403 NOTES | LABOR LAW REVIEW | ATTY.

JEFFERSON MARQUEZ | FIRST SEMESTER | 2020-2021

LABOR LAW REVIEW 2020-2021 employment status as it is only dictated by the practical
EH403 CASE DIGESTS consideration that experienced construction workers are
TOPIC 12: RIGHT TO SECURITY OF TENURE more preferred.

01 E. GANZON INC. (EGI) v. ANDO, JR. 02 HERMA SHIPYARD INC., v. OLIVEROS

G.R. No. 214183, February 20, 2017 G.R. No. 208936, April 17, 2017
SECOND DIVISION, PERALTA FIRST DIVISION, DEL CASTILLO J.

Project Employment; Determinant Project Employment, Requisites; Project

Employment vs. Regular Employment
The decisive determinant in project employment is the
activity that the employee is called upon to perform. Repeated hiring of an employee does not automatically
make them regular employees. It is not the length of
Ando filed a complaint against petitioner for illegal service that is the controlling factor in determining one’s
dismissal and money claims for: underpayment of employment status, but rather the question of whether
salary, OT pay, and 13th month pay; non-payment of the employment has been fixed for a specific project or
holiday pay and service incentive leave; illegal undertaking, with its completion having been
deduction; and attorney’s fees. He alleged that he was determined at the time of their engagement.
a regular employee working as a finishing carpenter in
the construction business of EGI; he was repeatedly Herma Shipyard is a domestic corporation engaged
hired from January 21, 2010 until April 30, 2011 when in the business of shipbuilding and repair. The
he was terminated without prior notice and hearing. respondents were its employees occupying various
positions such as welder, leadman, pipe fitter, laborer,
EGI countered that Ando was engaged as a project helper, etc.
worker in: Bahay Pamulinawen Project – from June 1,
2010 to September 30, 2010 and from January 3, 2011 The respondents filed a complaint for illegal
to February 28, 2011; and in West Insula Project – dismissal, regularization, and non-payment of service
February 22, 2011 to March 31, 2011. incentive leave pay with prayer for the payment of full
backwages and attorney's fees against petitioners.
Is Ando a regular employee of EGI? Respondents alleged that they are Herma Shipyard's
regular employees who have been continuously
NO. Ando is not a regular employee but a project performing tasks usually necessary and desirable in its
employee of EGI. business. On various dates, however, petitioners
dismissed them from employment.
Ando was adequately notified of his employment status
at the time his services were engaged. The contracts Whether or not respondents who are project employees
stipulated that his services as a project worker were have become regular employees as a result of their
being sought. There was an informed consent to be repeated hiring by the petitioner for various projects.
engaged as such. Ando did not even allege that force,
duress or improper pressure were used against him in NO.
order to agree.
A project employee under Article 280 (now Article 294)
His employment was for a specific project or of the Labor Code, as amended, is one whose
undertaking because the nature of EGI's business is one employment has been fixed for a specific project or
which will not allow it to employ workers for an indefinite undertaking, the completion or termination of which has
period. Since work depends on the availability of been determined at the time of the engagement of the
construction projects, the duration of the employment employee,
of its workforce is not permanent but coterminous with
the projects to which they are assigned. Repeated rehiring of project employees to different
projects does not automatically make them regular
The decisive determinant in project employment is the employees. Length of service is not the controlling
activity that the employee is called upon to perform and determinant of the employment tenure of project-based
not the day certain agreed upon by the parties for the employees but, whether the employment has been fixed
commencement and termination of the employment for a specific project or undertaking, with its completion
relationship. As such, an employment contract that does having been determined at the time of their
not mention particular dates that establish the specific engagement.
duration of the project does not preclude one's
classification as a project employee. In this case, the corporation’s Workers are hired only
when there are projects, the completion of which usually
The rehiring of construction workers on a project-to- require less than a year or longer. Thus the completion
project basis does not confer upon them regular of the work or project automatically results in the
1
 403 NOTES | LABOR LAW REVIEW | ATTY. JEFFERSON MARQUEZ | FIRST SEMESTER | 2020-2021

