ASG Law

Tag: Article 280 Labor Code

  • Regular vs. Casual Employment in the Philippines: Understanding Employee Rights and Employer Obligations

    Secure Your Status: Regular Employment Rights in the Philippines

    TLDR: This case clarifies the crucial distinction between regular and casual employees under Philippine Labor Law. It emphasizes that if an employee’s work is necessary or desirable to the employer’s business, they are likely a regular employee, regardless of what the employment contract says. This status provides significant job security and benefits, protecting workers from unfair dismissal and ensuring fair compensation.

    Highway Copra Traders vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 108889, July 30, 1998

    Introduction: The Case of the Misclassified Utility Man

    Imagine working diligently for a company for months, performing various tasks vital to its operations. Then, suddenly, you’re told your services are no longer needed, and you were just a “casual” employee all along, entitled to minimal rights. This was the predicament faced by David Empeynado, a utility man at Highway Copra Traders. His story, resolved in the Supreme Court case of Highway Copra Traders vs. NLRC, highlights a fundamental issue in Philippine labor law: the often blurred line between regular and casual employment. The central legal question: Was David Empeynado a regular employee entitled to protection against illegal dismissal, or merely a casual worker with fewer rights?

    Decoding Regular Employment: Article 280 of the Labor Code

    Philippine Labor Law, specifically Article 280 of the Labor Code, distinguishes between regular and casual employees to safeguard workers’ rights. This provision prevents employers from circumventing labor laws by labeling employees as “casual” when their work is actually integral to the business. The law aims to provide security of tenure to employees engaged in activities essential to the employer’s trade.

    Article 280 states:

    “Regular and Casual Employment. – The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer…”

    This definition hinges on the nature of the employee’s work. If the tasks performed are “necessary or desirable” for the employer’s business, the employee is considered regular. The law also specifies that even a “casual” employee can become regular if they render at least one year of service, regardless of whether the service is continuous or broken. This provision prevents the perpetual classification of employees as casual to deny them benefits and security.

    Prior Supreme Court decisions further clarified this distinction. In Baguio Country Club Corporation vs. NLRC, the Court emphasized that the intent of Article 280 is to protect workers from being kept in a precarious “casual” status indefinitely by employers seeking to avoid labor obligations. The “primary standard” for determining regular employment is the connection between the employee’s activities and the employer’s usual business. This connection is evaluated by looking at the nature of the work and its role within the overall business scheme.

    Empeynado’s Fight for Regular Status: A Case Breakdown

    David Empeynado began working for Highway Copra Traders in May 1986 as a general utility man, earning a daily wage of P35. His duties were diverse and crucial to the copra and charcoal trading business. He weighed copra and charcoal, bagged copra for loading, checked moisture content, drove trucks, performed mechanic work, and even acted as a messenger for company errands like contract follow-ups, vehicle registration, tax payments, and collecting payments.

    Despite his extensive responsibilities, Empeynado wasn’t paid his full salary, receiving only cash advances. When he requested his full pay, the company told him to stop reporting for work in January 1987 and wait to be rehired – a promise that never materialized. Feeling unjustly dismissed and denied his rightful wages, Empeynado filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and unpaid salaries with the Labor Arbiter in December 1987.

    The Labor Arbiter initially ruled against Empeynado, classifying him as a casual employee and dismissing his complaint. The Labor Arbiter’s decision stated:

    “WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered: (1) declaring that complainant’s employment status with respondent is casual; and (2) dismissing complainant’s charge for illegal dismissal and the money claims… against respondent for lack of merit.”

    Empeynado appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, recognizing Empeynado as a regular employee and declaring his termination illegal. The NLRC ordered Highway Copra Traders to reinstate Empeynado and pay backwages, unpaid wages, salary differentials, and proportionate 13th-month pay. The NLRC resolution stated:

    “WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is Annulled and Set Aside and a new one entered declaring complainant David Empeynado a regular employee and his termination from the service held as illegal. Accordingly, respondents are ordered jointly and solidarily to reinstate complainant and pay his backwages…”

    Highway Copra Traders sought reconsideration, which the NLRC denied. Undeterred, the company elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari, arguing that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion. They claimed Empeynado’s tasks were menial, unrelated to the core copra business, and he was hired only “per need basis.”

    The Supreme Court, however, sided with Empeynado and the NLRC. The Court emphasized that Empeynado’s work as a general utility man was undeniably “necessary and desirable” to the copra and charcoal trading business. The Court stated:

    “In this case, the nature of private respondent’s work as a general utility man was definitely necessary and desirable to petitioners’ business of trading copra and charcoal regardless of the length of time he worked therein. As such, he is a regular employee pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 280 of the Labor Code.”

    The Supreme Court dismissed Highway Copra Traders’ petition and affirmed the NLRC’s decision, solidifying Empeynado’s status as a regular employee and his right to backwages and reinstatement (or separation pay if reinstatement was impractical).

    Practical Implications: Protecting Employees, Guiding Employers

    This Supreme Court decision reinforces the principle of security of tenure for employees in the Philippines. It serves as a strong reminder to employers that simply labeling an employee as “casual” does not automatically make them so, especially if their work is integral to the business. The ruling has several practical implications for both employers and employees:

    • For Employees: Understand your rights! If you perform tasks necessary for your employer’s business, you are likely a regular employee, entitled to security of tenure, benefits, and protection against illegal dismissal. Keep records of your tasks and duration of employment.
    • For Employers: Properly classify your employees. Do not misclassify regular employees as casuals to avoid labor obligations. Assess the nature of the work performed – if it’s essential to your business, the position is likely regular. Ensure compliance with all labor laws regarding wages, benefits, and termination procedures for regular employees.
    • Backwages Calculation: The case also touches upon backwages. Since Empeynado’s dismissal was before March 21, 1989, the “Mercury Drug Rule” applied, limiting backwages to three years. For dismissals after this date, the amended Labor Code (RA 6715) mandates full backwages from dismissal to reinstatement.

