8/28/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 517

VOL. 517, MARCH 7, 2007 691

Rowell Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

*
G.R. No. 167714. March 7, 2007.

ROWELL INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. HON.

COURT OF APPEALS and JOEL TARIPE, respondents.

Labor Law; Employer-Employee Relationship; Article 280 of the

Labor Code, as amended, classifies employees into three categories, namely,
(1) regular employees, (2) project employees, and (3) casual employees;
Regular employees are classified into (a) regular employees by nature of
work, and, (b) regular employees by years of service.—Article 280 of the
Labor Code, as amended, classifies employees into three categories, namely:
(1) regular employees or those whose work is necessary or desirable to the
usual business of the employer; (2) project employees or those 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 services to be performed
is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season;
and (3) casual employees or those who are neither regular nor project
employees. Regular employees are further classified into: (1) regular
employees by nature of work; and (2) regular employees by years of service.
The former refers to those employees who perform a particular activity
which is necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the
employer, regardless of their length of service; while the latter refers to
those employees who have been performing the job, regardless of the nature
thereof, for at least a year.

Same; Same; Fixed-Term Employment; Article 280 of the Labor Code

does not proscribe or prohibit an employment contract with a fixed period.
—Article 280 of the Labor Code, as amended, however, does not proscribe
or prohibit an employment contract with a fixed period. It does not
necessarily follow that where the duties of the employee consist of activities
usually necessary or desirable in the usual business of the employer, the
parties are forbidden from agreeing on a period of time for the performance
of such activities. There is nothing essentially contradictory between a
definite period of employment and the nature of the employee’s duties.
What Article 280 of the Labor Code, as amended, seeks to prevent is the
practice

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

692

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cd3d9b44f5dd6ffe1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/13
8/28/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 517

692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Rowell Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

of some unscrupulous and covetous employers who wish to circumvent the

law that protects lowly workers from capricious dismissal from their
employment. The aforesaid provision, however, should not be interpreted in
such a way as to deprive employers of the right and prerogative to choose
their own workers if they have sufficient basis to refuse an employee a
regular status. Management has rights which should also be protected.

Same; Same; Same; Guidelines.—Although Article 280 of the Labor

Code, as amended, does not forbid fixed term employment, it must,
nevertheless, meet any of the following guidelines in order that it cannot be
said to circumvent security of tenure: (1) that the fixed period of
employment was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties,
without any force, duress or improper pressure being brought to bear upon
the employee and absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent; or
(2) it satisfactorily appears that the employer and employee dealt with each
other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance whatever being
exercised by the former on the latter.

Same; Same; Same; Contracts of Adhesion; Words and Phrases; A

contract in which the terms prepared by only one party and the other party
merely affixes his signature signifying his adhesion thereto is called contract
of adhesion, an agreement in which the parties bargaining are not on equal
footing, the weaker party’s participation being reduced to the alternative “to
take it or leave it.”—Petitioner RIC failed to controvert the claim of
respondent Taripe that he was made to sign the contract of employment,
prepared by petitioner RIC, as a condition for his hiring. Such contract in
which the terms are prepared by only one party and the other party merely
affixes his signature signifying his adhesion thereto is called contract of
adhesion. It is an agreement in which the parties bargaining are not on equal
footing, the weaker party’s participation being reduced to the alternative “to
take it or leave it.” In the present case, respondent Taripe, in need of a job,
was compelled to agree to the contract, including the five-month period of
employment, just so he could be hired. Hence, it cannot be argued that
respondent Taripe signed the employment contract with a fixed term of five
months willingly and with full knowledge of the impact thereof.

693

VOL. 517, MARCH 7, 2007 693

Rowell Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

Same; Same; Regular Employees; The primary standard of

determining regular employment is the reasonable connection between the
particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the casual
business or trade of the employer.—Settled is the rule that the primary
standard of determining regular employment is the reasonable connection
between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cd3d9b44f5dd6ffe1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/13
8/28/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 517
casual business or trade of the employer. The connection can be determined
by considering the nature of the work performed and its relation to the
scheme of the particular business or trade in its entirety.

Same; Same; Same; Regular employees enjoy security of tenure and

they can only be dismissed for just cause and with due process, notice and
hearing.—Well-established is the rule that regular employees enjoy security
of tenure and they can only be dismissed for just cause and with due
process, notice and hearing. And in case of employees’ dismissal, the
burden is on the employer to prove that the dismissal was legal. Thus,
respondent Taripe’s summary dismissal, not being based on any of the just
or authorized causes enumerated under Articles 282, 283, and 284 of the
Labor Code, as amended, is illegal.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
     Nestor P. Ricolcol for petitioner.
     Allan S. Montaño for private respondent.

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

This case is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the 1997

1
Revised Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to set aside the Decision
2
and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP

_______________

1 Penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta with Associate Justices

Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Josefina GuevaraSalonga, concurring, Rollo, pp. 17–27.
2 Id., at p. 28.

