Tucor Industries Inc.

vs NLRC
GR no. 96608-09 May 20, 1991
Facts: Petitioner is a corporation principally engaged in the moving and storage of various goods owned
by military personnel residing within the United States military facilities in the Philippines. On various
dates, private respondents were hired as packers, drivers and utilitymen/carpenters. They signed uniform
company-prepared master employment contracts, the terms and conditions of which are as follows: a.You
agree to be employed on "As Needed" basis and to the principle of "no work, no pay." This is so because
of the very nature of the business of Tucor Moving and Storage wherein the volume of work handled by
the Company varies from day to day and from project to project; b. Other than salaries actually earned,
you as a daily-hired worker, shall not be entitled to any of the benefits enjoyed by the permanent
employees of the Company xxx. In a memorandum-letter dated July 17, 1989, the Chief of Traffic
Management of Clark Air Base reminded all agents, including petitioner of the base policy that
"Employees who already have passes in their possession and who fail the polygraph . . ." administered by
an acknowledged security company will be required to return their passes. On the same day petitioner
terminated the employment of private respondents by sending them separate identical notices of
termination.
Petitioners contend that private respondents cannot be considered as its regular employees inasmuch as
the employment of the latter was contractual in nature; that they were deemed hired for a specific or a
fixed undertaking on an "as needed basis," the efficacy of said contract being coterminous with or
dependent upon the company and its clients.
Issue: whether private respondents are regular or casual employees.
Held:
An examination of the contract of employment does not show that private respondents were hired
for a "specific project or undertaking" nor was the completion or termination of the alleged project for
which private respondents were hired determined at the start of the employment.
The term "specific project or undertaking" under Article 280 of the Labor Code contemplates an
activity which was commonly or habitually performed or such type of work which is not done on a daily
basis but only for a specific duration of time or until the completion of the project. The services employed
are thus necessary or desirable in the employer's usual business only for the period of time it takes to
complete the project. Without the performance of such services on a regular basis, the employer's main
business is not expected to grind to a halt.
In the case at bar, private respondents were assigned to do carpentry work, packing and driving,
activities which are usually necessary and desirable in petitioners' usual business and which thus had to
be done on a regular basis.
The fact that private respondents had rendered more than one year of service at the time of their
dismissal overturns the petitioner's allegation that private respondents were hired for a specific or a fixed
undertaking for a limited period of time. The company-prepared master employment contracts placed the
private respondents at the mercy of those who crafted the said contract. The work of the private
respondents is hardly "specific" or "seasonal." Such is one instance under the Code "where the employee
has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business."
Private respondents are therefore regular employees of petitioner the provisions of their contract of
employment notwithstanding. They are entitled to security of tenure.
Their dismissal without just cause in this case and without appropriate investigation is certainly
illegal.

PNOC- Energy Devt. Corp. vs NLRC

GR no. 169353 April 13, 2007
FACTS:
Petitioner PNOC-Energy Development Corporation is a government-owned and controlled
corporation engaged in the exploration, development, and utilization of energy. It undertakes several
projects in areas where geothermal energy has been discovered.
Petitioners Southern Negros Geothermal Production Field in Negros Oriental is divided into two
phases: Palinpinon I (PAL I) and Palinpinon II (PAL II). To augment its manpower requirement occasioned
by the increased activities in the development of PAL II, petitioner hired 6 employees in the Administration
and Maintenance Section.
The termination/expiration of their respective employment were specified in their initial
employment contracts, which, however, were renewed and extended on their respective expiry dates..
On October 29, 1998, the six employees, herein respondents, filed before the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner. Aside from
reinstatement, respondents sought the payment of backwages, salary differential, collective bargaining
agreement benefits, damages and attorneys fees. Respondents averred that they had rendered
continuous and satisfactory services from the dates of their respective employment until illegally
dismissed on June 30, 1998. Respondents further contended that their dismissal from employment was a
clear case of union busting for they had previously sought union membership and actually filed a notice of
strike.
For its part, petitioner asseverated that respondents were contractual employees; as such, they
cannot claim to have been illegally dismissed because upon the expiration of the term of the contract or
the completion of the project, their employer-employee relationship also ended.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondents are project or regular employees.
HELD:
Respondents posit that they were undeniably performing activities which are necessary or
desirable in the usual trade or business of petitioner. They aver that the completion of their individual
employment was not determined at the time of their engagement due to the fact that their contracts were
renewed and extended over and over again. They claim that had the periods of their employment been
determined, then their work with petitioner would not have lasted beyond the three-month period provided
in their respective initial employment contracts. They likewise theorized that the contracts they signed
were short-term contracts covering a long period of the same activity, not for a specific project or
undertaking.
As defined, project employees are those workers hired (1) for a specific project or undertaking,
and (2) the completion or termination of such project or undertaking has been determined at the time of
the
engagement
of
the
employee.
However,
petitioner
failed
to
substantiate
its
claim that respondents were hired merely as project employees.
Petitioners act of repeatedly and continuously hiring respondents to do the same kind of work
belies its contention that respondents were hired for a specific project or undertaking. The absence of a
definite duration for the project/s has led the Court to conclude that respondents are, in fact, regular
employees.
Respondents had been project employees several times over. Their employment ceased to be
coterminous with specific projects when they were repeatedly re-hired by petitioner. Where the
employment of project employees is extended long after the supposed project has been finished, the
employees are removed from the scope of project employees and are considered regular employees.