    Key Lessons from Highway Copra Traders vs. NLRC

    • Substance over Form: Employment contracts cannot override the actual nature of the work performed. Labeling an employee “casual” is irrelevant if their tasks are those of a regular employee.
    • Nature of Work is Key: The primary determinant of regular employment is whether the employee’s activities are necessary or desirable to the employer’s usual business.
    • Security of Tenure: Regular employees have strong protection against dismissal and are entitled to due process and just cause for termination.
    • Employee Rights Awareness: Employees should be aware of their rights under Article 280 of the Labor Code and seek legal advice if they believe they are misclassified or illegally dismissed.
    • Employer Compliance: Employers must ensure proper employee classification and comply with all labor laws to avoid costly legal battles and penalties.

    Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

    Q1: What is the main difference between a regular and a casual employee in the Philippines?

    Answer: A regular employee performs work that is necessary or desirable to the employer’s business, while a casual employee’s work is not considered essential to the core business operations. Regular employees have more job security and benefits.

    Q2: Can an employer simply declare an employee as “casual” in the employment contract?

    Answer: No. The law looks at the actual nature of the work performed, not just what the contract says. If the work is regular, the employee is regular, regardless of the contract.

    Q3: What rights do regular employees have that casual employees might not?

    Answer: Regular employees have security of tenure (protection against illegal dismissal), are entitled to full benefits like 13th-month pay, holiday pay, sick leave, and are entitled to due process before termination.

    Q4: How long does it take for a casual employee to become regular?

    Answer: Under Article 280, a casual employee who has rendered at least one year of service, regardless of breaks in service, becomes a regular employee with respect to the activity they are employed in.

    Q5: What should an employee do if they believe they are wrongly classified as a casual employee when they should be regular?

    Answer: Document your job duties and length of service. Consult with a labor lawyer or the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to understand your rights and potential legal actions.

    Q6: What are the consequences for employers who illegally dismiss a regular employee?

    Answer: Employers can be ordered to reinstate the employee, pay backwages (potentially from the time of dismissal to reinstatement), separation pay (if reinstatement is not feasible), damages, and attorney’s fees.

    Q7: Does this case apply to all industries in the Philippines?

    Answer: Yes, the principles of regular employment under Article 280 of the Labor Code apply to all industries in the Philippines, unless specifically exempted by law (like certain government employees).

    ASG Law specializes in Philippine Labor Law, assisting both employers and employees in navigating complex employment issues. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Regular Employee Status in the Philippines: Security of Tenure and CBA Benefits

    Decoding Regular Employment: Why Length of Service Trumps Contractual Loopholes

    TLDR: This landmark case clarifies that in the Philippines, employees performing work necessary for the employer’s business for over a year are considered regular employees, regardless of contractual labels like ‘regular contractual.’ This status grants them security of tenure and full Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) benefits, preventing employers from circumventing labor laws through semantic games.

    G.R. Nos. 112535 & 113758, June 22, 1998

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine working diligently for a company for years, only to be denied the same benefits as your colleagues simply because of a label on your contract. This was the predicament faced by numerous employees of Cinderella Marketing Corporation. This Supreme Court case arose from the common practice of labeling long-serving employees as ‘regular contractuals,’ a designation used by the company to seemingly circumvent the obligations of regular employment under Philippine labor law. The central question before the Supreme Court was clear: Can employers use contractual semantics to deny employees who have rendered years of service the rights and benefits due to regular employees, particularly those outlined in a Collective Bargaining Agreement?

    LEGAL CONTEXT: ARTICLE 280 OF THE LABOR CODE AND REGULAR EMPLOYMENT

    Philippine labor law, specifically Article 280 of the Labor Code, defines regular employment to protect workers from precarious work arrangements. This provision is crucial in understanding the Cinderella Marketing case.

    Article 280 of the Labor Code explicitly states:

    “Regular and Casual Employment. — The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.

    “An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, That, any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such activity exists.”

    This article establishes two key pathways to regular employment. First, if the work performed is “usually necessary or desirable” for the employer’s business, the employee is regular, unless they fall under specific exceptions like project-based or seasonal employment for the duration of the season. Second, and critically important to this case, even if initially considered casual or seasonal, an employee who renders at least one year of service becomes a regular employee by operation of law, regardless of contract stipulations. This provision aims to prevent employers from perpetually classifying employees as non-regular to avoid labor law obligations.

    The concept of a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) is also central. A CBA is a contract between an employer and a union representing the employees, outlining terms and conditions of employment, including benefits, wages, and working conditions. CBAs are powerful tools for workers to collectively bargain for better terms than the minimums set by law. Exclusion from a CBA means exclusion from these collectively bargained benefits, making union membership and CBA coverage highly sought after by employees.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: CINDERELLA MARKETING’S ‘REGULAR CONTRACTUALS’

    Cinderella Marketing Corporation hired employees as “regular contractuals,” primarily as salesladies, wrappers, stockmen, and pressers – roles undeniably integral to their retail business. These employees were initially hired as seasonal workers during peak seasons, but through CBA negotiations, they were retained and reclassified as “regular contractuals.” This new classification was presented as a benefit, seemingly offering regular employment status and associated benefits. However, a crucial caveat was attached: these ‘regular contractuals,’ despite being deemed regular employees for some benefits, were excluded from the bargaining unit and thus, the full benefits of the existing CBA until they were formally ‘regularized’ or promoted to newly opened branches.

