GR 96608 09; (May, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 96608-09, May 20, 1991
Tucor Industries, Inc. and Patrick Boll, petitioners, vs. National Labor Relations Commission, Florencio Basco, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Tucor Industries, Inc., engaged in moving and storage services for U.S. military personnel, hired private respondents as packers, drivers, and utilitymen/carpenters. Their employment was governed by uniform company-prepared “Master Employment Contracts” stipulating engagement on an “as needed” and “no work, no pay” basis, with no entitlement to benefits accorded to permanent employees. On July 17, 1989, citing a Clark Air Base policy requiring security clearance, petitioner terminated private respondents’ employment via identical notices. The notices stated that their base passes were not cleared by American authorities due to an investigation into missing shipment items, rendering the company unable to avail of their services. All private respondents had been continuously employed for over one year prior to termination.
ISSUE
Whether private respondents are regular employees entitled to security of tenure, and consequently, whether their dismissal was illegal.
RULING
Yes, private respondents are regular employees and were illegally dismissed. The Supreme Court applied Article 280 of the Labor Code, which deems employment regular where an employee performs activities usually necessary or desirable in the employer’s usual business, irrespective of any written agreement stating otherwise. The activities of private respondents—packing, driving, and carpentry—were integral and necessary to petitioner’s moving and storage business, requiring performance on a regular basis, not merely for a specific, time-bound project. Their service exceeding one year further negated any claim of a limited or casual engagement.
The contractual stipulations placing employees on an “as needed” basis and subject to the employer’s unilateral option to terminate upon cessation of need were declared untenable. Labor contracts are impressed with public interest and must yield to the common good. The Court found the cited reason for dismissal—the non-renewal of base passes—to be a mere ploy, unsupported by evidence of a proper investigation or polygraph testing. As regular employees, private respondents enjoyed security of tenure. Their dismissal without just cause and without appropriate investigation constituted illegal dismissal. The NLRC decision ordering reinstatement and payment of backwages was affirmed.