Olongapo Maintenance Services Inc. vs Chantengco

GR No. 156146 June 21, 2007
Facts: OMSI is a corporation engaged in the business of providing janitorial and maintenance services to
various clients, including GOCCs. On various dates beginning 1986, OMSI hired the respondents as
janitors, grass cutters, and degreasers, and assigned them at the NAIA. In 1999, OMSI terminated their
employment. Claiming termination without just cause and non-payment of labor standard benefits,
respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, and non-payment of holiday
and service incentive leave pays, with prayer for payment of separation pay, against OMSI.
For its part, OMSI denied the allegations in the complaint. It averred that when Manila International Airport
Authority (MIAA) awarded to OMSI the service contracts for the airport, OMSI hired respondents as
janitors, cleaners, and degreasers to do the services under the contracts. OMSI informed the respondents
that they were hired for the MIAA project and their employments were coterminous with the contracts. As
project employees, they were not dismissed from work but their employments ceased when the MIAA
contracts were not renewed upon their expiration. The termination of respondents employment cannot,
thus, be considered illegal.
Issue: Are they regular employees?
Held:
Yes. Without question, respondents, as janitors, grass cutters, and degreasers, performed work
necessary or desirable in the janitorial and maintenance service business of OMSI. The principal test in
determining whether an employee is a project employee is whether he/she is assigned to carry out a
specific project or undertaking, the duration and scope of which are specified at the time the employee is
engaged in the project, or where the work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the
employment is for the duration of the season. A true project employee should be assigned to a project
which begins and ends at determined or determinable times, and be informed thereof at the time of hiring.
In the instant case, the record is bereft of proof that the respondents engagement as project
employees has been predetermined, as required by law. OMSI did not provide convincing evidence that
respondents were informed that they were to be assigned to a specific project or undertaking when
OMSI hired them. Notably, the employment contracts for the specific project signed by the respondents
were never presented. All that OMSI submitted in the proceedings a quo are the service contracts
between OMSI and the MIAA.