    The employees, despite years of service, found themselves in a precarious position. They were performing regular jobs, contributing to the company’s core business, and had worked for over a year, some even for many years. Yet, they were denied full CBA benefits enjoyed by their unionized colleagues. Feeling shortchanged and understanding their rights under the Labor Code, a group of these ‘regular contractual’ employees filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). They sought to be recognized as regular employees with full rights, including inclusion in the bargaining unit and entitlement to all CBA benefits from the moment they completed one year of service.

    The case proceeded through the labor tribunals:

    • Labor Arbiter Level: The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the employees, declaring them regular rank-and-file employees entitled to CBA benefits and union membership. The Arbiter ordered Cinderella Marketing to pay back benefits.
    • NLRC Level: Cinderella Marketing appealed to the NLRC, but the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision. The NLRC emphasized that under Article 280, employees with over a year of service performing necessary work are regular employees. The NLRC resolution stated, “There can be no dispute that the complainants are regular workers. They served as Sales Clerks whose duties and functions are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business of respondent corporation… On top of this, they have all rendered more than one (1) year of service… As such, they are entitled to all the benefits extended under the CBA to all other regular employees.”
    • Supreme Court Level: Undeterred, Cinderella Marketing elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC. The company contended that the case involved CBA interpretation, falling under voluntary arbitration, not the NLRC’s jurisdiction. They also argued that the ‘regularization differential’ (back benefits from one year of service to formal regularization) was not warranted as the employees were initially seasonal.

    The Supreme Court, however, sided firmly with the employees and the NLRC. The Court dismissed Cinderella Marketing’s petition, stating that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Justice Romero, writing for the Court, highlighted the company’s “semantic interplay of words” in distorting the definition of a regular employee. The Supreme Court reiterated the clear mandate of Article 280: “any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee… and his employment shall continue while such activity exists.”

    The Court also rejected the jurisdictional argument, clarifying that the case was not about CBA interpretation but about enforcing employee rights to benefits arising from employer-employee relations, squarely within the Labor Arbiter’s jurisdiction under Article 217(a)(6) of the Labor Code.

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: SECURITY OF TENURE AND CBA RIGHTS AREN’T NEGOTIABLE

    The Cinderella Marketing case serves as a powerful reminder to both employers and employees in the Philippines: labeling employees as ‘contractual’ or ‘regular contractual’ does not override the fundamental provisions of the Labor Code, especially Article 280. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the principle that substance prevails over form. If an employee performs work that is necessary or desirable to the employer’s business and has done so for more than a year, they are, by law, a regular employee. Employers cannot use contractual semantics or internal classifications to circumvent this legal reality and deprive employees of their rights to security of tenure and CBA benefits.

    For businesses, this means a critical review of employment practices. Misclassifying employees to avoid labor obligations can lead to costly legal battles and back pay liabilities. It’s crucial to correctly classify employees based on the nature of their work and length of service, not just the labels in their contracts. Attempting to create hybrid categories like “regular contractual” to limit benefits is likely to be viewed with suspicion by labor tribunals and the courts.

    For employees, this case reinforces their rights. Length of service matters significantly. If you have been performing work essential to your employer’s business for over a year, you are likely a regular employee, regardless of what your contract says. You are entitled to the rights and benefits of regular employees, including security of tenure and CBA benefits if a CBA exists in your workplace.

    Key Lessons:

    • Substance over Form: Courts will look at the actual nature of the work and length of service, not just contract labels.
    • One Year Rule: Performing necessary work for over a year generally leads to regular employment status.
    • CBA Benefits: Regular employees are entitled to CBA benefits if a CBA is in place. Exclusion based on arbitrary classifications is unlawful.
    • Jurisdiction: Labor Arbiters have jurisdiction over claims arising from employer-employee relations, including claims for CBA benefits and regular employment status.
    • Compliance is Key: Employers must ensure their employment practices comply with Article 280 of the Labor Code to avoid legal repercussions.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    Q1: What does ‘regular employment’ mean in the Philippines?

    A: In the Philippines, regular employment means that an employee is hired to perform work that is usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer and has completed a probationary period or has worked for more than one year, regardless of the initial contract. Regular employees have security of tenure and are entitled to all mandated benefits and CBA benefits if applicable.

    Q2: What is a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)?

    A: A CBA is a negotiated agreement between an employer and a union representing the employees. It outlines the terms and conditions of employment, including wages, benefits, working hours, and other conditions. CBA benefits are typically more favorable than the minimum standards set by law.

    Q3: If my contract says ‘contractual’ but I’ve worked for over a year, am I still considered contractual?

    A: No. According to Article 280 of the Labor Code and as reinforced in the Cinderella Marketing case, if you have worked for over a year performing work necessary for your employer’s business, you are considered a regular employee by law, regardless of what your contract states. Contractual labels that contradict the law are disregarded.

    Q4: What benefits are regular employees entitled to?

    A: Regular employees are entitled to security of tenure (meaning they cannot be dismissed without just or authorized cause and due process), minimum wage, overtime pay, holiday pay, vacation and sick leave, SSS, PhilHealth, Pag-IBIG contributions, and benefits stipulated in any applicable CBA.

    Q5: What should I do if I believe I am a regular employee but my employer is not treating me as such?

    A: You should gather evidence of your employment, including your contract, pay slips, and any documents showing the nature and duration of your work. You can then seek advice from a labor lawyer or file a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) to assert your rights as a regular employee.

    Q6: Does this case apply to all industries?

    A: Yes, the principles of Article 280 and the rulings in the Cinderella Marketing case apply to all industries in the Philippines covered by the Labor Code.

    Q7: Can an employer avoid regularizing employees by repeatedly hiring them for less than a year?

