GOMA V. PAMPLONA PLANTATION (LABOR)

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

1. 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
2. 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.

Well-settled is the rule that regular employees enjoy SECURITY OF TENURE and they can only be dismissed for just cause and with due process, i.e., after notice and hearing. In cases involving an employee's dismissal, the burden is on the employer to prove that the dismissal was legal. This burden was not amply discharged by the respondent in this case. The requirement of substantive due process was not complied with. In view of the non-observance of both substantive and procedural due process, petitioner's dismissal from employment is declared ILLEGAL.