Title Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation v.
Acibo,
Citation GR NO 186439
Topic Regular Employee – Primary standard in determining regular employment
Doctrine
Facts Petitioner URSUMCO is engaged in the sugar cane milling business.
The respondent Acibo et al were employees of URSUMCO. They were hired on
various and on different capacities, i.e., drivers, crane operators, bucket hookers,
welders,
mechanics, laboratory attendants and aides, steel workers, laborers, carpenters and
masons, among others. At the start of their respective engagements, the
complainants signed contracts of employment for a period of one (1) month or for a
given season.
Petitioner URSUMCO repeatedly hired the complainants to perform the same duties
and, for every engagement, required the latter to sign new employment contracts
for the same duration of one month or a given season.
Respondents Acibo et al before the LA complaints for regularization.
The LA ruled dismissing the complaint for lack of merit.
The LA held that the complainants were seasonal or project workers and not regular
employees of URSUMCO. The LA pointed out that the complainants were required to
perform, for a definite period, phases of URSUMCO’s several projects that were not
at all directly related to the latter’s main operations. As the complainants were
project employees, they could not be regularized since their respective
employments were coterminous with the phase of the work or special project to
which they were assigned and which employments end upon the completion of each
project
The NLRC ruled reversing the LA’s ruling. The NLRC held that the complainantsas
regular URSUMCO employees. The NLRC pointed out that the
complainants performed activities which were usually necessary and desirable in the
usual trade or business of URSUMCO, and had been repeatedly hired for the same
undertaking everyseason.
The CA affirmed the NLRC’s ruling. The CA held that the complainants to be
regular employees of URSUMCO, but deleted the grant of monetary benefits under
the CBA. The CA pointed out that the primary standard for determining regular
employment is the reasonable connection between a particular activity performed
by the employee vis-à-vis the usual trade or business of the employer. This
connection, in turn, can be determined by considering the nature of the work
performed and the relation of this work to the business or trade of the employer in
its entirety.
Further, the CA held that the various activities that the complainants were tasked to
do were necessary, if not indispensable, to the nature of URSUMCO’s business. As
the complainants had been performing their respective tasks for at least one year,
the CA held that this repeated and continuing need for the complainants’
performance of these same tasks, regardless of whether the performance
was continuous or intermittent, constitutes sufficient evidence of the necessity, if
not indispensability, of the activity to URSUMCO’s business
Furthermore, the CA noted that the petitioners failed to prove that they gave the
complainants opportunity to work elsewhere during the off- season, which
opportunity could have qualified the latter as seasonal workers. Still, the CA pointed
out that even during this off-season period, seasonal workers are not separated from
the service but are simply considered on leave until they are re-employed. Thus, the
CA concluded that the complainants were regular employees with respect to the
activity that they had been performing and while the activity continued
Issue Whether or not respondents were regular employees?
Ruling Yes. The court find the respondents to be regular seasonal employees of URSUMCO.
Primary standard to determine As the CA has explained in its challenged decision, Article 280 of the Labor Code
regular employment – necessity provides for three kinds of employment arrangements, namely: regular,
and desirability of activities project/seasonal and casual. Regular employment refers to that arrangement
whereby the employee "has been engaged to perform activities which are usually
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer[.]”
Under the definition, the primary standard that determines regular employment is
the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the
employee and the usual business or trade of the employer; the emphasis is on the
necessity or desirability of the employee’s activity. Thus, when the employee
performs activities considered necessary and desirable to the overall business
scheme of the employer, the law regards the employee as regular.
Casual becomes regular if By way of an exception, paragraph 2, Article 280 of the Labor Code also considers
lasted for at least one year regular a casual employment arrangement when the casual employee’s engagement
has lasted for at least one year, regardless of the engagement’s continuity. The
controlling test in this arrangement is the length of time during which the employee
is engaged.
Project employee two A project employment, on the other hand, contemplates on arrangement whereby
requirements "the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking whose
completion or termination has been determined at the time of the engagement of
the employee[.]”
