Kimberly-Clark v. Secretary of Labor
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute originated from a petition for certification election filed by KILUSAN-OLALIA, a newly formed labor organization, challenging the incumbency of UKCEO-PTGWO, the incumbent bargaining representative of Kimberly-Clark (Phils.), Inc. (Kimberly). A certification election was conducted, but 64 challenged ballots cast by casual workers remained uncounted due to questions regarding their regularization. The Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE) subsequently issued an order stating that casual workers not performing janitorial or yard maintenance services had attained regular status. UKCEO-PTGWO was declared the winner. Procedural History: KILUSAN-OLALIA filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 77629) assailing the MOLE order. During its pendency, Kimberly dismissed several employees, leading KILUSAN-OLALIA to stage a strike, which resulted in Kimberly filing an injunction case with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). This led to another petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 78791). The two cases were consolidated and decided on May 9, 1990, ordering the opening and counting of the challenged votes and payment of differential pay to regularized workers. A motion for execution was filed, but the challenged ballots could not be located. The DOLE ordered partial execution for differential pay. Kimberly's motion for reconsideration was denied. Kimberly then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which was dismissed. The CA's decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Petition: Kimberly-Clark (Phils.), Inc. filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision. Kimberly argued that the CA erred in affirming the Secretary of Labor's ruling that casual employees who had not rendered one year of service were considered regular employees, thereby disregarding the Supreme Court's previous decision. Kimberly also contended that the CA erred in upholding the ruling that persons not party to the original petition were entitled to regularization differentials, which Kimberly viewed as an amendment to a final decision. The petition raised questions of law regarding the interpretation and implementation of the Supreme Court's May 9, 1990 decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed serious error in affirming the ruling of the Secretary of Labor that even casual employees who had not rendered one year of service were considered regular employees, thereby nullifying and disregarding the Supreme Court’s Decision dated May 9, 1990 that only casual employees who had rendered at least one (1) year of service were considered regular employees. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in upholding the ruling of the Labor Secretary that persons not party to the petition in G.R. No. 77629 were entitled to regularization differentials, thereby amending the Supreme Court’s decision.
Ruling
The petition for review on certiorari is DENIED DUE COURSE. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue (regularization of casual employees): The Court reiterated that the law provides for two kinds of regular employees: those engaged in activities usually necessary or desirable in the employer's business, and those who have rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken. The Court clarified that casual workers attain regular status by operation of law upon rendering at least one year of service, irrespective of the employer's issuance of regularization papers or formal declarations. The Court emphasized that the status of regular employment attaches to the casual worker on the day immediately after the end of their first year of service. Therefore, the reckoning date for determining regularization is the employee's hiring date, not the date of filing of a petition for certification election, as claimed by Kimberly. The Court found no merit in Kimberly's contention that the one-year period should be counted from April 21, 1986, as the employees became regular by operation of law based on their length of service. On the second issue (extension of benefits to similarly situated employees): The Court held that the grant of the benefit of regularization should not be limited to the employees who questioned their status before the labor tribunal or court and asserted their rights. It should also extend to those similarly situated. Therefore, there is no merit in Kimberly's contention that only those who presented their circumstances of employment to the courts are entitled to regularization. The Court found that the DOLE and the appellate court were uniform in their findings regarding the entitlement of these employees, and these findings of fact are generally accorded respect and finality when supported by substantial evidence. The Court also noted that questions of fact are not generally reviewable in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Main Doctrine
Casual employees attain regular status by operation of law upon rendering at least one year of service, irrespective of the employer's issuance of regularization papers or formal declarations. The reckoning date for the one-year period is the employee's hiring date, not the date of filing of a petition for certification election. The benefits of regularization extend to similarly situated employees, not just those who actively litigated their status.