further classified into: (1) regular which the terms are prepared by only one party and the other party merely
employees by nature of work; and (2) regular employees by years of service. affixes his signature signifying his adhesion thereto is called contract of
The former refers to those employees who perform a particular activity which adhesion. It is an agreement in which the parties bargaining are not on equal
is necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, footing, the weaker party’s participation being reduced to the alternative “to
regardless of their length of service; while the latter refers to those take it or leave it.” In the present case, respondent Taripe, in need of a job,
employees who have been performing the job, regardless of the nature was compelled to agree to the contract, including the five-month period of
thereof, for at least a year. employment, just so he could be hired. Hence, it cannot be argued that
Same;  Same; Fixed-Term Employment;  Article 280 of the Labor Code respondent Taripe signed the employment contract with a fixed term of five
does not proscribe or prohibit an employment contract with a fixed period.— months willingly and with full knowledge of the impact thereof.
Article 280 of the Labor Code, as amended, however, does not proscribe or 693
prohibit an employment contract with a fixed period. It does not necessarily VOL. 517, MARCH 7, 2007 693
follow that where the duties of the employee consist of activities usually Rowell Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals
necessary or desirable in the usual business of the employer, the parties are Same;  Same; Regular Employees;  The primary standard of
forbidden from agreeing on a period of time for the performance of such determining regular employment is the reasonable connection between the
activities. There is nothing essentially contradictory between a definite period particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the casual
of employment and the nature of the employee’s duties. What Article 280 of business or trade of the employer.—Settled is the rule that the primary
the Labor Code, as amended, seeks to prevent is the practice standard of determining regular employment is the reasonable connection
_______________ between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the
*
 THIRD DIVISION. casual business or trade of the employer. The connection can be determined
692 by considering the nature of the work performed and its relation to the
692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED scheme of the particular business or trade in its entirety.
Rowell Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals Same;  Same; Same;  Regular employees enjoy security of tenure and
of some unscrupulous and covetous employers who wish to circumvent they can only be dismissed for just cause and with due process, notice and
the law that protects lowly workers from capricious dismissal from their hearing.—Well-established is the rule that regular employees enjoy security
employment. The aforesaid provision, however, should not be interpreted in of tenure and they can only be dismissed for just cause and with due
such a way as to deprive employers of the right and prerogative to choose process, notice and hearing. And in case of employees’ dismissal, the

Page 1 of 7
burden is on the employer to prove that the dismissal was legal. Thus, _______________
3
respondent Taripe’s summary dismissal, not being based on any of the just  Penned by Commissioner Victoriano R. Calaycay with Presiding
or authorized causes enumerated under Articles 282, 283, and 284 of the Commissioner Raul T. Aquino and Commissioner Angelita A. Gacutan,
Labor Code, as amended, is illegal. concurring, Id., at pp. 36–48; NLRC Records, pp. 147–148.
4
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court  Penned by Labor Arbiter Natividad M. Roma, Id., at pp. 29–35.
of Appeals. 695
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. VOL. 517, MARCH 7, 2007 695
     Nestor P. Ricolcol for petitioner. Rowell Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals
     Allan S. Montaño for private respondent. [Respondent Taripe] alleges that [petitioner RIC] employed him starting [8
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: November 1999] as power press machine operator, such position of which
This case is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Revised Rules was occupied by [petitioner RIC’s] regular employees and the functions of
of Civil Procedure seeking to set aside the Decision 1 and Resolution2 of the which were necessary to the latter’s business. [Respondent Taripe] adds that
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP upon employment, he was made to sign a document, which was not
_______________ explained to him but which was made a condition for him to be taken in and
1
 Penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta with Associate for which he was not furnished a copy. [Respondent Taripe] states that he
Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Josefina GuevaraSalonga, was not extended full benefits granted under the law and the [Collective
concurring, Rollo, pp. 17–27. Bargaining Agreement] and that on [6 April 2000], while the case for
2
 Id., at p. 28. regularization was pending, he was summarily dismissed from his job
694 although he never violated any of the [petitioner RIC’s] company rules and
694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED regulations.
