G.R. No. 122327 August 19, 1998
ARTEMIO J. ROMARES, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and PILMICO FOODS CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Artemio J. Romares was hired by respondent Pilmico Foods Corporation in its Maintenance/Projects/Engineering Department during three separate periods: September 1, 1989 to January 31, 1990; January 16, 1991 to June 15, 1991; and August 16, 1992 to January 15, 1993, rendering a total service of about fifteen months. He performed tasks such as painting, maintenance, repair, cleaning, operating equipment, and assisting regular employees, which were necessary and desirable to Pilmico’s business of producing flour, yeast, and feeds. He was never reprimanded. Upon the expiration of his last contract on January 15, 1993, his employment was not renewed. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, claiming he had attained regular status and was terminated without cause or due process. Pilmico contended he was a contractual employee hired for specific projects, and his service was not continuous, noting he worked for another company from January to April 1992. The Executive Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Romares, declaring him a regular employee since January 16, 1993, and ordered his reinstatement with backwages. The National Labor Relations Commission reversed this decision, holding that his fixed-period employment contracts fell under an exception, and his termination due to contract expiration was valid.

ISSUE

Whether or not petitioner Artemio J. Romares was a regular employee of Pilmico Foods Corporation and, consequently, whether his dismissal was illegal.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that petitioner Artemio J. Romares was a regular employee and his dismissal was illegal. The Court applied Article 280 of the Labor Code, which defines regular employment. Romares falls under the second category of regular employees: a casual employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in which he is employed. His total service of about fifteen months over several engagements, performing the same necessary and desirable maintenance work for Pilmico’s business, converted him into a regular employee. The fact that his employment was intermittent and that he worked for another company briefly did not negate this status, as the law counts the total service period. The Court emphasized that the continuing need for his services evidenced their necessity to the employer’s business. Since he was a regular employee, his termination upon the mere expiration of a fixed-term contract, without a valid cause and compliance with due process, was illegal. The Supreme Court granted the petition, effectively reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s decision.