KRISTEL G AGODILLA 08 SEPTEMBER 2010SECTION II LABOR STANDARDS

CASE DIGESTS

CASE 1: CHARLITO PEÑARANDA VS. BAGANGA PLYWOOD CORPORATION

FACTS:

Peñaranda was employed by respondent as Foreman/Boiler Head/Shift Engineer to take charge of the operations and maintenance of its steam plant boiler until he was illegally terminated. He alleges that his services were terminated without the benefit of due process and valid grounds in accordance with law, and was not paid his overtime pay, premium pay for working during holidays/rest days, night shift differentials.

Respondent was on temporary closure due to repair and general maintenance and it applied for clearance with the DOLE to shut down and to dismiss employees. And due to the insistence of herein complainant he was paid his separation benefits pursuant to Art. 283 of the Labor Code.

When respondent reopened, petitioner failed to reapply. Hence, he was not terminated from employment much less illegally. Furthermore, being a managerial employee he is not entitled to overtime pay.

ISSUES:

A) Whether or not Peñaranda is a regular employee.

B) Whether or not Peñaranda is entitled to overtime pay and other monetary benefits.

RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:

A. The Court found out that the petitioner was not a managerial employee but a member of the managerial staff, which also takes him out of the coverage of labor standards as mandated under Art 82 of the Labor Code. Like managerial employees, officers and members of the managerial staff are not entitled to the provisions of law on labor standards.

Petitioner, as shift engineer, supervised the engineering section of the steam plant boiler. His work involved overseeing the operation of the machines and the performance of the workers in the engineering section. This work necessarily required the use of discretion and independent judgment to ensure the proper functioning of the

1

steam plant boiler. As supervisor, petitioner is deemed a member of the managerial staff.

B. Being a supervisor, the Court finds no justification to award overtime pay and premium pay for rest days to petitioner.

CASE 2: STANDARD CHARTERED BANK EMPLOYEES UNION VS.STANDARD CHARTERED BANK

FACTS:

Petitioner and respondents began negotiating for a new CBA for the previous CBA had already expired. Due to a deadlock in the negotiations, petitioner filed a Notice of Strike prompting the Secretary of DOLE to assume jurisdiction over the labor dispute.

Petitioner sought the exclusion of only the following employees from the appropriate bargaining unit but rejected by the Secretary as petitioner failed to show that the employees sought to be removed from the list qualify for exclusion.

Petitioner asserted that additional pay should be given to an employee who has been serving in a temporary/acting capacity for one week is likewise rejected by the Secretary. Instead, she allowed additional pay for those who had been working in such capacity for one month. The Secretary agreed with the Bank's position that a restrictive provision would curtail management's prerogative, and recognized that employees should not be made to work in an acting capacity for long periods of time without adequate compensation.

The Secretary's dispositions of the issues raised by petitioner were affirmed by the CA.

ISSUES:

A. Whether or not the Bank's Chief Cashiers and Assistant Cashiers, personnel of the Telex Department and HR staff are confidential employees, thus, excluded from the bargaining unit.

B. WON the court erred in ordering the adjustment of remuneration for employees serving in an acting capacity for one month.

RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:

A. While Article 245 of the Labor Code limits the ineligibility to join, form and assist any labor organization to managerial employees, jurisprudence has extended this prohibition to confidential employees or those who by reason of their positions or nature

2

of work are required to assist or act in a fiduciary manner to managerial employees and hence, are likewise privy to sensitive and highly confidential records.

The SC ruled that the following are confidential employees: bank cashiers are confidential employees having control, custody and/or access to confidential matters; radio and telegraph operators who having access to confidential information, may become the source of undue advantage; and personnel staff who assist and act in a confidential capacity to, or have access to confidential matters of, persons who exercise managerial functions in the field of labor relations.

Petitioner failed to show that the employees sought to be removed from the list of exclusions are actually rank and file employees who are not managerial or confidential in status and should, accordingly, be included in the appropriate bargaining unit thus, they are rightfully excluded from the appropriate bargaining unit.

B. Likewise, uphold that no employee should be temporarily placed in a position (acting capacity) for more than one month without the corresponding adjustment in the salary. Such order of the respondent is not in violation of the "equal pay for equal work" principle, considering that after one month, the employee performing the job in an acting capacity will be entitled to salary corresponding to such position.