Rowell Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals [Petitioner RIC], for [its] part, claim[s] that [respondent Taripe] was a
No. 74104, entitled, Rowell Industrial Corp., and/or Edwin Tang vs. National contractual employee, whose services were required due to the increase in
Labor Relations Commission and Joel Taripe, dated 30 September 2004 and the demand in packaging requirement of [its] clients for Christmas season
1 April 2005, respectively, which affirmed the Resolutions 3 of the National and to build up stock levels during the early part of the following year; that on
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dated 7 June 2002 and 20 August [6 March 2000], [respondent Taripe’s] employment contract expired.
2002, finding herein respondent Joel Taripe (Taripe) as a regular employee [Petitioner RIC] avers that the information update for union members, which
who had been illegally dismissed from employment by herein petitioner was allegedly filled up by [respondent Taripe] and submitted by the Union to
Rowell Industrial Corp. (RIC), thereby ordering petitioner RIC to reinstate [petitioner] company, it is stated therein that in the six (6) companies where
respondent Taripe with full backwages, subject to the modification of [respondent Taripe] purportedly worked, the latter’s reason for leaving was
exonerating Edwin Tang, the RIC General Manager and Vice President, from “finished contract,” hence, [respondent Taripe] has knowledge about being
liability and computing the backwages of herein respondent Taripe based on employed by contract contrary to his allegation that the document he was
the prevailing salary rate at the time of his dismissal. The NLRC Resolutions signing was not explained to him. [Petitioner RIC] manifest[s] that all benefits,
reversed the Decision4 of the Labor Arbiter dated 29 September 2000, which including those under the [Social Security System], were given to him on [12
dismissed respondent Taripe’s complaint. May 2000].”5
Petitioner RIC is a corporation engaged in manufacturing tin cans for use On 29 September 2000, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision dismissing
in packaging of consumer products, e.g., foods, paints, among other things. respondent Taripe’s Complaint based on a finding that he was a contractual
Respondent Taripe was employed by petitioner RIC on 8 November 1999 as employee whose contract merely expired. The dispositive portion of the said
a “rectangular power press machine operator” with a salary of P223.50 per Decision reads, thus:
day, until he was allegedly dismissed from his employment by the petitioner “WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered
on 6 April 2000. declaring this complaint of [herein respondent Taripe] against [herein
The controversy of the present case arose from the following facts, as petitioner RIC] and Mr. Edwin Tang for illegal dismissal
summarized by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals: _______________
5
“On [17 February 2000], [herein respondent Taripe] filed a [C]omplaint  Id., at pp. 18–19.
against [herein petitioner RIC] for regularization and payment of holiday pay, 696
as well as indemnity for severed finger, which was amended on [7 April 2000] 696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
to include illegal dismissal. Rowell Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

Page 2 of 7
DISMISSED for lack of merit. However, on ground of compassionate justice, OF MONETARY CLAIMS COMPUTED ON AN ERRONEOUS
[petitioner RIC and Mr. Edwin Tang] are hereby ordered to pay [respondent WAGE RATE.8
Taripe] the sum of PHP5,811.00 or one month’s salary as financial The Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Decision on 30 September 2004,
assistance and holiday pay in the sum of PHP894.00, as well as attorney’s affirming the Resolution of the NLRC dated 7 June 2002, with modifications.