termination of project based employment in which case, According to jurisprudence, the principal test for
the employer is under the law, only obliged to render a determining whether particular employees are properly
report on the termination of the employment. characterized as "project[based] employees" as
distinguished from "regular employees," is whether or
Hence, Herma Shipyard should be allowed '"to reduce not the employees were assigned to carry out a "specific
its work force into a number suited for the remaining project or undertaking," the duration (and scope) of
work to be done upon the completion or proximate which were specified at the time they were engaged for
accomplishment of each particular project." since that project. The project could either be (1) a particular
respondents were assigned to a project or a phase job or undertaking that is within the regular or usual
thereof which begins and ends at determined or business of the employer company, but which is distinct
determinable times, their services were lawfully and separate, and identifiable as such, from the other
terminated upon the completion of such project or undertakings of the company; or (2) a particular job or
phase thereof. undertaking that is not within the regular business of
the corporation. In order to safeguard the rights of
03 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS (UST) vs. workers against the arbitrary use of the word "project"
SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA NG UST, FERNANDO to prevent employees from attaining a regular status,
PONTESOR,* RODRIGO CLACER, SANTIAGO employers claiming that their workers are project[-
BUISA, JR., and JIMMY NAZARETH, based] employees should not only prove that the
G.R. No. 184262, April 24, 2017 duration and scope of the employment was specified at
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. the time they were engaged, but also, that there was
indeed a project
Types of Regular Employees
04 INNODATA KNOWLEDGE SERVICES VS.
The law provides for two (2) types of regular employees, INTING ET AL.,
namely: (a) those who are engaged to perform activities GR No. 211892, December 6, 2017
which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual PERALTA, J.
business or trade of the employer (first category); and
(b) those who have rendered at least one year of Project Employment; Determinant
service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to
the activity in which they are employed (second In order to safeguard the rights of workers against the
category). arbitrary use of the word "project" which prevents them
from attaining regular status, employers claiming that
The instant case stemmed from a complaint 7 for their workers are project employees have the burden of
regularization and illegal dismissal filed by respondents showing that: (a) the duration and scope of the
Samahang Manggagawa ng UST and Pontesor, et al. employment was specified at the time they were
(respondents) against petitioner before the NLRC. engaged; and (b) there was indeed a project.19
Respondents alleged that on various periods spanning Therefore, as evident in Article 295, the litmus test for
the years 1990-1999, petitioner repeatedly hired determining whether particular employees are properly
Pontesor, et al. to perform various maintenance duties characterized as project employees, as distinguished
within its campus, i.e., as laborer, mason, tinsmith, from regular employees, is whether or not the
painter, electrician, welder, carpenter. Essentially, employees were assigned to carry out a specific project
respondents insisted that in view of Pontesor, et al.' s or undertaking, the duration and scope of which were
performance of such maintenance tasks throughout the specified at the time the employees were engaged for
years, they should be deemed regular employees of that project.
petitioner. Respondents further argued that for as long
as petitioner continues to operate and exist as an Petitioner Innodata Knowledge Services, Inc. (IKSI) is a
educational institution, with rooms, buildings, and company engaged in data processing, encoding,
facilities to maintain, the latter could not dispense with indexing, abstracting, typesetting, imaging, and other
Pontesor, et al. 's services which are necessary and processes in the capture, conversion, and storage of
desirable to the business of petitioner. data and information. At one time, Applied Computer
Technologies (ACT), a company based in the United
Is Pontesor a regular employee? States of America, hired IKSI to review various litigation
documents. Due to the nature of the job, ACT required
YES. If the employee has been performing the job for at IKSI to hire lawyers, or at least, law graduates, to
least a year, even if the performance is not continuous review various litigation documents, classify said
and merely intermittent, the law deems repeated and documents into the prescribed categories, and ensure
continuing need for its performance as sufficient that outputs are delivered on time. For this purpose,
evidence of the necessity if not indispensability of that IKSI engaged the services of respondents. On January
activity to the business. Hence, the employment is 7, 2010, however, respondents received a Notice of
considered regular, but only with respect to such activity Forced Leave from IKSI informing them that they shall
and while such activity exists. be placed on indefinite forced leave effective that same