CASE 3: AUTO BUS TRANSPORT SYSTEMS, INC. VS. ANTONIO BAUTISTA

FACTS:

Respondent has been employed by petitioner as driver-conductor who, by accidentally bumping, caused damage to the two buses.

He averred that the accident happened because he was compelled by the management to work although he had not slept for almost 24 hours. And that was not allowed to work until he fully paid 30% of the cost of repair of the damaged buses. Despite his pleas for reconsideration, the same was ignored by management. After a month, management terminated his services.

Respondent instituted a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal with Money Claims for nonpayment of 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay against Autobus.

Petitioner, maintained that respondent’s employment was replete with offenses involving reckless imprudence, gross negligence, and dishonesty. Thus, in the exercise of its management prerogative, respondent’s employment was terminated only after the latter was provided with an opportunity to explain his side regarding the accident.

ISSUES:

3

A. Whether or not respondent is entitled to service incentive leave.B. Whether or not the three (3)-year prescriptive period provided under Article

291 of the Labor Code is applicable to respondent’s claim of service incentive leave pay.

RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:

A. Under the Labor Code, Service Incentive Leave shall not apply to employees classified as field personnel, are non-agricultural employees, who regularly perform their duties away from the principal place of business or branch office of the employer and whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.

Respondent is not a field personnel but a regular employee who performs tasks usually necessary and desirable to the usual trade of petitioner’s business who was under constant supervision while in the performance of this work - there are inspectors who boards and inspects the bus and passengers, the punched tickets, and the conductor’s reports; there is mandatory once-a-week car barn or shop day; they generally observe prompt departure and arrival from their point of origin to their point of destination; and there is always the dispatcher who ensures that the bus and its crew leave the premises at specific times and arrive at the estimated proper time. Accordingly, respondent is entitled to the grant of service incentive leave.

B. Article 291 of the Labor Code states that all money claims arising from employer-employee relationship shall be filed within three (3) years from the time the cause of action accrued; otherwise, they shall be forever barred.

Applying Article 291 of the Labor Code in light of this peculiarity of the service incentive leave, we can conclude that the three (3)-year prescriptive period commences, not at the end of the year when the employee becomes entitled to the commutation of his service incentive leave, but from the time when the employer refuses to pay its monetary equivalent after demand of commutation or upon termination of the employee’s services, as the case may be.

In the case at bar, respondent had not made use of his service incentive leave nor demanded for its commutation until his employment was terminated by petitioner. Therefore, the prescriptive period with respect to his claim for service incentive leave pay only commenced from the time the employer failed to compensate his accumulated service incentive leave pay at the time of his dismissal. Since respondent had filed his money claim after only one month from the time of his dismissal, necessarily, his money claim was filed within the prescriptive period provided for by Article 291 of the Labor Code.

4

CASE 4: FAR EAST AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY, INC. VS. JIMMY LEBATIQUE

FACTS:

Petitioner Lebatique, was the truck driver of the respondent who is tasked to deliver animal feeds to his clients, complained of nonpayment of overtime work with DOLE and was consequently suspended by the petitioner for alleged illegal use of company vehicle and thereafter terminated.

Petitioners contend that Lebatique: was not dismissed but merely suspended; was not barred from entering the company premises since he never reported back to work; estopped from claiming that he was illegally dismissed since his complaint before the DOLE was only on the nonpayment of his overtime pay. Also maintained that Lebatique, is not entitled to overtime pay since he is a field personnel.

The Labor Arbiter found that Lebatique was illegally dismissed, and ordered his reinstatement and the payment of his full back wages, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, and overtime pay.

The NLRC reversed the decision which was later on reversed by the CA.

ISSUES:

A. Whether or not Lebatique was illegally dismissed.

B. Whether or not Lebatique was a field personnel, not entitled to overtime pay.

RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:

A. Petitioners failed to discharge burden to prove termination was for a valid cause. To constitute abandonment as a just cause for dismissal, there must be: (a) absence without justifiable reason; and (b) a clear intention, as manifested by some overt act, to sever the employer-employee relationship.

From the sequence of the events leading to Lebatique’s dismissal it was his complaint for nonpayment of his overtime pay that provoked the management to dismiss him, on the erroneous premise that a truck driver is a field personnel not entitled to overtime pay.