fees of 10% based on holiday pay (Article 110, Labor Code).”6 Thus, it disposed—
Aggrieved, respondent Taripe appealed before the NLRC. In a Resolution “WHEREFORE, the Resolutions dated [7 June 2002] and [20 August 2002]
dated 7 June 2002, the NLRC granted the appeal filed by respondent Taripe of [the NLRC] are affirmed, subject to the modification that [Edwin Tang] is
and declared that his employment with the petitioner was regular in status; exonerated from liability and the computation of backwages of [respondent
hence, his dismissal was illegal. The decretal portion of the said Resolution Taripe] shall be based on P223.50, the last salary he received.” 9
reads as follows: A Motion for Reconsideration of the aforesaid Decision was filed by petitioner
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, [herein respondent Taripe’s] appeal RIC, but the same was denied for lack of merit in a Resolution 10 of the Court
is GRANTED. The Labor Arbiter’s [D]ecision in the above-entitled case is of Appeals dated 1 April 2005.
hereby REVERSED. It is hereby declared that [respondent Taripe’s] Hence, this Petition.
employment with [herein petitioner RIC and Mr. Edwin Tang] is regular in Petitioner RIC comes before this Court with the lone issue of whether the
status and that he was illegally dismissed therefrom. Court of Appeals misinterpreted Article 280 of the Labor Code, as
[Petitioner RIC and Mr. Edwin Tang] are hereby ordered to reinstate amended, and ignored jurisprudence when it affirmed that respondent Taripe
[respondent Taripe] and to jointly and severally pay him full backwages from was a regular employee and was illegally dismissed.
the time he was illegally dismissed up to the date of his actual reinstatement, _______________
8
less the amount of P1,427.67. The award of P894.00 for holiday pay  Id., at p. 21.
9
is AFFIRMED but the award of P5,811.00 for financial assistance is deleted.  Id., at p. 26.
10
The award for attorney’s fees is hereby adjusted to ten percent (10%) of  Supra note 2.
[respondent Taripe’s] total monetary award.”7 698
Dissatisfied, petitioner RIC moved for the reconsideration of the aforesaid 698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Resolution but it was denied in the Resolution of the NLRC dated 20 August Rowell Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals
2002. Petitioner RIC, in its Memorandum, 11 argues that the Court of Appeals had
Consequently, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the narrowly interpreted Article 280 of the Labor Code, as amended, and
1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure before the Court of Appeals with the disregarded a contract voluntarily entered into by the parties.
following assignment of errors: Petitioner RIC emphasizes that while an employee’s status of
_______________ employment is vested by law pursuant to Article 280 of the Labor Code, as
6
 Id., at p. 35. amended, said provision of law admits of two exceptions, to wit: (1) those
7
 Id., at pp. 45–46. employments which have been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, the
697 completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the
VOL. 517, MARCH 7, 2007 697 engagement of the employment; and (2) when the work or services to be
Rowell Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals performed are seasonal; hence, the employment is for the duration of the
1. I.THE [NLRC] GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND IS IN season. Thus, there are certain forms of employment which entail the
EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION WHEN IT MISINTERPRETED performance of usual and desirable functions and which exceed one year but
ARTICLE 280 OF THE LABOR CODE AND IGNORED do not necessarily qualify as regular employment under Article 280 of the
JURISPRUDENCE WHEN IT DECIDED THAT [RESPONDENT Labor Code, as amended.
TARIPE] IS A REGULAR EMPLOYEE AND THUS, ILLEGALLY The Petition is unmeritorious.
DISMISSED. A closer examination of Article 280 of the Labor Code, as amended, is
2. II.THE [NLRC] GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND IS IN imperative to resolve the issue raised in the present case.
EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION WHEN IT ORDERED [EDWIN In declaring that respondent Taripe was a regular employee of the
TANG] TO (sic) JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE FOR petitioner and, thus, his dismissal was illegal, the Court of Appeals
MONETARY CLAIMS OF [RESPONDEN TARIPE]. ratiocinated in this manner:
3. III.THE [NLRC] GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION AND IS IN “In determining the employment status of [herein respondent Taripe],
EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION WHEN IT ORDERED PAYMENT reference must be made to Article 280 of the Labor Code, which provides:

Page 3 of 7
 12
xxxx  Id., at pp. 22-23.