    A: Employers cannot circumvent regularization by simply rehiring employees for short periods repeatedly if the work is continuous and necessary. The law looks at the substance of the employment relationship. Repeatedly breaking contracts for short durations to avoid regularization is likely to be considered illegal labor contracting (‘endo’ or ‘5-5-5’) and will not prevent an employee from attaining regular status after a year of cumulative service.

    ASG Law specializes in Labor Law and Employment Disputes. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Regular vs. Project Employee: Security of Tenure and Illegal Dismissal in the Philippines

    When Fixed-Term Contracts Don’t Prevent Regular Employment: Security of Tenure Prevails

    In the Philippines, employers cannot use fixed-term contracts to perpetually avoid regularizing employees performing roles essential to their business. This landmark case clarifies that continuous service beyond a fixed-term, especially for work integral to the company’s operations, establishes regular employment, granting employees security of tenure and protection against illegal dismissal.

    G.R. No. 106331, March 09, 1998

    Introduction

    Imagine dedicating years to a company, only to be abruptly dismissed under the guise of an expired contract, despite the ongoing need for your role. This was the predicament faced by Dr. Virginia Camacho Quintia in her case against International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (IPI). This case underscores a crucial principle in Philippine labor law: employers cannot circumvent an employee’s right to security of tenure by repeatedly using fixed-term contracts for work that is actually regular in nature. At the heart of the dispute was whether Dr. Quintia, initially hired under a fixed-term contract, became a regular employee after her contract expired and she continued to work for IPI, and consequently, whether her dismissal was legal.

    Legal Context: Regular vs. Project Employment and Security of Tenure

    Philippine labor law, particularly Article 280 of the Labor Code, distinguishes between regular and casual employment to safeguard workers’ rights. This provision is crucial in determining an employee’s security of tenure – the right to only be dismissed for just or authorized causes and with due process. Article 280 of the Labor Code explicitly states:

    Art. 280. Regular and casual employment. – The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.

    This article essentially means that if an employee performs work that is necessary or desirable for the employer’s usual business, they are considered a regular employee. Exceptions exist for project-based or seasonal employment, where the employment is tied to a specific project or season.

    The Supreme Court, in cases like Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora, acknowledged that fixed-term contracts are permissible under certain conditions. However, these contracts must be entered into freely and voluntarily, and cannot be used to defeat the employee’s right to security of tenure if the nature of the work is actually regular. Conversely, cases like Singer Sewing Machine v. Drilon clarify that Article 280 is primarily used to distinguish between regular and casual employees for labor rights purposes, but the existence of an employer-employee relationship itself is a separate consideration.

    In essence, the legal landscape aims to prevent employers from exploiting fixed-term contracts to create a perpetually probationary workforce, denying employees the benefits and security afforded to regular employees.

    Case Breakdown: Quintia’s Fight for Regularization

    Dr. Virginia Camacho Quintia, a pharmacologist, was hired by International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (IPI) as Medical Director for their Research and Development department in March 1983. Her initial employment contract was for one year. IPI claimed her hiring was specifically for an experimental herbal medicine project, framing her as a project employee.

    When her contract was nearing expiration in 1984, Dr. Quintia received a job offer from Xavier University. However, IPI’s president, Pio Castillo, persuaded her to stay, assuring her of job security. Based on this assurance, she declined the university offer and continued working for IPI even after her initial contract expired in March 1984. She not only continued as Medical Director but also took on the role of company physician, participating in civic activities on behalf of IPI. This continued for over two years.

    In 1986, Dr. Quintia advocated for rank-and-file employees concerning issues with their Savings and Loan Association. Shortly after, she faced resentment from association officers and was allegedly berated by Mr. Castillo. On July 10, 1986, she was replaced as department head, and on July 12, 1986, she received a termination memo citing contract expiration as the reason.

    Dr. Quintia filed an illegal dismissal complaint. IPI argued she was a project employee hired for the herbal medicine project, which they claimed to have abandoned. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Dr. Quintia, declaring her a regular employee illegally dismissed and ordering reinstatement and backwages. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed this decision.

    The case reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court sided with Dr. Quintia and the NLRC. The Court emphasized that Dr. Quintia’s work as Medical Director and company physician was integral to IPI’s business of manufacturing pharmaceuticals. The Court noted:

    Clearly, she was hired as Medical Director of the Research and Development department of petitioner company and not as consultant nor for any particular project. The work she performed was manifestly necessary and desirable to the usual business of petitioner, considering that it is engaged in the manufacture and production of medicinal preparations.

    The Court dismissed IPI’s claim that the herbal medicine venture was a specific project, finding no mention of such a project in Dr. Quintia’s contract. Furthermore, the continuous engagement for over three years and the fact that she replaced a previous Medical Director and was herself replaced after termination indicated a regular position, not a project-based one. The Supreme Court further stated:

    A project employment is one where the employment has been fixed for a specific project/undertaking, the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee. Quintia’s engagement after the expiration of the written contract cannot be said to have been pre-determined because, if petitioner’s other claim is to be believed, it was essentially contingent upon the feasibility of herbal medicine as part of petitioner’s business and for as long as the herbal medicine development was being pursued by it.

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the NLRC’s decision with a modification regarding separation pay in lieu of reinstatement due to the strained relations, ordering IPI to pay separation pay and backwages.

    Practical Implications: What This Means for Employers and Employees

    This case serves as a potent reminder to employers: labeling an employee as “project-based” or using fixed-term contracts does not automatically exempt them from regular employment status if the work performed is essential to the business and continuous. The substance of the employment relationship, not just the contract’s label, dictates the employee’s status.

    For employees, this ruling reinforces the security of tenure. If you are continuously performing work that is necessary for your employer’s business, even under successive contracts, you are likely considered a regular employee with rights against illegal dismissal.