B. The Court held that field personnel are those who regularly perform their duties away from the principal place of business of the employer and whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.

Lebatique is not a field personnel as defined above for the following reasons: (1) company drivers, are directed to deliver the goods at a specified time and place; (2)

5

they are not given the discretion to solicit, select and contact prospective clients; and (3) Far East issued a directive that company drivers should stay at the client’s premises during truck-ban hours. Drivers are under the control and supervision of management officers.

Lebatique, therefore, is a regular employee whose tasks are usually necessary and desirable to the usual trade and business of the company. Thus, he is entitled to the benefits accorded to regular employees of Far East, including overtime pay and service incentive leave pay.

CASE 5: CALAMBA MEDICAL CENTER, INC. VS. NLRC

FACTS:

Petitioner engaged the services of Dr. Lanzanas and Dr. Merceditha as part of its team of resident physicians. Dr. Trinidad, a resident physician, inadvertently overheard a telephone conversation of respondent Dr. Lanzanas with a fellow employee discussing the low "census" of patients to the hospital.

Dr. Desipeda whose attention was called to the above-said incident issued to Dr. Lanzanas a Memorandum requiring the latter for an explanation of the allegedly committed acts inimical to the interest of the hospital and informing her of her 30-days preventive suspension.

For alleged cross cutting measures, Dr. Merceditha, who was not involved in the said incident, was not given any work schedule after sending her husband Dr. Lanzanas the memorandum.

Responding to the memorandum, Dr. Lanzanas admitted that he spoke with Miscala over the phone but that their conversation was taken out of context by Dr. Trinidad.

Petitioner later sent Dr. Lanzanas a notice of termination for his failure to report back to work despite the DOLE order and his supposed role in the striking union.

Dr. Lanzanas filed a complaint for illegal suspension and illegal dismissal, and Dr. Merceditha filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

ISSUES:

A. Whether or not there exists an employer-employee relationship between petitioner and the spouses-respondents.

6

B. Whether or not petitioners are validly dismissed.

RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:

A. Under the "control test," an employment relationship exists between a physician and a hospital if the hospital controls both the means and the details of the process by which the physician is to accomplish his task. Respondents maintained specific work-schedules, as determined by petitioner, which consisted of 24-hour shifts totaling forty-eight hours each week and which were strictly to be observed under pain of administrative sanctions. Thus, petitioner exercised control over respondents from that in the emergency room, the operating room, or any department or ward for that matter, respondents' work is monitored through its nursing supervisors, charge nurses and orderlies.

B. The Court upholds that respondents were illegally dismissed. Dr. Lanzanas was neither a managerial nor supervisory employee but part of the rank-and-file, as against descriptions of the alleged supervisors narrated by the employer. At most, their job is merely routinary in nature and consequently, they cannot be considered supervisory employees.Thus they are not therefore barred from membership in the union of rank[-]and[-]file.

Petitioner thus failed to observe the two requirements, before dismissal can be effected ─ notice and hearing ─ which constitute essential elements of the statutory process; the first to apprise the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought, and the second to inform the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him. Non-observance of these requirements runs afoul of the procedural mandate. While he was priorly made to explain on his telephone conversation with Miscala, he was not with respect to his supposed participation in the strike and failure to heed the return-to-work order.

Also petitioner never proferred any valid cause for the dismissal of Dr. Merceditha except its view that "her marriage to Dr. Lanzanas has given rise to the presumption that her sympathy is with her husband. The termination of her employment on the basis of her conjugal relationship is not analogous to any of the causes enumerated in Article 282 of the Labor Code.

7

CASE 6: MELENCIO GABRIEL VS. NELSON BILON

FACTS:

Petitioner, was the owner-operator of a public transport business with a pool of jeepney drivers, which included respondents, who were dismissed without factual and legal basis, and without due process. Respondents filed complaints for illegal dismissal, illegal deductions, and separation pay against petitioner with the NLRC.

Petitioner contended that neither the respondents nor other drivers who worked for him were ever dismissed by him; some of his former drivers just stopped reporting for work; that none of the jeepneys would stay idle even for a day so he could collect his earnings; that certain amounts were deducted from their day’s earnings is preposterous. Deductions were made from the day’s earnings of some drivers, but such were installment payments for the amount previously advanced to them when they got involved in accidents or violations of traffic regulations, managed to settle them, and in the process they had to spend some money.