Saberola vs. Suarez

Gr no. 151227 July 14, 2008
FACTS: Case is for illegal dismissal with money claims filed by respondents against petitioner. Latter is
the owner and manager of G.S. Saberola Electrical Services, a firm engaged in the construction business
specializing in installing electrical devices in subdivision homes and in commercial and non-commercial
buildings. Respondents were employed by petitioner as electricians. They worked from Monday to
Saturday and, occasionally, on Sundays, with a daily wage of P110.00.
Petitioner averred that respondents were part-time project employees and were employed only
when there were electrical jobs to be done in a particular housing unit contracted by petitioner. He
maintained that the services of respondents as project employees were coterminous with each project. As
project employees, the time of rendition of their services was not fixed. Thus, there was no practical way
of determining the appropriate compensation of the value of respondents accomplishment, as their work
assignment varied depending on the needs of a specific project.
ISSUE: What is their status? And were they illegally dismissed?
HELD: Project employees (BUT were illegally dismissed)
Petitioner, as an electrical contractor, depends for his business on the contracts that he is able to obtain
from real estate developers and builders of buildings. Thus, the work provided by petitioner depends on
the availability of such contracts or projects. The duration of the employment of his work force is not
permanent but coterminous with the projects to which the workers are assigned. Viewed in this context,
the respondents are considered as project employees of petitioner.
A project employee is one whose 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. However, respondents, even if working as project employees, enjoy security of tenure.
Nonetheless, when a project employee is dismissed, such dismissal must still comply with the substantive
and procedural requirements of due process. Termination of his employment must be for a lawful cause
and must be done in a manner which affords him the proper notice and hearing.
Petitioner failed to present any evidence to disprove the claim of illegal dismissal. No evidence was
presented by petitioner to show the termination of the project which would justify the cessation of the work
of respondents. Neither was there proof that petitioner complied with the substantive and procedural
requirements of due process.

Sandoval Shipyard Inc. vs. NLRC

GR no. L-65689 and 66119 May 31, 1985
FACTS:
Sandoval Shipyards, Inc. has been engaged in the building and repair of vessels. It contends that
each vessel is a separate project and that the employment of the workers is terminated with the
completion of each project. The workers contend otherwise. They claim to be regular workers and that the
termination of one project does not mean the end of their employment since they can be assigned to
unfinished projects.
In G.R. No. 65689, Rogelio Diamante, Manuel Pacres, Macario Saputalo, Rolando Cervales and
Dionisio Cervales were assigned to the construction of the LCT Catarman, Project No. 7511. After three
months of work, the project was completed on July 26, 1979. The five workers were served a termination
notice. The termination was reported to the Ministry of Labor on August 3, 1979. They filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal.
In G.R. No. 66119, respondents Danilo de la Cruz, et al., 17 in all, were assigned to work in
Project No. 7901 for the construction of a tanker ordered by Mobil Oil Philippines, Inc. There were 55
workers in that project. The tanker was launched on January 31, 1980. Upon the yard manager's
recommendation, the personnel manager of Sandoval Shipyards terminated the services of the welders,
helpers and construction workers effective February 4, 1980. The termination was duly reported to the
Ministry of Labor and Employment.
ISSUE: Whether or not the private respondents were project employees.
HELD:
Yes. The Court held that private respondents were project employees whose work was
coterminous with the project for which they were hired. Project employees, as distinguished from regular
or non-project employees, are mentioned in section 281 of the Labor Code as those "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."
Policy Instructions No. 20 of the Secretary of Labor, which was issued to stabilize employeremployee relations in the construction industry,
Respondent Deputy Minister Leogardo, Jr. ruled that the complainants "are project workers
whose employments are coterminous with the completion of the project, regardless of the number of
projects in which they have worked, as provided under Policy Instructions No. 20 of the Ministry of Labor
and Employment" and "as their employment is one for a definite period, they are not entitled to separation
pay." The public respondents in the instant two cases acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack of jurisdiction in disregarding these precedents.

Cartagenas vs. Romago Electric Inc. Co.

Gr no. 82973 Sept. 15, 1989
FACTS:
Respondent Romago is a general contractor engaged in contracting and sub-contracting of
specific building construction projects or undertaking such as electrical, mechanical and civil engineering
aspects in the repair of buildings and from other kindred services. Individual complainants are employed
by the respondent in connection with particular construction projects
Effective July 12,1986, individual complainants and Lawrence Deguit were temporarily laid-off by
virtue of a memorandum issued by the respondent. In said memorandum they were also informed that a
meeting regarding the resumption of operation will be held on July 16, 1986 and that they will be notified
as to when they will resume work.
On July 28, 1986, complainants filed the instant case for illegal dismissal but before the
respondent could receive a copy of the complaint and the notification and summons issued by the NLRC
National Capital Region (actually received only on August 22, 1986, page 4, records) individual
complainants re-applied with the respondent and were assigned to work with its project at RobinsonEDSA
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners are project employees or regular employees
HELD:
The petitioners are project employees. As an electrical contractor, the private respondent
depends for its business on the contracts it is able to obtain from real estate developers and builders of
buildings. Since its work depends on the availability of such contracts or "projects," necessarily the
duration of the employment of its work force is not permanent but co-terminus with the projects to which
they are assigned and from whose payrolls they are paid. It would be extremely burdensome for their
employer who, like them, depends on the availability of projects, if it would have to carry them as
permanent employees and pay them wages even if there are no projects for them to work on. The Court
held, therefore, that the NLRC did not abuse its discretion in finding, based on substantial evidence in the
records, that the petitioners are only project workers of the private respondent.
This case is similar to Sandoval Shipyards, Inc. vs. NLRC where the Court held that To our mind,
the employment of the employees concerned were fixed for a specific project or undertaking. For the
nature of the business the corporation is engaged into is one which will not allow it to employ workers for
an indefinite period.