Thus, there are two kinds of regular employees, namely: (1) those who 700
are engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in 700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
the usual business or trade of the employer; and (2) those who have Rowell Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals
rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, with performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the
respect to the activity in which they are season.
_______________ An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the
11
 Rollo, pp. 98–104. preceding paragraph: Provided, That, any employee who has rendered at
699 least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall
VOL. 517, MARCH 7, 2007 699 be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is
Rowell Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals employed and his employment shall continue while such activity exists.”
employed. [Respondent Taripe] belonged to the first category of regular [Emphasis supplied]
employees. The aforesaid Article 280 of the Labor Code, as amended, classifies
The purported contract of employment providing that [respondent Taripe] employees into three categories, namely: (1) regular employees or those
was hired as contractual employee for five (5) months only, cannot prevail whose work is necessary or desirable to the usual business of the employer;
over the undisputed fact that [respondent Taripe] was hired to perform the (2) project employees or those whose employment has been fixed for a
function of power press operator, a function necessary or desirable in specific project or undertaking, the completion or termination of which has
[petitioner’s] business of manufacturing tin cans. [Herein petitioner RIC’s] been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where
contention that the four (4) months length of service of [respondent Taripe] the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the
did not grant him a regular status is inconsequential, considering that length employment is for the duration of the season; and (3) casual employees or
of service assumes importance only when the activity in which the employee those who are neither regular nor project employees. 13
has been engaged to perform is not necessary or desirable to the usual Regular employees are further classified into: (1) regular employees by
business or trade of the employer. nature of work; and (2) regular employees by years of service. 14 The former
As aptly ruled by [the NLRC]: refers to those employees who perform a particular activity which is
“In the instant case, there is no doubt that [respondent Taripe], as power necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer,
press operator, has been engaged to perform activities which are usually regardless of their length of service; while the latter refers to those
necessary or desirable in [petitioner RIC’s] usual business or trade of employees who have been performing the job, regardless of the nature
manufacturing of tin cans for use in packaging of food, paint and others. We thereof, for at least a year.15
also find that [respondent Taripe] does not fall under any of the The aforesaid Article 280 of the Labor Code, as amended, however, does
abovementioned exceptions. Other that (sic) [petitioner RIC’s] bare allegation not proscribe or prohibit an employment con-
thereof, [it] failed to present any evidence to prove that he was employed for _______________
13
a fixed or specific project or undertaking the completion of which has been  Pangilinan vs. General Milling Corporation, G.R. No. 149329, 12 July
determined at the time of his engagement or that [respondent Taripe’s] 2004, 434 SCRA 159, 169.
14
services are seasonal in nature and that his employment was for the duration  E. Ganzon, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No.
of the season.”12 123769, 22 December 1999, 321 SCRA 434, 440.
15
Article 280 of the Labor Code, as amended, provides:  Pangilinan vs. General Milling Corporation, supra note 13 at pp. 169–
“ART. 280. REGULAR AND CASUAL EMPLOYMENT.—The provisions of 170.
written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral 701
agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular VOL. 517, MARCH 7, 2007 701
where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are Rowell Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals
usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the tract with a fixed period. It does not necessarily follow that where the duties
employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project of the employee consist of activities usually necessary or desirable in the
or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined usual business of the employer, the parties are forbidden from agreeing on a
at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services period of time for the performance of such activities. There is nothing
to be essentially contradictory between a definite period of employment and the
_______________ nature of the employee’s duties. 16 What Article 280 of the Labor Code, as

Page 4 of 7
amended, seeks to prevent is the practice of some unscrupulous and Likewise, as the NLRC mentioned in its Resolution, to which the Court of
covetous employers who wish to circumvent the law that protects lowly Appeals agreed, other than the bare allegations of petitioner RIC that
workers from capricious dismissal from their employment. The aforesaid respondent Taripe was hired only because of the increase in the demand for
provision, however, should not be interpreted in such a way as to deprive packaging materials during the Christmas season, petitioner RIC failed to
employers of the right and prerogative to choose their own workers if they substantiate such claim with any other evidence. Petitioner RIC did not
have sufficient basis to refuse an employee a regular status. Management present any evidence which might prove that respondent Taripe was
has rights which should also be protected.17 employed for a fixed or specific project or that his services were seasonal in
In the case at bar, respondent Taripe signed a contract of employment nature.
