Regularized casual employees
Respondents Samahang Manggagawa Ng UST, Fernando Pontesor and 3 others filed a complaint for regularization and illegal dismissal against petitioner University of Santo Tomas (UST).
They alleged that on various periods spanning the years 1990-1999, petitioner repeatedly hired them to perform various maintenance duties within its campus, i.e., as laborer, mason, tinsmith, painter, electrician, welder and carpenter. They argued that their jobs are necessary and desirable to the business of petitioner in the maintenance of its rooms, buildings, and facilities.
On the other hand, petitioner maintained that respondents were merely hired on a per-project basis, as evidenced by numerous contractual employee appointments (CEAs) signed by them. Each of the CEAs defined the nature and term of the project to which they are assigned. Their project employment were automatically terminated: (a) upon the expiration of the specific term specified in the CEA; (b) when the project is completed ahead of such expiration; or (c) in cases when their employment was extended due to the non-completion of the specific project for which they were hired, upon the completion of the said project.
The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed and set aside the resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and reinstated the decision of the Labor Arbiter (LA) declaring respondents as regular employees of petitioner.
Did the CA err?
Ruling: No.
Under the foregoing provision (Art. 295 [280]), the law provides for two types of regular employees, namely: (a) those who are engaged to perform activities, which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer (first category); and (b) those who have rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in which they are employed (second category). xxx In the case at bar, a review of Pontesor, et al.’s respective CEAs reveal that petitioner repeatedly rehired them for various positions in the nature of maintenance workers, such as laborer, mason, painter, tinsmith, electrician, carpenter, and welder, for various periods spanning the years 1990-1999. Akin to the situation of the employees in Kimberly, Pontesor, et al.’s nature of work are not necessary and desirable to petitioner’s usual business as an educational institution; hence, removing them from the ambit of the first category of regular employees under Article 295 of the Labor Code. Nonetheless, it is clear that their respective cumulative periods of employment as per their respective CEAs each exceed one year. Thus, Pontesor, et al. fall under the second category of regular employees under Article 295 of the Labor Code. Accordingly, they should be deemed as regular employees but only with respect to the activities for which they were hired and for as long as such activities exist.
In this relation, the Court clarifies that Pontesor, et al. were not project employees of petitioner, who were validly terminated upon the completion of their respective projects/undertakings. x x x
As aptly held by the CA, Pontesor, et al. could not be considered as project employees because the specific undertakings or projects for which they were employed were not clearly delineated. This is evidenced by the vagueness of the project descriptions set forth in their respective CEAs, which states that they were tasked “to assist” in various carpentry, electrical, and masonry work.
In fact, when the aforesaid CEAs are pieced together, it appears that during the years 1990 to 1999, Pontesor, et al. were each engaged to perform all-around maintenance services throughout the various facilities/installations in petitioner’s campus. Thus, it seems that petitioner, through the CEAs, merely attempted to compartmentalize Pontesor, et al.’s various tasks into purported “projects” so as to make it appear that they were hired on a per-project basis. Verily, the Court cannot countenance this practice as to do so would effectively permit petitioners to avoid hiring permanent or regular employees by simply hiring them on a temporary or casual basis, thereby violating the employees’ security of tenure relative to their jobs.
x x x In view of the foregoing, Pontesor, et al. should, as discussed earlier, be considered regularized casual employees who enjoy, inter alia, security of tenure.
Accordingly, they cannot be terminated from employment without any just and/or authorized cause, which unfortunately, petitioner was guilty of doing in this case.
Hence, Pontesor, et al. must be reinstated to their former or equivalent positions, with full backwages and without loss of seniority rights.
As pointed out by the LA, the NLRC Computation & Examination Unit should be directed to compute the monetary awards that petitioner should be ordered to pay Pontesor, et al. as a consequence of this ruling. (Perlas-Bernabe, J., SC 1st Division, University of Santo Tomas (UST) vs. Samahang Manggagawa Ng UST, et.al., G.R. No. 184262, April 24, 2017).