    Key Lessons:

    • Regularization After Contract Expiry: If an employee continues working after a fixed-term contract expires, performing duties integral to the business, they likely attain regular employee status.
    • Nature of Work is Paramount: The actual nature of the work performed, not just contract terms, determines employment type (regular vs. project).
    • Security of Tenure Protection: Regular employees are protected from dismissal without just cause and due process.
    • Due Process in Termination: Even managerial employees are entitled to due process before termination, including written notices and an opportunity to be heard.

    Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

    Q: What is a regular employee in the Philippines?

    A: A regular employee is one who performs work that is usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, regardless of the terms of a written contract. Continuous service for more than one year generally solidifies regular employment status.

    Q: What is a project employee?

    A: A project employee is hired for a specific project or undertaking where the completion or termination of the project is predetermined at the time of hiring. Employment is coterminous with the project.

    Q: Can an employer use fixed-term contracts repeatedly to avoid regularization?

    A: No. If the work is continuous and necessary for the business, repeated fixed-term contracts will likely be seen as an attempt to circumvent labor laws, and the employee can be deemed regular.

    Q: What constitutes illegal dismissal?

    A: Illegal dismissal occurs when a regular employee is terminated without just or authorized cause and/or without due process (proper notices and opportunity to be heard).

    Q: What are the remedies for illegal dismissal?

    A: Remedies include reinstatement to the former position, payment of backwages (lost earnings), and potentially separation pay if reinstatement is not feasible due to strained relations. Moral and exemplary damages may also be awarded.

    Q: What is security of tenure?

    A: Security of tenure is the right of regular employees to remain in their job unless there is a just or authorized cause for termination and it is carried out with due process.

    Q: How does Article 280 of the Labor Code protect employees?

    A: Article 280 prevents employers from classifying genuinely regular jobs as casual or project-based, ensuring employees performing essential tasks are recognized as regular and afforded corresponding rights and protections.

    ASG Law specializes in Labor Law and Employment Litigation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Regular vs. Project Employees: Security of Tenure in Philippine Labor Law

    When Does Project Employment End? Security of Tenure for Construction Workers

    TLDR: This case clarifies the distinction between regular and project employees in the construction industry. The Supreme Court emphasizes that simply being hired for a specific project doesn’t automatically make one a project employee. Employers must prove that the project’s duration was clearly defined at the time of hiring and consistently report project completions to the DOLE to avoid regularizing employees.

    G.R. No. 119523, October 10, 1997

    Introduction

    Imagine working for a construction company for years, moving from one project to another. You believe you’re a regular employee, entitled to job security. Then, suddenly, you’re dismissed because the current project is complete. Is this legal? This scenario highlights a crucial aspect of Philippine labor law: the distinction between regular and project employees, and the rights associated with each.

    The case of Isabelo Violeta and Jovito Baltazar vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Dasmariñas Industrial and Steelworks Corporations delves into this very issue. The Supreme Court grapples with determining when a worker hired for a specific project should be considered a regular employee with security of tenure, rather than a project employee whose employment ends with the project’s completion. This distinction has significant implications for workers’ rights and employers’ obligations.

    Legal Context: Regular vs. Project Employment

    Article 280 of the Labor Code of the Philippines defines regular and casual employment, aiming to protect employees from unfair labor practices. It states that an employee is considered regular if they perform activities “usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer.” However, there’s an exception for project employees, whose employment is “fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee.”

    The key phrase is “determined at the time of the engagement.” This means the employer must clearly communicate the project’s scope and expected duration to the employee upon hiring. Furthermore, the employer has a duty to report the termination of project employees upon project completion to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). Failure to do so can lead to the presumption that the employee is regular, not a mere project employee.

    Article 280 of the Labor Code states:

    Art. 280. Regular and casual employment. – The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.

    Case Breakdown: Violeta and Baltazar’s Fight for Regular Status

    Isabelo Violeta and Jovito Baltazar, the petitioners, were construction workers hired by Dasmariñas Industrial and Steelworks Corporation (DISC). They were repeatedly hired for different projects, working as Handyman, Erector II, and Leadman II. Upon completion of a project, they were terminated, but they signed quitclaims releasing DISC from any liability.

    Violeta and Baltazar argued that despite being hired for specific projects, their continuous employment over several years and their performance of tasks essential to DISC’s business made them regular employees. They claimed their dismissal was illegal because it was based solely on project completion, without just cause or due process.

    The Labor Arbiter initially dismissed their complaints, ruling they were project employees. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) initially reversed this decision, declaring their dismissal illegal. Upon motion for reconsideration by DISC, the NLRC reversed itself again, siding with the company.

    The Supreme Court, however, sided with Violeta and Baltazar, emphasizing the following:

    • Lack of Predetermined Project Duration: The workers’ appointments lacked a definite duration or period for the project’s completion at the time of their engagement. The “DATE OF COVERAGE” in their appointments was left blank.
    • Ambiguous Employment Terms: The employment contracts stated that their appointments were “co-terminus with the need” for their services, contingent upon the project’s progress. This ambiguity meant their employment could be terminated even before the project phase was completed.
    • Failure to Report Terminations: DISC failed to report the termination of the workers’ services to the Public Employment Office upon completion of each project, as required by Policy Instruction No. 20.

    The Supreme Court quoted:

    “To be exempted from the presumption of regularity of employment, therefore, the agreement between a project employee and his employer must strictly conform with the requirements and conditions provided in Article 280. It is not enough that an employee is hired for a specific project or phase of work. There must also be a determination of or a clear agreement on the completion or termination of the project at the time the employee is engaged if the objective of Article 280 is to be achieved.”