prior to his admission into the petitioner’s company. Said contract of _______________
19
employment provides, among other things:  Philippine National Oil Co.-Energy Dev’t. Corp. vs. National Labor
“4. That my employment shall be contractual for the period of five (5) months Relations Commission, G.R. No. 97747, 31 March 1993, 220 SCRA 695,
which means that the end of the said period, I can (sic) discharged unless 699.
this contract is renewed by mutual consent or terminated for cause.” 18 703
Based on the said contract, respondent Taripe’s employment with the VOL. 517, MARCH 7, 2007 703
petitioner is good only for a period of five months unless the said contract is Rowell Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals
renewed by mutual consent. And as claimed by petitioner RIC, respondent Also, petitioner RIC failed to controvert the claim of respondent Taripe that
Taripe, along with its other contractual employees, was hired only to meet he was made to sign the contract of employment, prepared by petitioner RIC,
the increase in demand for packaging materials during as a condition for his hiring. Such contract in which the terms are prepared
_______________ by only one party and the other party merely affixes his signature signifying
16
 Id., at p. 170. his adhesion thereto is called contract of adhesion.20 It is an agreement in
17
 Pantranco North Express, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations which the parties bargaining are not on equal footing, the weaker party’s
Commission, G.R. No. 106654, 16 December 1994, 239 SCRA 272, 279. participation being reduced to the alternative “to take it or leave it.” 21 In the
18
 CA Rollo, p. 27. present case, respondent Taripe, in need of a job, was compelled to agree to
702 the contract, including the five-month period of employment, just so he could
702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED be hired. Hence, it cannot be argued that respondent Taripe signed the
Rowell Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals employment contract with a fixed term of five months willingly and with full
the Christmas season and also to build up stock levels during the early part knowledge of the impact thereof.
of the year. With regard to the second guideline, this Court agrees with the Court of
Although Article 280 of the Labor Code, as amended, does not forbid Appeals that petitioner RIC and respondent Taripe cannot be said to have
fixed term employment, it must, nevertheless, meet any of the following dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance
guidelines in order that it cannot be said to circumvent security of tenure: (1) exercised by the former over the latter. As a power press operator, a rank
that the fixed period of employment was knowingly and voluntarily agreed and file employee, he can hardly be on equal terms with petitioner RIC. As
upon by the parties, without any force, duress or improper pressure being the Court of Appeals said, “almost always, employees agree to any terms of
brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other circumstances an employment contract just to get employed considering that it is difficult to
vitiating his consent; or (2) it satisfactorily appears that the employer and find work given their ordinary qualifications.”22
employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral Therefore, for failure of petitioner RIC to comply with the necessary
dominance whatever being exercised by the former on the latter. 19 guidelines for a valid fixed term employment contract, it can be safely stated
In the present case, it cannot be denied that the employment contract that the aforesaid contract signed by respondent Taripe for a period of five
signed by respondent Taripe did not mention that he was hired only for a months was a mere subterfuge to deny to the latter a regular status of
specific undertaking, the completion of which had been determined at the employment.
time of his engagement. The said employment contract neither mentioned _______________
20
that respondent Taripe’s services were seasonal in nature and that his  Fabrigas vs. San Francisco del Monte, Inc., G.R. No. 152346, 25
employment was only for the duration of the Christmas season as purposely November 2005, 476 SCRA 247, 263.
21
claimed by petitioner RIC. What was stipulated in the said contract was that  Qua Chee Gan vs. Law Union and Rock Insurance Co., Ltd., 98 Phil.
respondent Taripe’s employment was contractual for the period of five 85, 95 (1955).