2
 403 NOTES | LABOR LAW REVIEW | ATTY. JEFFERSON MARQUEZ | FIRST SEMESTER | 2020-2021

day due to changes in business conditions, client Petitioner Expedition Construction Corporation
requirements, and specifications. Hence, respondents (Expedition), with petitioners Simon Lee Paz and Jordan
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, reinstatement or Jimenez as its Chief Executive Officer and Operations
payment of separation pay, backwages, and damages Manager, respectively, is a domestic corporation
against IKSI. engaged in garbage collection/hauling. It engaged the
services of respondents as garbage truck drivers to
Are respondents project employees? collect garbage from different cities and transport the
same to the designated dumping site. Respondents filed
NO. Project employment contracts, which fix the separate cases (which were later on consolidated)
employment for a specific project or undertaking, are against Expedition for illegal dismissal;
valid under the law. By entering into such a contract, an
employee is deemed to understand that his employment Expedition, in its Position Paper, countered that
is coterminous with the project. He may no longer be respondents were not illegally dismissed. It averred that
employed after the completion of the project for which it entered into separate contracts with the cities of
he was hired. But project employment contracts are not Quezon, Mandaluyong, Caloocan, and Muntinlupa for
lopsided agreements in favor of only one party. The the collection and transport of their garbage to the
employer's interest is equally important as that of the dump site; that it engaged the services of respondents,
employees'. While it may be true that it is the employer as dump truck drivers, who were oftentimes dispatched
who drafts project employment contracts with its in Quezon City and Caloocan City that the need for
business interest as overriding consideration, such respondents' services significantly decreased sometime
contracts must not prejudice the employee. in 2013 after its contracts with Quezon City and
Caloocan City were not renewed; and, that it
IKSI argued that based on the contract, it is undeniable nonetheless tried to accommodate respondents by
that respondents’ employment was fixed for a specific giving them intermittent trips whenever the need arose.
project or undertaking, with its completion or
termination clearly determined at the time of the Are respondents regular employees?
employee’s engagement. Indeed, records would
disclose that respondents signed employment contracts YES. In ruling that respondents were employees of
specifically indicating the Content Supply Chain Expedition, the CA found all the elements of employer-
Project,15 also known as the ACT Project, as the project employee relationship to be present. As shown in the
for which they were being hired, which was expected to records, Expedition hired respondents as dump truck
be completed after a maximum of five (5) years. drivers and paid them the amount of ₱620.00 per trip.
However, sometime in November 2008, IKSI The CA held that Expedition wielded the power to
required respondents to work on another project dismiss respondents based on Expedition's admission
called "Bloomberg," which was not included in the that when the dispatch of drivers became irregular, it
original contracts that they signed and without entering tried to accommodate them by giving trips when the
into a new project employment contracts. Such fact was need arose. The control test was likewise established
never refuted by IKSI. During that time, respondents because Expedition determined how, where, and
were required to read and review decided cases in the when respondents would perform their tasks.
United States of America and they were no longer called
Senior or Junior Reviewers, but referred to as Case Expedition, however, proffers that the factual findings
Classifiers. Respondents initially opposed working on of the CA on this matter had no legal basis. It claims
said project but eventually agreed, in fear of losing their that respondents were never hired but were merely
employment altogether. Months later, they were again engaged as drivers; that they worked on their own and
required to work on the ACT Project and reverted to were not subjected to its control and supervision; that
their previous designation as Document Reviewers. they were compensated based on output or number of
trips made in a day; that they selected their own
05 EXPEDITION CONSTRUCTION CORP., VS. garbage collectors, chose their own route and
AFRICA determined the manner by which they would collect the
GR No. 228671, December 14, 2017 garbage; and, that they performed their work at their
DEL CASTILLO, J. own pleasure without fear of being sanctioned if they
chose not to report for work.
Four-Fold Test; Determine Existence of EE
Relationship

Jurisprudence has adhered to the four-fold test in

determining the existence of an employer-employee
relationship, to wit: "(l) the selection and engagement
of the employee; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the
power of dismissal; and (4) the power to control the
employee's conduct, or the so-called ‘control test"'
3
 403 NOTES | LABOR LAW REVIEW | ATTY. JEFFERSON MARQUEZ | FIRST SEMESTER | 2020-2021

