GR 143258; (August, 2003) (Digest)

G.R. No. 143258; August 15, 2003
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., petitioner, vs. JOSELITO PASCUA, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Philippine Airlines (PAL) hired respondents as part-time station attendants in 1992, assigning them to load and unload cargo for international flights. Their contracts were repeatedly extended. In 1994, respondents filed a complaint for regularization, among other claims. During the proceedings, PAL converted their status from temporary part-time to regular part-time employees. Respondents subsequently dropped their monetary claims, leaving only the issue of regularization—specifically, conversion from part-time to regular full-time (eight-hour shift) status. The Executive Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint as moot due to the supervening regularization.

ISSUE

(1) Did the conversion to regular part-time status render the complaint for regularization moot? (2) Did the NLRC err in declaring respondents as regular full-time employees?

RULING

No to both issues. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and the NLRC. First, the complaint was not rendered moot. The supervening event of conversion to regular part-time status did not fully address the core issue of whether respondents, by the nature of their duties and length of service, should be considered regular full-time employees entitled to an eight-hour workday. The action remained justiciable as it involved the correct classification and attendant benefits under labor law.
Second, the NLRC correctly declared respondents as regular full-time employees. Applying Article 280 of the Labor Code, the Court found that respondents performed activities necessary and desirable to PAL’s business for over a year, beyond any specific project or seasonal period. Their repeated contract extensions and the continuous need for their services indicated regular employment. The designation as “part-time” was a mere contractual label that could not override the factual circumstances establishing regular status. PAL’s claim of management prerogative to maintain part-time status was invalidated as it contravened statutory policy protecting security of tenure. The NLRC’s decision, supported by substantial evidence, was upheld as it contained no grave abuse of discretion.