Samson vs NLRC
Gr no. 113166 Feb. 1, 1996
Facts:
Petitioner had been working for respondent Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co. Manila for approximately
28 years and his project-to-project employment was renewed several times. His successive contracts of
employment required him to perform virtually the same kind of work throughout his period of employment.
Petitioner would be re-hired immediately, some for a gap of one day to one week from the last project to
the succeeding one.
Petitioner filed a complaint for the conversion of his employment status from project employee to
regular employee, which complaint was later amended to include claims for underpayment, non-payment
of premium pay for holiday and rest day, refund of reserve fund, and 10% thereof as attorneys
fees. Petitioner alleged therein that on the basis of his considerable and continuous length of service with
AG & P. he should already be considered a regular employee and, therefore, entitled to the benefits and
privileges appurtenant thereto.
The labor arbiter, in a decision dated June 30, 1993,[2] declared that petitioner should be
considered a regular employee on the ground that it has not been shown that AG & P had made the
corresponding report to the nearest Public Employment Office every time a project wherein petitioner was
assigned had been completed and his employment contract terminated, as required under DOLE Policy
Instruction No. 20. Furthermore, pursuant to the same policy instruction, the labor arbiter found that since
petitioner was not free to leave anytime and to offer his services to other employers, he should be
considered an employee for an indefinite period because he is a member of a work pool from which AG &
P draws its project employees and is considered an employee thereof during his membership therein,
hence the completion of the project does not mean termination of the employer-employee relationship.
Issue: WON petitioner is a regular employee
Held:
Yes. Article 281 of the Labor Code pertinently prescribes 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. Where from the circumstances it
appeared that periods have been imposed to preclude the acquisition of tenurial security by the
employee, they should be struck down as contrary to public policy, morals, good customs, or public order.
There can be no escape from the conclusion that the employee is a regular employee of the respondent.
It is not disputed that petitioner had been working for private respondent for approximately
twenty-eight (28) years as of the adjudication of his plaint by respondent NLRC, and that his project-toproject employment was renewed several times. With the successive contracts of employment wherein
petitioner continued to perform virtually the same kind of work, i.e., as rigger, throughout his period of
employment, it is manifest that petitioners.
Where from the circumstances it is apparent that periods have been imposed to preclude the
acquisition of tenurial security by the employee, they should be struck down as contrary to public policy,
morals, good customs or public order. As observed by the Solicitor General, the record of this case
discloses, as part of petitioners position paper, a certification duly issued by private respondent clearly
showing that the formers services were engaged by private respondent on a continuing basis since 1965.
The certification indubitably indicates that after a particular project has been accomplished, petitioner
would be re-hired immediately the following day save for a gap of one (1) day to one (1) week from the
last project to the succeeding one. There can, therefore, be no escape from the conclusion that petitioner
is a regular employee of private respondent.