Labor arbiter declared that respondents were illegally dismissed and ordered petitioner the respondents their backwages and separation pay. NLRC dismissed the case for lack of employer-employee relationship. CA reversed the decisions of the NLRC.

ISSUES:

Whether or not there is employer-employee relationship; and c) WON respondents were illegally dismissed.

RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:

A. The Court held that there is an employer-employee relationship existed between petitioner and respondents. The relationship between jeepney owners/operators and jeepney drivers under the boundary system is that of employer-employee and not of lessor-lessee because in the lease of chattels the lessor loses complete control over the chattel leased although the lessee cannot be reckless in the use thereof, otherwise he would be responsible for the damages to the lessor. In the case of jeepney owners/operators and jeepney drivers, the former exercises supervision and control over the latter. The fact that the drivers do not receive fixed wages but get only that in excess of the so-called "boundary" they pay to the owner/operator is not sufficient to withdraw the relationship between them from that of employer and employee.

Thus, private respondents were employees because they had been engaged to perform activities which were usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer.

8

B. The Court held that respondents were illegally dismissed by petitioner. Respondents were not accorded due process. Moreover, petitioner failed to show that the cause for termination falls under any of the grounds enumerated in Article 282 of the Labor Code. Consequently, respondents are entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to their full backwages computed from the date of dismissal up to the time of their actual reinstatement in accordance with Article 279 of the Labor Code. Reinstatement is obtainable in this case because it has not been shown that there is an ensuing "strained relations" between petitioner and respondents.

CASE 7: MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY VS. ROGELIO BENAMIRA

FACTS:

Respondents are licensed security guards deployed at MERALCO’s head office. For unpaid monetary benefits against PSI and MERALCO of PSI’s security guards respondents filed a complaint. They alleged that MERALCO and ASDAI never paid their overtime pay, service incentive leave pay, premium pay for Sundays and Holidays, monthly uniform allowance and underpaid their 13th month pay.

ASDAI denied the allegations. MERALCO denied liability on the ground of lack of employer-employee relationship with individual respondents.  It averred that the individual respondents are the employees of the security agencies it contracted for security services; and that it has no existing liability for the individual respondents’ claims since said security agencies have been fully paid for their services per their respective security service agreement. 

Labor Arbiter held ASDAI and MERALCO jointly and solidarily liable to the monetary claims of respondents. NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. The CA reversed the decision.

ISSUES:  

A. Whether or not there is an employer-employee relationship between the parties.

B. Whether or not respondents are regular employees of petitioner.

C. Whether or not petitioner is entitled to reimbursement for the monetary claims petitioner paid to individual respondents pursuant to the security service agreement.

 

9

RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:

 A. MERALCO submits that the elements of “four-fold” test to determine the

existence of an employer-employee relation, namely: (1) the power to hire, (2) the payment of wages, (3) the power to dismiss, and (4) the power to control, are not present in the instant case. 

 The terms and conditions embodied in the security service agreement between

MERALCO and ASDAI expressly recognized ASDAI as the employer of individual respondents. The security service agreements provided that all specific instructions by MERALCO relating to the discharge by the security guards of their duties shall be directed to the agency and not directly to the individual respondents.  The individual respondents failed to show that the rules of MERALCO controlled their performance.   

B. The individual respondents can not be considered as regular employees of the MERALCO for, although security services are necessary and desirable to the business of MERALCO, it is not directly related to its principal business and may even be considered unnecessary in the conduct of MERALCO’s principal business, which is the distribution of electricity. The fact that the individual respondents filed their claim for unpaid monetary benefits against ASDAI is a clear indication that the individual respondents acknowledge that ASDAI is their employer.   

C. The fact that there is no actual and direct employer-employee relationship between MERALCO and the individual respondents does not exonerate MERALCO from liability as to the monetary claims of the individual respondents.  When MERALCO contracted for security services with ASDAI as the security agency that hired individual respondents to work as guards for it, MERALCO became an indirect employer of individual respondents pursuant to Article 107 of the Labor Code. Thus, ASDAI and MERALCO were jointly and severally liable ordered to pay individual respondents’ monetary claims for underpayment of actual regular hours and overtime hours rendered, and premium pay for holiday and rest day and shall be without prejudice to MERALCO’s right of reimbursement from ASDAI.

