G.R. No. 149985 ; May 5, 2006
PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, vs. ROSALINA C. ARCEO, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Rosalina Arceo was initially hired by petitioner PLDT as a casual employee after failing a pre-employment exam. She performed tasks like photocopying and sorting bills. After her discharge in 1991, she filed an illegal dismissal case. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, ordering reinstatement, a decision which became final. She was reinstated on June 9, 1993, as a casual employee performing the same tasks. Over three years later, in 1996, Arceo filed a complaint for unfair labor practice and monetary claims, alleging she was entitled to regularization and the corresponding benefits from the date of her reinstatement.
The Labor Arbiter ruled she was qualified for regularization and awarded monetary benefits from May 1993. The NLRC affirmed her eligibility as a regular employee but remanded the monetary claims for reception of evidence, noting claims for 1993 had prescribed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC, holding Arceo had become a regular employee by operation of law under Article 280 of the Labor Code for having worked for more than one year.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Rosalina Arceo is eligible to be considered a regular employee of PLDT.

RULING

Yes, Arceo is a regular employee. The Supreme Court denied PLDT’s petition and affirmed the lower courts. The legal logic is anchored on Article 280 of the Labor Code, which provides that an employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed, and his employment continues while such activity exists. The Court found that Arceo had worked for more than one year at the time of her reinstatement. PLDT failed to prove that the specific activity to which she was assigned—such as photocopying documents and sorting bills—had been discontinued or abolished. Her regularization is therefore by operation of law with respect to that continuing activity.
The Court rejected PLDT’s argument that regularization was impossible because Arceo repeatedly failed the qualifying exams for telephone operator. The regularization pertains to the position she actually held prior to her complaint, not to the position of telephone operator. She is to be regularized in her actual role or an equivalent one. Consequently, she is entitled to the benefits of a regular employee from the date of her actual reinstatement, June 9, 1993. The prescriptive period for monetary claims was correctly addressed by the NLRC’s remand for evidence regarding claims from 1994 onward.