Types of Employment

Azisa A. Samad
 2 Major Types of Employment

 REGULAR
Regular Employee
 NON-REGULAR
Fixed Term Employee
Casual Employee
Seasonal Employee
Probitionationary Employee
Project Employee
*Art. 294 Labor Code Book VI IRR
1. Regular Employment

 Those who perform a particular activity which is

necessary or desirable in the usual business of the
employer, REGARDLESS if their length of service and the
contract entered into between the employer and the
employee.
1. Regular Employment

2 kind of Regular Employees

1. Those who engaged to perform activities which are usually
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer;
2. Those who have rendered at least one year of service, whether
continuous or broken, with respect to the activities in which they are
employed
1. Regular Employment

 Regular employees are further classified into

Regular employees - by nature of work.
It refers to those employees who perform a particular function which is
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer,
regardless of their length of service
Regular employees - by years of service.
It refers to those employees who have been performing the job,
regardless of its nature thereof, for at least a year
DIONARTO Q. NOBLEJAS, vs. ITALIAN MARITIME
ACADEMY PHILS., INC.
G.R. No. 207888 June 9, 2014
Fact:
Dionarto Q. Noblejas was appointed by respondent Italian Maritime
Acadamy Philippines, Inc. (IMAPI) as training instructor/assessor on a
contractual basis for three months effective May 20, 2009. After the
expiration of the three-month period, IMAPI hired Noblejas anew as training
instructor/assessor with the same salary rate but no written contract was
executed for his rehiring.

In a case for illegal dismissal filed by Noblejas against IMAPI, the former
claims that he already attained the status of a regular employee because he
was allowed to work beyond the stipulated period of his employment and he
performed functions which were necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of IMAPI.
DIONARTO Q. NOBLEJAS, vs. ITALIAN MARITIME
ACADEMY PHILS., INC.
G.R. No. 207888 June 9, 2014

Issue
Whether ot not Noblejas is a REGULAR EMPLOYEE
DIONARTO Q. NOBLEJAS, vs. ITALIAN MARITIME
ACADEMY PHILS., INC.
G.R. No. 207888 June 9, 2014
Ruling
Noblejas was employed by IMAPI as a training instructor/assessor for a
period of three months effective May 20, 2009. After the end of the three-
month period, he was rehired by IMAPI for the same position and continued
to work as such until March 16, 2010.

There is no dispute that the work of Noblejas was necessary or desirable in

the business or trade of IMAPI, a training and assessment center for seamen
and officers of vessels. Moreover, such continuing need for his services is
sufficient evidence of the necessity and indispensability of his services to
IMAPI’s business. Taken in this light, Noblejas had indeed attained the status
of a regular employee at the time he ceased to report for work on March 17,
2010.
2. Casual Employment

 one who is hired on occasional or temporary basis on an as-needed basis or to meet the
employer’s staffing needs during periods of unusual circumstances, like when the business
is at its peak or when the company has to meet the chain of supply and demand.
 The labor laws of the Philippines do not explicitly state a definition of a casual employee.
 However, according to the authorities - it is an employee who is engaged to perform an
activity not usually necessary or desirable to the course of business of the employer or
merely incidental to the business and is hired under the terms of casual employment and
for a definite period only.
 As a casual employee, they are devoid of security of tenure.
 When can a casual employee become a regular employee –

A Mechanic who is hired from time to time to fix the machinery in a manufacturing company
is a casual employee.
A painter in a realty company who was hired to repaint the company building is a casual
employee. Mechanical jobs are not directly related to the usual course of business of a realty
company. Work of a painter is not usually necessary to the business of a realty company.
Nevertheless, if these casual employees have rendered their services for at least a year,
whether continuous or intermittent, may ask for a right of regular employment with respect to
the work or activity for which these employees were employed. If regularized, they cannot be
terminated without valid cause.
3. Fixed-Term Employment

 Not Mentioned in Labor Code but it is coined and cited in a land

mark case*.
 The Employer and Employee to a fixed-term or duration of the
employement.

Brent School, Inc., et al. vs Zamora, etc, et al., 181 SCRA 702
BRENT SCHOOL, INC.DIMACHE vs. RONALDO ZAMORA and
DOROTEO R. ALEGRE
G.R. No. L-48494 February 5, 1990 en banc
Fact:
Doroteo R. Alegre was engaged as athletic director by Brent School, Inc. at a
yearly compensation of P20,000.00. The contract fixed a specific term for its
existence, five (5) years.
On April 20,1976, Alegre was given a copy of the report filed by Brent School
with the Department of Labor advising of the termination of his services effective on
July 16, 1976. The stated ground for the termination was "completion of contract,
expiration of the definite period of employment." Although protesting the
announced termination stating that his services were necessary and desirable in the
usual business of his employer, and his employment lasted for 5 years - therefore he
had acquired the status of regular employee - Alegre accepted an amount, and
signed a receipt therefor containing the phrase, "in full payment of services for the
period May 16, to July 17, 1976 as full payment of contract."
BRENT SCHOOL, INC.DIMACHE vs. RONALDO ZAMORA and
DOROTEO R. ALEGRE
G.R. No. L-48494 February 5, 1990 en banc

The Regional Director considered Brent School's report as an application for clearance
to terminate employment (not a report of termination), and accepting the recommendation of
the Labor Conciliator, refused to give such clearance and instead required the reinstatement
of Alegre, as a "permanent employee," to his former position without loss of seniority rights
and with full back wages.

Issue:
Whether or not the provisions of the Labor Code, as amended, have anathematized
"fixed period employment" or employment for a term.
BRENT SCHOOL, INC.DIMACHE vs. RONALDO ZAMORA and DOROTEO
R. ALEGRE
G.R. No. L-48494 February 5, 1990 en banc

Ruling:
Respondent Alegre's contract of employment with Brent School having lawfully
terminated with and by reason of the expiration of the agreed term of period thereof, he is
declared not entitled to reinstatement.

The employment contract between Brent School and Alegre was executed on July 18,
1971, at a time when the Labor Code of the Philippines (P.D. 442) had not yet been
promulgated. At that time, the validity of term employment was impliedly recognized by the
Termination Pay Law, R.A. 1052, as amended by R.A. 1787. Prior, thereto, it was the Code
of Commerce (Article 302) which governed employment without a fixed period, and also
implicitly acknowledged the propriety of employment with a fixed period. The Civil Code of
the Philippines, which was approved on June 18, 1949 and became effective on August
30,1950, itself deals with obligations with a period. No prohibition against term-or fixed-
period employment is contained in any of its articles or is otherwise deducible therefrom.
BRENT SCHOOL, INC.DIMACHE vs. RONALDO ZAMORA and DOROTEO
R. ALEGRE
G.R. No. L-48494 February 5, 1990 en banc

It is plain then that when the employment contract was signed between Brent School
and Alegre, it was perfectly legitimate for them to include in it a stipulation fixing the duration
thereof Stipulations for a term were explicitly recognized as valid by this Court.

The status of legitimacy continued to be enjoyed by fixed-period employment contracts

under the Labor Code (PD 442), which went into effect on November 1, 1974. The Code
contained explicit references to fixed period employment, or employment with a fixed or
definite period. Nevertheless, obscuration of the principle of licitness of term employment
began to take place at about this time.