 

10

CASE 8: TELEVISION AND PRODUCTION EXPONENTS, INC. VS. ROBERTO C. SERVAÑA

FACTS:

TAPE is a domestic corporation engaged in the production of television programs. Respondent served as a security guard for TAPE, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of benefits. He claimed that the holiday pay, unpaid vacation and sick leave benefits and other monetary considerations were withheld from him. He further contended that his dismissal was undertaken without due process and violative of existing labor laws, aggravated by nonpayment of separation pay.

TAPE countered that the labor arbiter had no jurisdiction over the case in the absence of an employer-employee relationship between the parties. TAPE averred that respondent was an independent contractor falling under the talent group category and was working under a special arrangement which is recognized in the industry.

Labor Arbiter declared respondent to be a regular employee of TAPE relying on the nature of the work of respondent, which is securing and maintaining order in the studio, as necessary and desirable in the usual business activity of TAPE. Also ruled that the termination was valid on the ground of redundancy, and ordered the payment of respondent’s separation pay equivalent to one (1)-month pay for every year of service.

NLRC reversed the decision consequently reversed by the CA

ISSUES:

A. Whether an employer-employee relationship exists between TAPE and respondent.

B. Whether termination was valid on the ground of redundancy.

RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:

A. It was held that in determining the existence of employer-employee relationship the following must be present: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer's power to control the employee with respect to the means and method by which the work is to be accomplished. The most important factor involves the control test. Under the control test, there is an employer-employee relationship when the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end achieved but also the manner and means used to achieve that end.

Control is manifested in the bundy cards submitted by respondent in evidence. He was required to report daily and observe definite work hours. Further, TAPE failed to

11

establish that respondent is an independent contractor. Thus, as a regular employee, respondent cannot be terminated except for just cause or when authorized by law.

B. Article 283 of the Labor Code provides that 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.

Under prevailing jurisprudence the termination for an authorized cause requires payment of separation pay. Procedurally, if the dismissal is based on authorized causes under Articles 283 and 284, the employer must give the employee and the DOLE written notice 30 days prior to the effectivity of his separation. Where the dismissal is for an authorized cause but due process was not observed, the dismissal should be upheld. However, the employer should be liable for non-compliance with procedural requirements of due process. Although petitioner’s services was for an authorized cause - redundancy, respondents failed to prove that it complied with service of written notice to the DOLE at least one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment.

CASE 9: WILHELMINA S. OROZCO VS. COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS:

PDI engaged the services of petitioner to write a weekly column for its Lifestyle section. She religiously submitted her articles every week, except for a six-month stint in New York City when she sent several articles through mail. Until PDI EIC allegedly wanted to stop publishing her column the Lifestyle section already had many columnists.

PDI claims they agreed to cut down the number of columnists by keeping only those whose columns were well-written, with regular feedback and following. Petitioner's column failed to improve, continued to be superficially and poorly written, and failed to meet the high standards of the newspaper. Hence,the termination.

Aggrieved, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and other money claims before the NLRC.

The CA reversed the Decision of the NLRC, which in turn had affirmed the Decision of the Labor Arbiter finding that Orozco was an employee of private respondent PDI and was illegally dismissed as columnist of said newspaper.

ISSUES:

Whether a newspaper columnist is an employee of the newspaper which publishes the column.

12

RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:

This Court has constantly adhered to the "four-fold test" to determine employer-employee relationship between parties. The four elements of are: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer's power to control the employee's the means, methods and conduct. Of the four, it is the power of control which is the most crucial and most determinative factor.

Petitioner argues that several factors exist to prove that respondents exercised control over her and her work however, the court ruled that such is not form of control that our labor laws contemplate such as to establish an employer-employee relationship between petitioner and respondent.

The Court ruled that there is a distinction between rules that merely serve as guidelines towards the achievement of the mutually desired result without dictating the means or methods to be employed in attaining it, and those that control or fix the methodology and bind or restrict the party hired to the use of such means. The first, which aim only to promote the result, create no employer-employee relationship unlike the second, which address both the result and the means used to achieve it.