22
months.  Rollo, p. 25.

Page 5 of 7
 704 (a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;
Rowell Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals (b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
Settled is the rule that the primary standard of determining regular (c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by
employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity his employer or duly authorized representatives;
performed by the employee in relation to the casual business or trade of the (d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person
employer. The connection can be determined by considering the nature of of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized
the work performed and its relation to the scheme of the particular business representative; and
or trade in its entirety.23 Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
26
Given the foregoing, this Court agrees in the findings of the Court of  ART. 283. CLOSURE OF ESTABLISHMENT AND REDUCTION OF
Appeals and the NLRC that, indeed, respondent Taripe, as a rectangular PERSONNEL.—The employer may also terminate the employment of any
power press machine operator, in charge of manufacturing covers for “four employee due to the installation of labor saving devices, redundancy,
liters rectangular tin cans,” was holding a position which is necessary and retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the
desirable in the usual business or trade of petitioner RIC, which was the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of
manufacture of tin cans. Therefore, respondent Taripe was a regular circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the
employee of petitioner RIC by the nature of work he performed in the worker and the Ministry of Labor and Employment [now Secretary of Labor]
company. at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. In case of
Respondent Taripe does not fall under the exceptions mentioned in termination due to the installation of labor saving devices or redundancy, the
Article 280 of the Labor Code, as amended, because it was not proven by worker affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at
petitioner RIC that he was employed only for a specific project or undertaking least one (1) month pay or to at least one (1) month pay for every year of
or his employment was merely seasonal. Similarly, the position and function service, whichever is higher. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in
of power press operator cannot be said to be merely seasonal. Such position cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking
cannot be considered as only needed for a specific project or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay
because of the very nature of the business of petitioner RIC. Indeed, shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay
respondent Taripe is a regular employee of petitioner RIC and as such, he for every year of service, whichever is higher. A fraction of at least six (6)
cannot be dismissed from his employment unless there is just or authorized months shall be considered as one (1) whole year.
27
cause for his dismissal.  ART. 284. DISEASE AS GROUND FOR TERMINATION.—An
Well-established is the rule that regular employees enjoy security of employer may terminate the services of an employee who has been found to
tenure and they can only be dismissed for just cause and with due process, be suffering from any disease and whose continued
notice and hearing.24 And in case of employees’ dismissal, the burden is on 706
the employer to 706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
_______________ Rowell Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals
23
 Lopez vs. Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System, G.R. No. Before concluding, we once more underscore the settled precept that factual
154472, 30 June 2005, 462 SCRA 428, 453. findings of the NLRC, having deemed to acquire expertise in matters within
24
 Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation vs. Angara, G.R. No. its jurisdiction, are generally accorded not only respect but finality especially
142937, 15 November 2005, 475 SCRA 41, 61. when such factual findings are affirmed by the Court of Appeals; 28 hence,
705 such factual findings are binding on this Court.
VOL. 517, MARCH 7, 2007 705 WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is hereby
Rowell Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated 30
prove that the dismissal was legal. Thus, respondent Taripe’s summary September 2004 and 1 April 2005, respectively, which affirmed with
dismissal, not being based on any of the just or authorized causes modification the Resolutions of the NLRC dated 7 June 2002 and 20 August
enumerated under Articles 282,25 283,26 and 28427 of the Labor Code, as 2002, respectively, finding herein respondent Taripe as a regular employee
amended, is illegal. who had been illegally dismissed from employment by petitioner RIC, are
_______________ hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner RIC.
25
 ART. 282. TERMINATION BY EMPLOYER.—An employer may SO ORDERED.
terminate an employment for any of the following causes.

Page 6 of 7
      Ynares-Santiago (Chairperson),  Austria-Martinez and Nachura, JJ.,
concur.
     Callejo, Sr., J., On Leave.
Petition denied.

Page 7 of 7