06 UMALI VS. HOBBYWING SOLUTIONS INC. work after a probationary period shall be
GR No. 221356, March 14, 2018 considered a regular employee.
REYES, JR., J
In this case, the petitioner commenced working fur the
Probationary Period; Duration respondent on June 19, 2012 until February 18,
2013. By that time, however, she has already become
There is no extension of probationary period because: a regular employee, a status which accorded her
(1) there was no evaluation upon the expiration of the protection from arbitrary termination.
period of probationary employment; (2) the supposed
extension of the probationary period was made after the The CA, however, believes that the probationary period
lapse of the original period agreed by the parties of employment was validly extended citing Mariwasa vs.
Leogardo.30 In the said case, the Court upheld as valid
Petitioner alleged that she started working for the the extension of the probationary period for another
respondent, an online casino gaming establishment, on three (3) months in order to give the employee a chance
June 19, 2012, as a Pitboss Supervisor. Her main duties to improve his performance and qualify for regular
and responsibilities involve, among others, supervising employment, upon agreement of the parties. Upon
online casino dealers as well as the operations of the conclusion of the period of extension, however, the
entire gaming area or studio of the respondent employee still failed to live up to the work standards of
company. She, however, never signed any employment the company and was thereafter terminated.
contract before the commencement of her service but
regularly received her salary every month.3 The mentioned case, however, finds no application in
the instant case for two reasons: (1) there was no
Sometime in January 2013, after seven (7) months evaluation upon the expiration of the period of
since she started working for the respondent, the probationary employment; (2) the supposed extension
petitioner was asked to sign two employment contracts. of the probationary period was made after the lapse of
The first employment contract was for a period of five the original period agreed by the parties.
(5) months, specifically from June 19,2012 to November
19,2012. On the other hand, the second contract was 07 SON ET AL., VS. UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS,
for a period of three (3) months, running from GR NO. 211273, APRIL 18, 2018,
November 19, 2012 to February 18, 2013. She signed DEL CASTILLO, J.
both contracts as directed.4
1992 Manual of Regulations for Private Schools;
On February 18, 2013, however, the petitioner was Minimum Faculty Qualifications
informed by the respondent that her employment has
already ended and was told to just wait for advice
Article IX, Section 44, paragraph 1 of 1992 Revised
whether she will be rehired or regularized. She was also
Manual of Regulations for Private Schools provides for a
required to sign an exit clearance from the company
Master’s degree as a minimum qualification for teaching
apparently to clear her from accountabilities. She was
in a private educational institution and acquiring regular
no longer allowed to work thereafter.5 Thus, the filing
status therein.
of a complaint for illegal dismissal against the
respondent.
Petitioners are faculty members on probationary status
in UST. Their accession to tenure status is subject to the
Is petitioner a regular employee (and not a mere
requirement, inter alia, possession of graduate degree
probationary employee)?
before the expiration of the probationary period.
YES.
The UST-UST Faculty Union CBA, however provides that
if a faculty member, who failed to finish the required
Article 281 of the Labor Code is pertinent. It provides:
Master’s degree within 5 semesters, and is made to
serve the University beyond such period, in spite of the
ART. 281. Probationary Employment. - lack of a master's degree, shall be deemed to have
Probationary employment shall not exceed six attained tenure.
(6) months from the date the employee
started working, unless it is covered by an
Petitioners were unable to finish the Master’s program
apprenticeship agreement stipulating a longer
but were allowed to continue to teach beyond the
period. The services of an employee who has
required period.
been engaged on a probationary basis may be
terminated for a just cause or when he fails to
Thereafter, Memorandum Order No. 40-08 was issued,
qualify as a regular employee in accordance
mandating the strict implementation of minimum
with reasonable standards made known by the
qualification for faculty members. This prompted UST to
employer to the employee at the time of his
inform the affected faculty members of its intention to
engagement. An employee who is allowed to
4
 403 NOTES | LABOR LAW REVIEW | ATTY. JEFFERSON MARQUEZ | FIRST SEMESTER | 2020-2021

cease re-appointment of those who failed to finish their sufficient evidence of the necessity, if not
Master’s degrees but allow those affected who are due indispensability, of that activity to the business.
for thesis defense/Master’s completion to file a written
appeal. 2. To justify a finding of abandonment of work,
there must be proof of a deliberate and unjustified
Petitioners however refused to file a written appeal. refusal on the part of an employee to resume his
Thereafter, they received termination letters. Thus, employment. Mere absence is not sufficient.
petitioners filed a labor case against the respondents for
unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal, and recovery of 3. In terminating the services of an employee, the
money claims. They argued that since they have already employer must first furnish the employee with two (2)
acquired tenure by default pursuant to the tenure written notices: (a) notice which apprises the employee
provision in the CBA, they could not be dismissed for of the particular acts or omissions for which his/her
failure to complete their respective Master's degrees; dismissal is sought; and (b) subsequent notice which
the CBA being the law between the parties. informs the employee of the employer's decision to
dismiss him/her.
Are petitioners illegally dismissed?
Gerardo was employed by Bill Sender Corporation as a
NO. Article IX, Section 44, paragraph 1 of 1992 Revised delivery/messenger man to deliver the bills of its client
Manual of Regulations for Private Schools provides for a PLDT. Gerardo was paid on a "per-piece basis," the
Master’s degree as a minimum qualification for teaching amount of his salary depending on the number of bills
in a private educational institution and acquiring regular he delivered. Thereafter, the operations manager
status therein. informed him that he is terminated from work.