D.M. Consunji Inc. vs NLRC

Gr No. 116572 Dec. 18, 2000
FACTS:
Private respondents were hired by petitioner as project employees to work on its Cebu Super
Block Project in Cebu City. On March 2, 1993, private respondents services were terminated allegedly
without regard to the date of termination as specified in their contracts of employment. Petitioner reported
the termination of their services to the nearest Regional Office of the Department of Labor alleging that
the term of the contracts of employment had expired. The private respondents then filed their respective
complaints for illegal dismissal.
Labor Arbiter explained that while the private respondents voluntarily signed the employment
contract which fixed the term of their employment, their dismissal was not actually based on the expiration
of the term of their employment because some of them were dismissed before the end of the contract and
there were those dismissed even long after its expiration.
ISSUES: a. Whether or not the private respondents were project employees
b. Whether or not the termination of their employment was illegal.
HELD:
a.
Yes. Their contracts of employment readily show that the private respondents were employed
with respect to a specific project. The private respondents in this case were workers in a construction
project of the petitioner. While employed with respect to a specific project, the contracts of employment
between the private respondents and the petitioner provide that the former were employed for a term of
one (1) month which was the estimated period for the project to be finished. The private respondents do
not even claim to be regular employees but merely that, as employees at the Cebu Super Block, they
were terminated before the completion of the project without just cause and due process. As project
employees, there is no showing that they were part of the work pool of the petitioner construction
company. Hence, in their memorandum, private respondents admit that they are not unaware that as
project employees their employment can be terminated upon the completion of the project. This Court has
held that the length of service of a project employee is not the controlling test of employment tenure but
whether or not 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.
b.
Yes. The inescapable conclusion is that Agraviador and Mendrez were terminated prior to the
expiration of the period of their employment without just cause, hence, their termination was
illegal. However, private respondents cannot be reinstated since the project they were assigned to was
already completely finished. What they are entitled to is the payment of their salaries corresponding to the
unexpired portions of their employment. Specifically, private respondents Agraviador and Mendrez are
entitled to the payment of their salaries equivalent to their salary from the time of termination until the
expiration of their employment period of one (1) month, the estimated period the project was to be
completed.

Cioco vs. CE Const. Corp

GR NO. 156748 Sept. 8, 2004
FACTS:
Isaac Cioco, Jr., Rebie A. Mercado, Benito V. Galvadores, Cecilio Solver, Carmelo Juanzo,
Benjamin Baysa, and Rodrigo Napoles (WORKERS) were hired by C.E. Construction Corporation
(COMPANY), a domestic corporation engaged in the construction business and managed by its ownerpresident, Mr. Johnny Tan. They were hired as carpenters and laborers in various construction projects
from 1990 to 1999, the latest of which was the GTI Tower in Makati. Prior to the start of every project, the
WORKERS signed individual employment contracts
Sometime in May and June 1999, the WORKERS, along with sixty-six (66) others, were
terminated by the COMPANY on the ground of completion of the phases of the GTI Tower project for
which they had been hired. Alleging that they were regular employees, the WORKERS filed complaints for
illegal dismissal with the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC. Claims for underpaid wages and unpaid
overtime pay, premium for holiday and rest days, service incentive leave pay, night shift differential, and
13th month pay were likewise demanded

ISSUE: Whether or not the workers are considered regular employees.

HELD:
No. The Court held that the fact that the WORKERS have been employed with the COMPANY for
several years on various projects, the longest being nine (9) years, did not automatically make them
regular employees considering that the definition of regular employment in Article 280 of the Labor Code,
makes specific exception with respect to project employment. The re-hiring of petitioners on a project-toproject basis did not confer upon them regular employment status. The practice was dictated by the
practical consideration that experienced construction workers are more preferred. It did not change their
status as project employees.

Caseres vs. Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corp.

GR No. 159343 Sept. 28, 2007
FACTS: Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation (respondent) is a corporation engaged in the cane
sugar milling business. Petitioners were employees.
At the start of their respective employments, they were made to sign a Contract of Employment for
Specific Project or Undertaking. Petitioners contracts were renewed from time to time, until May 1999
when they were informed that their contracts will not be renewed anymore.
Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, regularization, incentive leave pay, 13th month pay,
damages and attorneys fees.
ISSUE: WON they are regular employees
HELD: They are NOT regular employees
The principal test for determining whether an employee is a project employee or a regular employee is
whether 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.
It must be noted that there were intervals in petitioners respective employment contracts, and that their
work depended on the availability of such contracts or projects. Consequently, the employment of
URSUMCOs work force was not permanent but co-terminous with the projects to which the employees
were assigned and from whose payrolls they were paid
The fact that petitioners were constantly re-hired does not ipso facto establish that they became regular
employees. Their respective contracts with respondent show that there were intervals in their
employment. In petitioner Caseress case, while his employment lasted from August 1989 to May 1999,
the duration of his employment ranged from one day to several months at a time, and such successive
employments were not continuous. With regard to petitioner Pael, his employment never lasted for more
than a month at a time. These support the conclusion that they were indeed project employees, and since
their work depended on the availability of such contracts or projects, necessarily the employment of
respondents work force was not permanent but co-terminous with the projects to which they were
assigned and from whose payrolls they were paid.

