Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, Inc. v. Ylagan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Mayflor T. Ylagan was hired by petitioner Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, Inc. (PLDT) in November 1992 as an accounting clerk. She performed accounting duties in various departments until May 1996, when PLDT allegedly refused to renew her employment unless she signed with an employment agency, Corporate Executive Search, Inc. (CESI). Respondent claims she was constrained to sign with CESI to retain her job. On February 5, 1997, PLDT allegedly prevented her from reporting to work due to the expiration of her contract with CESI. Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, seeking reinstatement with backwages, benefits, damages, and attorney's fees. Procedural History: The labor arbiter ruled in favor of respondent on September 30, 1998, ordering PLDT to reinstate her with backwages and pay wage differentials and attorney's fees. PLDT appealed this decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). On July 8, 1999, the NLRC reversed the labor arbiter's decision, finding respondent's complaint without merit, and denied her motion for reconsideration. Respondent then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA granted the petition, setting aside the NLRC resolutions and reinstating the labor arbiter's decision. The Petition: Petitioner PLDT seeks review and reversal of the CA decision and resolution through this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. PLDT maintains its position that respondent was a project employee whose employment contract expired, and thus she was not illegally dismissed. The core issues presented to the Supreme Court are the status of respondent's employment and the validity of its termination. The Court is asked to determine whether respondent was a regular or project employee, considering the nature of her work, length of service, and PLDT's compliance with reporting requirements for project employee terminations.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Mayflor T. Ylagan was a project employee or a regular employee. Whether respondent's employment was validly terminated.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 57535 are affirmed. Costs against petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of respondent's employment status: The Court upheld the appellate court's finding that respondent was a regular employee, not a project employee. The Court noted that respondent worked continuously from November 1992 to July 1995 without mention of a specific project, and her accounting duties were not shown to be distinct from PLDT's usual undertakings. Furthermore, PLDT failed to provide evidence of project employment contracts covering the period from November 1992 to July 1995, only presenting contracts for July 1995 to January 1996. The fact that respondent continued to work for PLDT until May 1996, and then under CESI until February 1997, despite the supposed expiration of her project contract in January 1996, further indicated her regular status. Crucially, PLDT did not report the termination of respondent's supposed project employment to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), a requirement under Department Order No. 19 and Policy Instructions No. 20 for project employees. This failure strongly suggested that respondent was, in fact, a regular employee. The Court reiterated the test for regular employment, which involves the reasonable connection between the employee's activity and the employer's usual business, and the repeated and continuing need for the performance of the job. The Court found that respondent's services as an accounting clerk for PLDT's payroll system project were necessary and desirable to the company's business, and her continuous service for over a year established her as a regular employee. The Court also emphasized that the character of employment is determined by the nature of the work and length of service, not the mode or reason for hiring. On the validity of the termination of her employment: Since the Court established that respondent was a regular employee, her termination without cause constituted illegal dismissal. The Court affirmed the labor arbiter's decision, which was reinstated by the CA, ordering PLDT to reinstate respondent with full backwages and benefits.
Main Doctrine
An employee is deemed a regular employee if they have been continuously re-hired for the same tasks which are vital, necessary, and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer, even if initially hired under a project employment agreement. Failure to submit termination reports to the DOLE also indicates regular employment.