G.R. No. 70705 August 21, 1989
MOISES DE LEON, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and LA TONDEÑA INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Moises de Leon was employed by La Tondeña Inc. on December 11, 1981, in the Maintenance Section of its Engineering Department. His duties primarily involved painting company buildings and equipment, along with performing various odd maintenance jobs. He was compensated on a daily basis via petty cash vouchers. In January 1983, after over a year of service, de Leon requested to be included in the regular payroll. The company responded by dismissing him on January 16, 1983. De Leon filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, alleging his termination was directly due to his regularization request and that he performed necessary and desirable maintenance work. He further claimed he was later re-hired indirectly through a labor agency to perform the same tasks. A regular maintenance employee, Emiliano Tanque Jr., corroborated his account.
La Tondeña contended de Leon was merely a casual painter hired solely for a specific building repainting project, which was not part of the company’s regular business, and that his employment ended upon the project’s completion. The Labor Arbiter ruled in de Leon’s favor, finding him a regular employee whose dismissal was an illegal attempt to circumvent security of tenure obligations. However, the NLRC First Division, by majority vote, reversed this decision, prompting de Leon’s petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Labor Arbiter’s finding that Moises de Leon was a regular employee illegally dismissed.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling the NLRC decision. The Court emphasized that the determination of regular employment status is governed by the nature of the work performed, not by the employer’s nomenclature, the mode of hiring, or the manner of salary payment. Work is considered regular if it is necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. De Leon’s tasks—painting buildings and equipment and performing miscellaneous maintenance chores—were integral to the maintenance operations essential for La Tondeña’s business continuity, as confirmed by a regular employee’s affidavit. His engagement for over a year further indicated the necessity and regularity of his functions.
The Court found the timing of his dismissal—immediately following his regularization request—highly suspect, especially given allegations of his subsequent indirect re-hiring for identical work. This pattern revealed a deliberate scheme to evade statutory obligations toward a regular employee. By disregarding these established facts and the liberal interpretation mandate of labor laws in favor of workers, the NLRC committed a grave abuse of discretion. Consequently, the Labor Arbiter’s order for reinstatement with backwages and benefits was reinstated.