G.R. No. 173849 ; September 28, 2007
PIER 8 ARRASTRE & STEVEDORING SERVICES, INC. and/or ELIODORO C. CRUZ, Petitioners, vs. JEFF B. BOCLOT, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Pier 8 Arrastre and Stevedoring Services, Inc. (PASSI) is a corporation providing arrastre and stevedoring services at Manila North Harbor. Respondent Jeff B. Boclot was hired by PASSI as a stevedore starting September 20, 1999. His employment was intermittent, rendering a total of 228.5 days of actual service over a span of 36 months. On May 9, 2003, Boclot filed a complaint for regularization and monetary claims, asserting he became a regular employee after six months of service, as per the company’s Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and Article 280 of the Labor Code. He argued his work as a stevedore was necessary and desirable to PASSI’s business.
PASSI opposed, contending Boclot was merely a “reliever” stevedore, called to work only in the absence of regular stevedores, and thus could not attain regular status. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, ruling Boclot was an extra worker. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed on appeal, declaring Boclot a regular employee, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The appellate court held that the nature of his work was integral to PASSI’s business, making him a regular employee under Article 280.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent Jeff B. Boclot is a regular employee of petitioners.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed that Boclot is a regular employee. The legal logic hinges on the application of Article 280 of the Labor Code, which defines regular employment based on the necessity and desirability of the activity performed in relation to the employer’s usual business. The Court emphasized that the determination of regular status is governed by the nature of the work, not by the duration or continuity of service. Since stevedoring is clearly central to PASSI’s arrastre and stevedoring business, Boclot performed functions that were necessary and desirable to the company’s trade.
The Court rejected the “reliever” designation as inconsequential for determining employment status. The fact that his engagement was intermittent or on a “when-needed” basis does not detract from the regular nature of his position. The law protects workers from being perpetually kept on temporary status for work that is vital to the employer’s operations. Consequently, Boclot, having performed tasks integral to PASSI’s regular business, is deemed a regular employee from the time of his hiring. However, the Court upheld the denial of his specific monetary claims for benefits under the CBA and service incentive leave for lack of sufficient evidence and failure to meet the one-year service requirement, respectively.