Está en la página 1de 1

Goma vs.

Pamplona Plantation

557 SCRA 124

Facts:

Petitioner commencedthe instant suit by filing a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, non-payment
of premium pay for holiday and rest day, five (5) days incentive leave pay, damages and attorney’s fees, against the
respondent. The case was filed with the Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch No. VII of Dumaguete City. Petitioner claimed
that he worked as a carpenter at the Hacienda Pamplona since 1995; that he worked from 7:30 a.m. to 12:00 noon and
from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. daily with a salary rate of P90.00 a day paid weekly; and that he worked continuously until
1997 when he was not given any work assignment. On a claim that he was a regular employee, petitioner alleged to
have been illegally dismissed when the respondent refused without just cause to give him work assignment. Thus, he
prayed for backwages, salary differential, service incentive leave pay, damages and attorney’s fees.

On the other hand, respondent denied having hired the petitioner as its regular employee. It instead argued that
petitioner was hired by a certain Antoy Cañaveral, the manager of the hacienda at the time it was owned by Mr. Bower
and leased by Manuel Gonzales, a jai-alai pelotari known as “Ybarra.” Respondent added that it was not obliged to
absorb the employees of the former owner.

Issue: WON petitioner is a regular employee.

Held:

Article 280 of the Labor Code provides that there are two kinds of REGULAR EMPLOYEES, namely:

Regular employees by nature of work – Those who are engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer (regardless of length of service); and

Regular employees by years of service – Those who have rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or
broken, with respect to the activity in which they are employed (regardless of nature of work).

If the law has been performing the job for at least a year, even if the performance is not continuous or merely
intermittent, the law deems the repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the
necessity, if not indispensability, of that activity to the business.

Petitioner was engaged to perform carpentry work. His services were needed for a period of 2 years until such time that
respondent decided not to give him work assignment anymore. Owing to his length of service, petitioner became a
regular employee, by operation of law.

The principal test used to determine whether employees are PROJECT EMPLOYEES as distinguished from REGULAR
EMPLOYEES, is whether or not the employees were assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking, the duration
or scope of which was specified at the time the employees were engaged for that project. In this case, apart from the
respondent’s bare allegation that petitioner was a project employee, it had not shown that petitioner was informed that
he would be assigned to a specific project or undertaking. Neither was it established that he was informed of the
duration and scope of such project or undertaking at the time of his engagement.s

Petition granted.