Two requirements, therefore, clearly need to be satisfied to remove the engagement
from the presumption of regularity of employment, namely:
(1) designation of a specific project or undertaking for which the employee is hired;
and
(2) clear determination of the completion or termination of the project at the time
of the employee’s engagement.
The services of the project employees are legally and automatically terminated upon
the end or completion of the project as the employee’s services are coterminous
with the project.
Unlike in a regular employment under Article 280 of the Labor Code, however, the
Project employee – length of length of time of the asserted "project" employee’s engagement is not controlling as
time serve NOT CONTROLLING the employment may, in fact, last for more than a year, depending on the needs or
circumstances of the project. Nevertheless, this length of time (or the continuous
rehiring of the employee even after the cessation of the project) may serve as a
badge of regular employment when the activities performed by the purported
"project" employee are necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade
of the employer.
In this latter case, the law will regard the arrangement as regular employment.
Seasonal becomes regular if Seasonal employment operates much in the same way as project employment,
repeatedly hired albeit it involves work or service that is seasonal in nature or lasting for the duration
of the season.
As with project employment, although the seasonal employment arrangement
involves work that is seasonal or periodic in nature, the employment itself is not
automatically considered seasonal so as to prevent the employee from attaining
regular status.
To exclude the asserted "seasonal" employee from those classified as regular
employees, the employer must show that:
(1) the employee must be performing work or services that are seasonal in nature;
and
(2) he had been employed for the duration of the season.
Hence, when the "seasonal" workers are continuously and repeatedly hired to
perform the same tasks or activities for several seasons or even after the cessation
of the season, this length of time may likewise serve as badge of regular
employment.
In fact, even though denominated as "seasonal workers," if these workers are called
to work from time to time and are only temporarily laid off during the off-season,
the law does not consider them separated from the service during the off-season
period. The law simply considers these seasonal workers on leave until re-employed.
Brent doctrine – where fixed In Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora, the Court, for the first time, recognized and resolved
term contract is allowed, but if the anomaly created by a narrow and literal interpretation of Article 280 of the
imposed to prevent acquiring Labor Code that appears to restrict the employee’s right to freely stipulate with his
security of tenure, it is against employer on the duration of his engagement.
public policy and moral
In this case, the Court upheld the validity of the fixed-term employment agreed
upon by the employer, Brent School, Inc., and the employee, Dorotio Alegre,
declaring that the restrictive clause in Article 280 "should be construed to refer to
the substantive evil that the Code itself x x x singled out: agreements entered into
precisely to circumvent security of tenure. It should have no application to instances
where [the] fixed period of employment was agreed upon knowingly and voluntarily
by the parties x x x absent any x x x circumstances vitiating [the employee’s] consent,
or where [the facts satisfactorily show] that the employer and [the] employee dealt
with each other on more or less equal terms[.]"
The indispensability or desirability of the activity performed by the employee will
not preclude the parties from entering into an otherwise valid fixed term
employment agreement; a definite period of employment does not essentially
contradict the nature of the employees duties as necessary and desirable to the
usual business or trade of the employer.
Nevertheless, "where the circumstances evidently show that the employer imposed
the period precisely to preclude the employee from acquiring tenurial security, the
law and this Court will not hesitate to strike down or disregard the period as
contrary to public policy, morals, etc." In such a case, the general restrictive rule
under Article 280 of the Labor Code will apply and the employee shall be deemed
regular.
Nature of activities determine Clearly, therefore, the nature of the employment does not depend solely on the will
the nature of employment or word of the employer or on the procedure for hiring and the manner of
designating the employee. Rather, the nature of the employment depends on the
nature of the activities to be performed by the employee, considering the nature of
the employer’s business, the duration and scope to be done, and, in some cases,
even the length of time of the performance and its continued existence.
In light of the above legal parameters laid down by the law and applicable
jurisprudence, the respondents are neither project, seasonal nor fixed-term
employees, but regular seasonal workers of URSUMCO.