    “With such ambiguous and obscure words and conditions, petitioners’ employment was not co-existent with the duration of their particular work assignments because their employer could, at any stage of such work, determine whether their services were needed or not. Their services could then be terminated even before the completion of the phase of work assigned to them.”

    The Court concluded that Violeta and Baltazar were regular employees. Their dismissal was deemed illegal, and DISC was ordered to reinstate them with back wages.

    Practical Implications: Protecting Workers’ Rights in Construction

    This case serves as a stark reminder to employers in the construction industry. Simply labeling an employee as a “project employee” is not enough to avoid regularization. Employers must ensure that:

    • The project’s duration and scope are clearly defined and communicated to the employee at the time of hiring.
    • The employment agreement specifies the project’s completion date or a clear method for determining when the project will end.
    • Terminations of project employees are promptly reported to the DOLE upon project completion.

    Failure to comply with these requirements can result in employees being deemed regular, entitling them to security of tenure and other benefits under the Labor Code.

    Key Lessons

    • Clarity is Key: Clearly define the project’s duration in the employment contract.
    • Report Terminations: Report project completions and terminations to the DOLE.
    • Substantial Work Matters: Continuous, necessary work can lead to regularization, regardless of the initial contract.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Q: What is the main difference between a regular employee and a project employee?

    A: A regular employee performs tasks that are usually necessary or desirable in the employer’s business and enjoys security of tenure. A project employee is hired for a specific project, and their employment ends when the project is completed, provided the project duration was pre-determined during hiring.

    Q: What happens if an employer fails to report the termination of a project employee to the DOLE?

    A: Failure to report terminations can lead to the presumption that the employee is regular, not a project employee.

    Q: Can an employee be considered a regular employee even if their contract states they are a project employee?

    A: Yes, if the employee performs tasks essential to the employer’s business and is continuously rehired for different projects, they may be deemed a regular employee, regardless of what the contract says.

    Q: What should an employee do if they believe they have been illegally dismissed as a project employee?

    A: They should consult with a labor lawyer to assess their rights and file a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC.

    Q: Does signing a quitclaim prevent an employee from pursuing a claim for illegal dismissal?

    A: Not necessarily. Quitclaims are often viewed with skepticism, especially if there’s evidence of coercion or lack of consideration.

    ASG Law specializes in labor law and employment disputes. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Project Employee vs. Regular Employee: Understanding Termination Rights in the Philippines

    When is a Project Employee Considered a Regular Employee? Termination Rights Explained

    G.R. No. 114290, September 09, 1996

    Imagine a construction worker consistently hired for various projects by the same company over several years. Is this worker a ‘project employee,’ easily terminated upon project completion, or a ‘regular employee’ with more robust job security? This distinction significantly impacts their rights upon termination. The Supreme Court case of Raycor Aircontrol Systems, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Rolando Laya, et al. delves into this crucial differentiation, clarifying the rights and obligations of both employers and employees in project-based industries.

    Defining Project Employees vs. Regular Employees

    Philippine labor law distinguishes between project employees and regular employees. This distinction dictates the terms of employment, especially concerning termination. Article 280 of the Labor Code is the cornerstone of this classification.

    Article 280 states:

    “An employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer…”

    However, there’s an exception:

    “…except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee…”

    A project employee is hired for a specific undertaking, and their employment is tied to the project’s duration. A regular employee, on the other hand, performs tasks essential to the employer’s business and enjoys greater job security.

    To illustrate, consider a construction company. Hiring electricians specifically for wiring a new building designates them as project employees. Their employment ends with the project. Conversely, an accountant handling the company’s finances is a regular employee, performing ongoing essential tasks.

    The Raycor Aircontrol Systems Case: A Closer Look

    Raycor Aircontrol Systems, Inc., engaged in installing air conditioning systems, hired several individuals as tinsmiths, mechanics, installers, and other related roles. The employees argued they were regular employees, while Raycor maintained they were project-based.

    • The employees filed a case for regularization, which was initially dismissed.
    • Subsequently, they were terminated, prompting illegal dismissal claims.
    • The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in favor of Raycor, classifying the workers as project employees.
    • However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, deeming them regular employees illegally dismissed.

    The NLRC highlighted inconsistencies in Raycor’s presented contracts, questioning their validity. This led to the Supreme Court appeal, where the central issue was whether these employees were project-based or regular.

    The Supreme Court scrutinized the NLRC’s decision, noting a lack of concrete evidence supporting the claim that the employees belonged to a “work pool.” The Court emphasized the importance of determining whether the project’s scope and duration were clearly communicated at the time of hiring. The Court stated:

    “…the principal test for determining whether particular employees are properly characterized as ‘project employees’ as distinguished from ‘regular employees,’ is whether or not the ‘project employees’ were assigned to carry out a ‘specific project or undertaking,’ the duration (and scope) of which were specified at the time the employees were engaged for that project.”

    Despite Raycor’s failure to provide conclusive evidence, the Supreme Court acknowledged the uncertainties surrounding the employees’ status. Ultimately, guided by the principle of resolving doubts in favor of labor, the Court sided with the employees, declaring them regular employees entitled to reinstatement and backwages.

    Practical Implications for Employers and Employees

    This case underscores the importance of clear documentation and communication in employment contracts. Employers must explicitly define the project’s scope and duration when hiring project-based employees. Failure to do so can lead to misclassification and potential legal liabilities.

    Employees, on the other hand, should carefully review their contracts and understand their employment status. If they consistently perform tasks essential to the employer’s business over an extended period, they may have grounds to claim regular employment status, regardless of the initial contract.

    Key Lessons

    • Clear Contracts: Always have well-defined contracts specifying project scope and duration.
    • Consistent Application: Ensure consistent treatment of employees aligned with their actual roles and responsibilities.
    • Burden of Proof: Employers bear the burden of proving project-based employment.
    • Favor Labor: Courts tend to resolve doubts in favor of the employee.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Q: What is the main difference between a project employee and a regular employee?