Thus, when the CBA was executed between the parties Gerardo filed a case for illegal dismissal alleging that he
in 2006, they had no right to include therein the is regular employee thus he is entitled to security of
provision relative to the acquisition of tenure by default, tenure and that he was terminated without due process.
contrary to and violative of the 1992 Revised Manual of Bill Sender Corp. on the other hand argued that Gerardo
Regulations for Private Schools that was in effect at the was not a full-time employee but only a piece-rate
time. Thus, the CBA is null and unenforceable. worker; moreover, Gerardo abandoned his job when he
no longer reported to work and he only filed this case 7
In Herrera-Manaois v. St. Scholastica 's College, the months after the alleged termination.
Court ruled that the limitation on the right of private
schools, colleges, and universities to select and Whether or not Gerardo is a regular employee and thus
determine the employment status of their academic has been illegally dismissed.
personnel has been imposed by the state in view of the
public interest nature of educational institutions, so as YES. Gerardo is a regular employee thus he was illegally
to ensure the quality and competency of our schools and dismissed from work. A regular employee is one who is
educators. either (1) engaged to perform activities which are
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of
Thus, pursuant to the 1992 Manual, private educational the employer; and (2) those casual employees who
institutions in the tertiary level may extend 'full-time have rendered at least one year of service, whether
faculty' status only to those who possess, inter alia, a continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in
master's degree in the field of study that will be taught. which he is employed (Article 280, Labor Code).

This minimum requirement is neither subject to the The test to determine whether employment is regular or
prerogative of the school nor to the agreement between not is the reasonable connection between the particular
the parties. activity performed by the employee in relation to the
usual business or trade of the employer. If the employee
08 GERARDO VS. BILL SENDER CORP. has been performing the job for at least one year, even
GR NO. 222219, OCTOBER 3, 2018, if the performance is not continuous or merely
PERALTA intermittent, the law deems the repeated and continuing
need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the
Regular Employment; Abandonment; Procedural necessity, if not indispensability, of that activity to the
requirements for termination of employment business.

1. The test to determine regular employment is In this case, the company was engaged in the business
reasonable connection between the particular activity of delivering bills and other mail matters in behalf of its
performed by the employee in relation to the usual customers. Thus, it cannot deny that Geraldo was
business or trade of the employer. The law deems the performing activities necessary or desirable in its usual
repeated and continuing need for its performance as business or trade for without his services, its