Mercado vs. NLRC

GR No. 79869 Sept. 5, 1991
Facts:
Petitioners alleged in their complaint that they were agricultural workers utilized by private
respondents in all the agricultural phases of work on the 7 1/2 hectares of ace land and 10 hectares of
sugar land owned by the latter; that Fortunato Mercado, Sr. and Leon Santillan worked in the farm of
private respondents since 1949, Fortunato Mercado, Jr. and Antonio Mercado since 1972 and the rest of
the petitioners since 1960 up to April 1979, when they were all allegedly dismissed from their
employment; and that, during the period of their employment, petitioners received daily wages. The other
private respondents denied having any relationship whatsoever with the petitioners and state that they
were merely registered owners of the land in question included as correspondents in this case.
As a result, the petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter held
that the petitioners were not regular employees and the NLRC affirmed this ruling.
Issue: W/N the petitioners are regular and permanent farm workers
HELD: No, the petitioners are project/seasonal employees. Clearly, therefore, petitioners being project
employees, or, to use the correct term, seasonal employees, their employment legally ends upon
completion of the project or the season. The termination of their employment cannot and should not
constitute an illegal dismissal.
As such, the termination of employment cannot be considered as illegal dismissal. The petitioners are
free to contract their services to work for other farm owners.

Tacloban Sagkahan Rice and Corn Mills Co. vs NLRC

Gr No. 73806 Mar. 21, 1990
FACTS:
Private respondents, before their termination on July 25, 1983, were all regular employees of
petitioners. Carlito Codilan and Maximo Docena started working in 1958; Eugenio Go in 1961; Teofilo
Trangria in 1968; and Reynaldo Tulin in 1977. On July 25, 1983, petitioner Tan Cheng Pian alias "Piana"
told private respondents "to look for another job" without giving any reason.
Private respondents thus filed their complaint for illegal dismissal with the Regional Office, NLRC
at Tacloban City on August 23, 1983. At the hearing of September 28, 1983, private respondents, who
had been employed elsewhere, demanded payment of separation pay instead of seeking reinstatement.
After submission of private respondents' joint affidavit and petitioners' position paper, Executive Labor
Arbiter' Armando Polintan rendered the Decision of April 11, 1984 ordering petitioners to pay private
respondents their separation pay as specifically indicated in the said decision.

ISSUE: Whether or not the private respondents are regular employees.

HELD:
Yes. The evidence on record has established that private respondents Carlito Codilan and
Maximo Docena had been working for petitioners for 25 years, respondent Eugenio Go for 22 years,
respondent Teofilo Trangria for 15 years and respondent Reynaldo Tulin for 6 years. Aside from their
lengthy service, it should be noted that private respondents' employment was not fixed for a specific
project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of their
appointment or hiring. Likewise, it must be borne in mind that petitioners never rebutted private
respondents' claim that they performed activities usually necessary or desirable in the usual business of
the former.
Furthermore, the services performed or to be performed by private respondents are not seasonal
in nature. While it may be true that the harvest of palay is seasonal, the milling operations which is the
main business of petitioners are not seasonal. The fact is that big rice mills such as the one owned by
petitioners continue to operate and do business throughout the year even if there are only two or three
harvest seasons within the year. It is a common practice among farmers and rice dealers to store their
palay and to have the same milled as the need arises. Thus, the milling operations have no let-up. And
finally, considering the number of years that they have worked for petitioners (the lowest is 6 years),
private respondents have long attained the status of regular employees as defined under Art. 280 of the
Labor Code.