    A: A project employee is hired for a specific project with a defined duration, while a regular employee performs tasks essential to the employer’s ongoing business.

    Q: How does Article 280 of the Labor Code define regular employment?

    A: Article 280 states that an employment is deemed regular when the employee performs activities usually necessary or desirable in the employer’s business, unless the employment is fixed for a specific project.

    Q: What happens if a project employee works for more than one year?

    A: The one-year rule applies to casual employees, not project employees. Length of service alone does not automatically convert a project employee to regular status.

    Q: What evidence can an employer use to prove someone is a project employee?

    A: Contracts specifying project scope and duration, project timelines, and payroll records showing project-based compensation can serve as evidence.

    Q: What should an employee do if they believe they have been misclassified as a project employee?

    A: Consult with a labor lawyer, gather evidence of continuous employment and essential tasks performed, and file a case with the NLRC.

    Q: What is the significance of Policy Instructions No. 20?

    A: Policy Instructions No. 20 provides guidelines on stabilizing employer-employee relations in the construction industry, particularly regarding project employees.

    Q: What are the implications of illegal dismissal?

    A: Illegal dismissal can result in reinstatement, backwages, and potential damages for the employee.

    ASG Law specializes in labor law and employment disputes. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Regular vs. Probationary Employment: Understanding Employee Rights in the Philippines

    How Length of Service Can Transform a Probationary Employee into a Regular One

    G.R. No. 111651, March 15, 1996

    Imagine working diligently for a company for years, only to be suddenly dismissed under the guise of a probationary period. This scenario highlights the critical distinction between probationary and regular employment, a distinction often blurred to the detriment of Filipino workers. The Supreme Court case of Bustamante vs. National Labor Relations Commission clarifies how extended service, even if broken, can elevate an employee to regular status, providing them with greater job security and benefits.

    This case revolves around the illegal dismissal of several employees of Evergreen Farms, Inc., who were initially hired as probationary laborers and harvesters. The central legal question is whether these employees, despite their probationary contracts, had attained regular employee status due to their length of service and the nature of their work.

    Legal Context: Regular vs. Casual Employment Under the Labor Code

    The Philippine Labor Code distinguishes between regular and casual employees, with regular employees enjoying greater protection against unjust dismissal. Article 280 of the Labor Code is the cornerstone of this distinction, defining the two categories:

    “ART. 280. Regular and Casual Employment. – The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.”

    “An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, that, any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such activity exists.”

    This provision essentially states that if an employee performs tasks essential to the employer’s business, or if they have worked for at least one year (continuously or intermittently), they are considered regular employees. The intent is to prevent employers from perpetually keeping employees on probationary status to avoid providing benefits and security of tenure.

    For example, a janitor hired by a shopping mall is performing a task that is necessary for the business to operate. If that janitor is repeatedly hired for short periods of time, but the total time adds up to more than one year, that janitor is considered a regular employee.

    Case Breakdown: Bustamante vs. NLRC

    The story begins with Osmalik Bustamante and his co-workers, laborers at Evergreen Farms, Inc., a banana plantation. They were hired under six-month contracts, but many had previously worked for the company intermittently for several years. In June 1990, their employment was terminated, allegedly due to poor performance linked to their age.

    Feeling unjustly dismissed, the workers filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The case unfolded as follows:

    • Labor Arbiter’s Decision: The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the employees, declaring their dismissal illegal and ordering reinstatement with backwages.
    • NLRC’s Initial Ruling: The NLRC initially upheld the Labor Arbiter’s decision.
    • NLRC’s Reconsideration: Upon motion for reconsideration by Evergreen Farms, the NLRC reversed its decision on the backwages, arguing that the termination wasn’t in bad faith.

    The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the employees. The Court emphasized the importance of Article 280 of the Labor Code and criticized Evergreen Farms for using probationary contracts as a “chicanery” to deny the workers their rights. The Court stated:

    “If at all significant, the contract for probationary employment was utilized by respondent company as a chicanery to deny petitioners their status as regular employees and to evade paying them the benefits attached to such status.”

    The Court further noted that the repeated hiring and rehiring of the employees indicated bad faith on the part of the employer. The court reasoned that:

    “The act of hiring and re-hiring the petitioners over a period of time without considering them as regular employees evidences bad faith on the part of private respondent.”

    The Supreme Court reinstated the award of backwages, underscoring the employees’ right to full compensation from the time of their illegal dismissal until their reinstatement.

    Practical Implications: Protecting Employee Rights

    This case reinforces the principle that employers cannot circumvent labor laws by repeatedly hiring employees on short-term contracts. Length of service and the nature of the work performed are key factors in determining employment status.

    Key Lessons:

    • Length of Service Matters: Even broken or non-continuous service exceeding one year can lead to regular employment status.
    • Nature of Work is Crucial: If the employee performs tasks necessary for the employer’s business, it strengthens their claim to regular employment.
    • Probationary Contracts Can Be Abused: Courts scrutinize probationary contracts used to evade regularizing employees.

    For businesses, it’s crucial to properly classify employees based on their duties and length of service. Regularly assess employment contracts to ensure compliance with labor laws. Failure to do so can result in costly legal battles and damage to the company’s reputation.

    For employees, meticulously document your work history, including dates of employment, job descriptions, and any contracts signed. This documentation can be invaluable in asserting your rights if your employment is terminated.

    Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

    Q: What is the difference between a probationary employee and a regular employee?

    A: A probationary employee is hired for a trial period to determine their suitability for regular employment. A regular employee has completed this trial period and enjoys greater job security and benefits.

    Q: How long is the probationary period in the Philippines?