5
 403 NOTES | LABOR LAW REVIEW | ATTY. JEFFERSON MARQUEZ | FIRST SEMESTER | 2020-2021

fundamental purpose of delivering bills cannot be 09 UNIVERSAL ROBINA SUGRA MILLING COR.,
accomplished. VS. NAGKAHIUSANG MAMUMUO SA URSUMCO-
NFL,
Moreover, assuming arguendo that he is not a full time GR NO. 224558, NOVEMBER 28, 2018,
employee, the law still deems his employment as REYES
regular due to the fact that he had been performing the
activities for more than one year (Gerardo was their Regular Employee vs. Regular Seasonal Employee
messenger for 14 years). While length of time may not
be the controlling test to determine if an employee is a Article 295 of the Labor Code defines seasonal
regular employee, it is vital in establishing if he was employees as those whose work or engagement is
hired to perform tasks which are necessary and seasonal in nature and the employment is only for the
indispensable to the usual business or trade of the duration of the season.
employer.
Regular employees are those who are engaged to
Lastly, the payment on a piece-rate basis does not perform activities which are usually necessary or
negate regular employment. Payment by the piece is desirable in the usual trade or business of the employer.
just a method of compensation and does not define the
essence of the relations. Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation (URSUMCO)
and NAMA-URSUMCO-NFL (sole and exclusive
Whether or not Gerardo abandoned his work. bargaining representative of all rank-and-file
employees) entered into a CBA wherein the employees
NO. Gerardo did not abandon his work. The company were classified as regular employees and regular
failed to adduce proof of overt acts on the part of seasonal employees.
Geraldo showing his intention to abandon his work.
NAMA-URSUMCO-NFL in behalf of the regular seasonal
To justify a finding of abandonment of work, there must employees sought for the change of the employment
be proof of a deliberate and unjustified refusal on the status of the said employees to permanent regular
part of an employee to resume his employment by employees. It argued that concerned employees had
manifest acts unerringly pointing to the fact that the been performing tasks related to the operation of
employee simply does not want to work anymore. URSUMCO for the entire year as they are engaged to
repair machineries of URSUMCO even during the off-
The burden of proof is on the employer to show an milling season hence they do not fall under the purview
unequivocal intent on the part of the employee to of regular seasonal employees.
discontinue employment. Mere absence is not sufficient.
URSUMCO argued that NAMA-URSUMCO-NFL was
Here, Gerardo even sought permission to return to work estopped from questioning the classification of
but was denied. The fact that he filed an illegal dismissal employees agreed upon by the parties in the CBA.
case negates his intention to abandon his work. Moreover, there is no work done during the off-milling
Moreover, the mere lapse of 7 months from the season as the period is devoted for repairs and such are
dismissal to the filing of his complaint is not a material not considered as work that is related to its regular
indication of abandonment. operations. Lastly, the regular seasonal employees were
hired to perform repairs which are in the nature of
Whether or not Gerardo was terminated without due specific projects or undertaking with a predetermined
process. termination or completion at the time of the
engagement.
YES. In terminating the services of an employee, the
employer must first furnish the employee with two (2) Are the employees concerned regular employees?
written notices: (a) notice which apprises the employee
of the particular acts or omissions for which his/her YES. Notwithstanding the stipulations in an employment
dismissal is sought; and (b) subsequent notice which contract or a duly negotiated CBA, the employment
informs the employee of the employer's decision to status of an employee is ultimately determined by law.
dismiss him/her. Here, the company failed to show its Here, when it comes to the employment status of the
compliance with the twin notice rule. In fact, it even employees concerned the CBA is subservient to law
expressly admitted its failure to serve Geraldo with any which ultimately determines the employment statues.
written notice, merely insisting that its oral notice
should be considered substantial compliance with the Seasonal employees as those whose work or
law. engagement is seasonal in nature and the employment
is only for the duration of the season.

6
 403 NOTES | LABOR LAW REVIEW | ATTY. JEFFERSON MARQUEZ | FIRST SEMESTER | 2020-2021

Seasonal employment becomes regular seasonal

employment when the employees are called to work
from time to time. While those who are employed only
for a single season remain as seasonal employees.

As a consequence of regular seasonal employment, the

employees are not considered separated from service
during the off-milling season, but are only temporarily
laid off or on leave until re-employed. Nonetheless, in
both regular seasonal employment and seasonal
employment, the employee performs no work during the
off milling season.

Here, the concerned employees were repeatedly

engaged to conduct repairs on the machineries and
equipment during the off-milling season. Hence, they
cannot be classified either as regular seasonal
employees or seasonal employees as their work
extended even beyond the milling season.

On the other hand, regular employees are those who

are engaged to perform activities which are usually
necessary or desirable in the usual trade or business of
the employer. The primary standard of determining a
regular employment is the reasonable connection
between the particular activity performed by the
employee in relation to the usual business or trade of
the employer.

Here, the conduct of repairs on URSUMCO's machineries

and equipment is reasonably necessary and desirable in
its sugar milling business. Without the constant repairs
conducted during the off-milling season, the equipment
used during the milling season would not have worked
efficiently and productively.

The repairs cannot also be considered as ‘projects’ since

the repairs are closely intertwined with its sugar milling
business as they were for the upkeep and maintenance
of equipment and machineries to be used once the
milling season commences anew. The repeated
engagement to conduct repairs during the off-milling
season is a manifestation of the necessity and
desirability of their work to URSUMCO' s business.

In short, the concerned employees are regular

employees. First, they perform work for URSUMCO even
during the off milling season and there is no showing
that they were free to work for another during the same
period. Second, the tasks done are reasonably
necessary and desirable in URSUMCO's regular
operation or business.