The Supreme Court did not give credence to the claim that Mr. L was not OH, Inc.’s regular employee.
The Labor Code of the Philippines1Under Article 295 (formerly Article 280) provides:
Art. 295. Regular and casual employment. — The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.
An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, That, any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, 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.
In this case, the Court found that Mr. L was under the continuous employ of OH, Inc. since 3 March 1995 until the latter placed him on floating status in February 2000.
OH, Inc. was engaged in the business of managing residential and commercial condominium units at the OE Residences, a condominium hotel building in Makati City. Its business required that it maintained a pool of housekeeping staff to ensure that the premises remain an uncluttered place of comfort for the occupants.
OH, Inc. continuously employed Mr. L precisely because of the indispensability of his services to its business.
According to the Court, his uninterrupted employment by OH, Inc., that spanned more than a year, manifested the continuing need and desirability of his services, which characterize regular employment.
Further reading:
- Olympia Housing, Inc. v.
Lapastora , G.R. No. 187691, January 13, 2016.