    A: Generally, the probationary period should not exceed six months, unless a longer period is justified by the nature of the work.

    Q: Can an employer repeatedly hire an employee on a probationary basis?

    A: No, repeatedly hiring an employee on a probationary basis to avoid regularization is considered illegal and is viewed as bad faith.

    Q: What are backwages?

    A: Backwages are the wages an employee would have earned had they not been illegally dismissed. They are awarded to compensate for lost income during the period of illegal dismissal.

    Q: What should I do if I believe I have been illegally dismissed?

    A: Consult with a labor lawyer as soon as possible. Gather all relevant documents, including your employment contract, pay slips, and any termination letters.

    ASG Law specializes in labor law and employment disputes. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Project Employee vs. Regular Employee: Understanding Employment Status in the Philippines

    Determining Regular Employment Status: The Importance of Reporting Employee Terminations

    G.R. No. 113166, February 01, 1996

    Imagine a construction worker, diligently working on project after project for the same company for decades. Is he just a temporary worker, or has he earned the security of a regular employee? This question lies at the heart of many labor disputes in the Philippines. The Supreme Court case of Ismael Samson vs. National Labor Relations Commission and Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co., Manila, Inc. delves into this very issue, highlighting the crucial role of employer reporting requirements in determining employment status.

    This case revolves around Ismael Samson, a construction worker who sought to be recognized as a regular employee after working on numerous projects for Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co., Manila, Inc. (AG&P) since 1965. The central question was whether Samson’s repeated project-based employment transformed into regular employment, entitling him to corresponding benefits and security.

    The Legal Framework for Employment Status

    Philippine labor law distinguishes between different types of employees, each with varying rights and benefits. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for both employers and employees.

    • Regular Employee: An employee engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. Regular employees enjoy security of tenure and are entitled to benefits such as paid leaves, holiday pay, and retirement benefits. Article 280 of the Labor Code defines a regular employee as someone who performs tasks “usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer”.
    • Project Employee: An employee hired for a specific project or undertaking, where the completion or termination of the project has been determined at the time of engagement. Project employees’ employment is coterminous with the project.
    • Probationary Employee: Hired for a trial period, typically not exceeding six months, to determine their suitability for regular employment.

    The key legal provision at play in this case is Article 280 of the Labor Code, which states, “An employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer…” This provision aims to prevent employers from circumventing the security of tenure granted to regular employees by repeatedly hiring them on a project basis.

    The Case of Ismael Samson: From Project to Regular?

    Ismael Samson worked for AG&P since 1965, primarily as a rigger on various construction projects both in the Philippines and overseas. After decades of service, he filed a complaint seeking regularization, arguing that his continuous employment performing essential tasks should qualify him as a regular employee. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in his favor, citing AG&P’s failure to report the termination of his employment after each project, as required by then-prevailing Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) regulations. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, concluding that Samson was a project employee.

    The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Samson, reversing the NLRC decision. The Court emphasized the importance of the employer’s compliance with reporting requirements and the continuous nature of Samson’s work.

    Key points in the Court’s reasoning:

    • Non-Compliance with Reporting Requirements: AG&P’s failure to report the termination of Samson’s employment after each project was a significant factor.
    • Continuous Nature of Work: Samson’s repeated re-hiring and the necessity of his skills as a rigger to AG&P’s business demonstrated that his tasks were essential and ongoing.

    As the Court stated, “the repeated re-hiring and continuing need for his services are sufficient evidence of the necessity and indispensability of such services to private respondent’s business or trade.”

    The court also noted that “the provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreements of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer”.

    Practical Implications and Lessons Learned

    This case underscores the importance of proper documentation and compliance with labor regulations. Employers should be diligent in reporting employee terminations to the DOLE, especially for project-based employees. Failure to do so can lead to the presumption that the employee is a regular employee, regardless of the terms of their initial engagement.

    For employees, this case provides hope and guidance. It reinforces the principle that long-term service and the performance of essential tasks can lead to regular employment status, even if initially hired as a project employee.

    Key Lessons:

    • Comply with Reporting Requirements: Employers must report employee terminations to the DOLE to maintain the status of project employees.
    • Assess the Nature of Work: If an employee’s tasks are essential and continuously required, they may be considered a regular employee.
    • Document Employment Agreements: Clearly define the project’s scope and duration in employment agreements to avoid future disputes.

    Hypothetical Example: A software development company hires developers for specific projects. If the company consistently re-hires the same developers for subsequent projects, and the developers’ skills are integral to the company’s core business, they could be deemed regular employees, even if initially hired on a project basis. The company’s failure to report project completions to DOLE would further strengthen this argument.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Q: What is the main difference between a project employee and a regular employee?

    A: A project employee is hired for a specific project with a defined completion date, while a regular employee performs tasks essential to the employer’s business on an ongoing basis.

    Q: What happens if an employer doesn’t report the termination of a project employee to DOLE?

    A: Failure to report termination can lead to the presumption that the employee is a regular employee.

    Q: Can an employee initially hired as a project employee become a regular employee?

    A: Yes, if their tasks are essential to the business and they are repeatedly re-hired for subsequent projects, they may be deemed a regular employee.

    Q: What factors does the court consider when determining employment status?

    A: The court considers the nature of the work, the duration of employment, the employer’s reporting practices, and the necessity of the employee’s skills to the business.

    Q: What should employers do to ensure they properly classify their employees?

    A: Employers should clearly define the project’s scope in employment agreements, comply with reporting requirements, and assess the ongoing need for the employee’s services.

    Q: What is Article 280 of the Labor Code?

    A: Article 280 defines regular employment and is often used to determine whether an employee initially hired as a project employee should be considered regular.

    ASG Law specializes in labor law and employment disputes. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.