Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. Arceo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Rosalina Arceo applied for a telephone operator position with petitioner Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, Inc. (PLDT) in May 1990 but failed the pre-employment qualifying examination. She was allowed to work without pay in the commercial section, performing tasks like photocopying and sorting bills. After two weeks, PLDT started paying her the minimum wage. On February 15, 1991, PLDT decided to terminate her services but, through intervention, she was recommended for on-the-job training, which she failed. She was transferred to auxiliary services. Arceo failed the telephone operator qualifying exams two more times. On October 13, 1991, PLDT finally discharged her. She filed a case for illegal dismissal, and the labor arbiter ruled in her favor on May 11, 1993, ordering reinstatement. Procedural History: Arceo was reinstated as a casual employee on June 9, 1993, performing photocopying and sorting tasks. On September 3, 1996, she filed a complaint for unfair labor practice, underpayment of salary, overtime pay, holiday pay, rest day pay, and other monetary claims, alleging she had not been regularized and denied benefits due to a regular employee. The labor arbiter ruled in her favor on August 18, 1997, finding PLDT guilty of wanton disregard of her right to become a regular employee and ordering payment of accrued benefits totaling P316,496.24, plus attorney's fees. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), on November 28, 1997, affirmed Arceo's eligibility for regular employment but remanded the case for reception of evidence regarding monetary claims, holding that claims for 1993 were prescribed but claims for 1994-1996 were valid due to continuous violation and deprivation of status and benefits. PLDT's motion for reconsideration was denied. PLDT then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), assailing the NLRC's decision. On June 29, 2001, the CA affirmed the NLRC's decision, holding that Arceo was converted into a regular employee by operation of law due to her having worked for more than one year. The CA denied PLDT's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: PLDT filed a petition for review, arguing that Article 280 of the Labor Code's proviso on regularization after one year of service is conditioned on the subsistence of the employment or the existence of the position, and that Arceo's position was abolished. PLDT also argued that regularizing her as a telephone operator would be an error since she failed the qualifying exams.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Rosalina Arceo is eligible to become a regular employee of petitioner Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, Inc. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the NLRC's finding that Arceo was a regular employee by operation of law.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that Rosalina Arceo is eligible to become a regular employee of PLDT.
Ratio Decidendi
On the eligibility of Arceo to become a regular employee: Article 280 of the Labor Code provides two criteria for regular employment: (1) engagement to perform activities usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, or (2) being a casual employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken. Respondent Arceo's work, which included photocopying documents and sorting telephone bills, was necessary and desirable to PLDT's business. Even if her work were considered casual, she had rendered more than one year of service. The proviso in Article 280 states that any employee who has rendered at least one year of service shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed, and his employment shall continue while such activity exists. PLDT failed to prove that the activity Arceo was engaged in had been discontinued. Therefore, she is eligible for regularization. The argument that her position was abolished does not preclude regularization, as the order for reinstatement included the alternative of reinstatement to an equivalent position. Furthermore, the position of telephone operator was never considered in the assailed decisions. On the alleged grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC: The CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming the NLRC's decision. The NLRC correctly applied Article 280 of the Labor Code. The determination of Arceo's eligibility for regular employment was based on established legal principles regarding the nature of her work and her length of service. The NLRC's finding that Arceo was entitled to benefits from her reinstatement date (June 9, 1993) was also consistent with the law, considering she had worked for more than one year at that time. The NLRC's reasoning that the conferment of regular status is by operation of law and that it was facetious to argue Arceo should remain a casual employee was sound. The NLRC's remand for reception of evidence on monetary claims for the period 1994-1996 was also proper, as claims for 1993 were prescribed.
Main Doctrine
An employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, is considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed, and his employment shall continue while such activity exists, regardless of the nature of the work performed or the existence of a written agreement.