Further, the court used the economic reality test. The economic realities prevailing within the activity or between the parties are examined, taking into consideration the totality of circumstances surrounding the true nature of the relationship between the parties especially appropriate when there is no written agreement or contract on which to base the relationship. That is analyzing possible employment relationships from the economic dependence of the worker on his employer.

Petitioner's main occupation is not as a columnist for respondent but as a women's rights advocate working in various women's organizations. Likewise, she herself admits that she also contributes articles to other publications. Thus, it cannot be said that petitioner was dependent on respondent PDI for her continued employment in respondent's line of business. Thus, concluded that petitioner was not respondent PDI's employee but an independent contractor, engaged to do independent work, who carries on a distinct and independent business and undertakes to perform the job, work, or service on one's own account and under one's own responsibility according to one's own manner and method, free from the control and direction of the principal in all matters connected with the performance of the work except as to the results thereof.

Thus, respondent PDI was not petitioner's employer, it cannot be held guilty of illegal dismissal.

13

CASE 10: THELMA DUMPIT-MURILLO VS. COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS:

Respondent ABC hired petitioner as a newscaster and co-anchor for its programs. The contract was for a period of three months and renewed. After four years of repeated renewals, petitioner’s talent contract expired. After its expiration, petitioner sent a letter to the Vice President for News and Public Affairs of ABC, informing the latter that she was still interested in renewing her contract subject to a salary increase.

Petitioner then filed a complaint against ABC for illegal constructive dismissal, nonpayment of salaries, overtime pay, premium pay, separation pay, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, vacation/sick leaves and 13th month pay in NLRC.

The NLRC held that an employer-employee relationship existed thus shall be entitles to her demands. However, the CA reversed the decision.

ISSUES:

A. Whether or not by reason of the continuous and successive renewals of the three-month talent contracts, an employer-employee relationship was created as provided for under article 280 of the labor code.

1) Whether or not by the constructive dismissal of herein petitioner, as a regular employee, there was a denial of petitioner’s right to due process thus entitling her to the money claims as stated in the complaint.

RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:

Petitioner was a regular employee under contemplation of law. The practice of having fixed-term contracts in the industry does not automatically make all talent contracts valid and compliant with labor law. The assertion that a talent contract exists does not necessarily prevent a regular employment status.

The elements to determine the existence of an employment relationship are: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee, (b) the payment of wages, (c) the power of dismissal, and (d) the employer’s power to control the means and methods of the employee.

The duties of petitioner enumerated in her employment contract indicate that ABC had control over the work of petitioner; dictated the work assignments and payment of petitioner’s wages; and had the power to dismiss her. Thus, an employment relationship between petitioner and ABC existed.

Concerning regular employment, the law provides for two kinds of employees, namely: (1) those who are engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or

14

desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer; and (2) those who have rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in which they are employed. In other words, regular status arises from either the nature of work of the employee or the duration of his employment.

In the instant case, the requisites for regularity of employment have been met as petitioner’s work was necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer which includes, as a pre-condition for its enfranchisement, its participation in the government’s news and public information dissemination. In addition, her work was continuous for a period of four years. This repeated engagement under contract of hire is indicative of the necessity and desirability of the petitioner’s work in private respondent ABC’s business.

For a contract to be valid, it should be shown that the fixed period was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties. There should have been no force, duress or improper pressure brought to bear upon the employee; neither should there be any other circumstance that vitiates the employee’s consent. It should satisfactorily appear that the employer and the employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance being exercised by the employer over the employee. Moreover, fixed-term employment will not be considered valid where, from the circumstances, it is apparent that periods have been imposed to preclude acquisition of tenurial security by the employee.

In the case at bar, it does not appear that the employer and employee dealt with each other on equal terms.

Moreover, private respondents’ practice of repeatedly extending petitioner’s 3-month contract for four years is a circumvention of the acquisition of regular status. Hence, there was no valid fixed-term employment between petitioner and private respondents.

As a regular employee, petitioner is entitled to security of tenure and can be dismissed only for just cause and after due compliance with procedural due process. Since private respondents did not observe due process in constructively dismissing the petitioner, we hold that there was an illegal dismissal.

15