694

694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Rowell Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

No. 74104, entitled, Rowell Industrial Corp., and/or Edwin Tang vs.
National Labor Relations Commission and Joel Taripe, dated 30
September 2004 and 1 April 2005, respectively, which affirmed the
Resolutions3 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
dated 7 June 2002 and 20 August 2002, finding herein respondent
Joel Taripe (Taripe) as a regular employee who had been illegally
dismissed from employment by herein petitioner Rowell Industrial
Corp. (RIC), thereby ordering petitioner RIC to reinstate respondent
Taripe with full backwages, subject to the modification of
exonerating Edwin Tang, the RIC General Manager and Vice
President, from liability and computing the backwages of herein
respondent Taripe based on the prevailing salary rate at the time of
4
his dismissal. The NLRC Resolutions reversed the Decision of the
Labor Arbiter dated 29 September 2000, which dismissed
respondent Taripe’s complaint.
Petitioner RIC is a corporation engaged in manufacturing tin cans
for use in packaging of consumer products, e.g., foods, paints,
among other things. Respondent Taripe was employed by petitioner

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cd3d9b44f5dd6ffe1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/13
8/28/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 517
RIC on 8 November 1999 as a “rectangular power press machine
operator” with a salary of P223.50 per day, until he was allegedly
dismissed from his employment by the petitioner on 6 April 2000.
The controversy of the present case arose from the following
facts, as summarized by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals:

“On [17 February 2000], [herein respondent Taripe] filed a [C]omplaint

against [herein petitioner RIC] for regularization and payment of holiday
pay, as well as indemnity for severed finger, which was amended on [7 April
2000] to include illegal dismissal.

_______________

3 Penned by Commissioner Victoriano R. Calaycay with Presiding Commissioner

Raul T. Aquino and Commissioner Angelita A. Gacutan, concurring, Id., at pp. 36–
48; NLRC Records, pp. 147–148.
4 Penned by Labor Arbiter Natividad M. Roma, Id., at pp. 29–35.

695

VOL. 517, MARCH 7, 2007 695

Rowell Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

[Respondent Taripe] alleges that [petitioner RIC] employed him starting [8

November 1999] as power press machine operator, such position of which
was occupied by [petitioner RIC’s] regular employees and the functions of
which were necessary to the latter’s business. [Respondent Taripe] adds that
upon employment, he was made to sign a document, which was not
explained to him but which was made a condition for him to be taken in and
for which he was not furnished a copy. [Respondent Taripe] states that he
was not extended full benefits granted under the law and the [Collective
Bargaining Agreement] and that on [6 April 2000], while the case for
regularization was pending, he was summarily dismissed from his job
although he never violated any of the [petitioner RIC’s] company rules and
regulations.
[Petitioner RIC], for [its] part, claim[s] that [respondent Taripe] was a
contractual employee, whose services were required due to the increase in
the demand in packaging requirement of [its] clients for Christmas season
and to build up stock levels during the early part of the following year; that
on [6 March 2000], [respondent Taripe’s] employment contract expired.
[Petitioner RIC] avers that the information update for union members,
which was allegedly filled up by [respondent Taripe] and submitted by the
Union to [petitioner] company, it is stated therein that in the six (6)
companies where [respondent Taripe] purportedly worked, the latter’s
reason for leaving was “finished contract,” hence, [respondent Taripe] has
knowledge about being employed by contract contrary to his allegation that
the document he was signing was not explained to him. [Petitioner RIC]
manifest[s] that all benefits, including those under the [Social Security
5
System], were given to him on [12 May 2000].”

On 29 September 2000, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision

dismissing respondent Taripe’s Complaint based on a finding that he
was a contractual employee whose contract merely expired. The
dispositive portion of the said Decision reads, thus:

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cd3d9b44f5dd6ffe1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/13
8/28/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 517
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered
declaring this complaint of [herein respondent Taripe] against [herein
petitioner RIC] and Mr. Edwin Tang for illegal dismissal

_______________

5 Id., at pp. 18–19.

696

696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Rowell Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

DISMISSED for lack of merit. However, on ground of compassionate

justice, [petitioner RIC and Mr. Edwin Tang] are hereby ordered to pay
[respondent Taripe] the sum of PHP5,811.00 or one month’s salary as
financial assistance and holiday pay in the sum of PHP894.00, as well as
6
attorney’s fees of 10% based on holiday pay (Article 110, Labor Code).”

Aggrieved, respondent Taripe appealed before the NLRC. In a

Resolution dated 7 June 2002, the NLRC granted the appeal filed by
respondent Taripe and declared that his employment with the
petitioner was regular in status; hence, his dismissal was illegal. The
decretal portion of the said Resolution reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, [herein respondent Taripe’s] appeal

is GRANTED. The Labor Arbiter’s [D]ecision in the above-entitled case is
hereby REVERSED. It is hereby declared that [respondent Taripe’s]
employment with [herein petitioner RIC and Mr. Edwin Tang] is regular in
status and that he was illegally dismissed therefrom.
[Petitioner RIC and Mr. Edwin Tang] are hereby ordered to reinstate
[respondent Taripe] and to jointly and severally pay him full backwages
from the time he was illegally dismissed up to the date of his actual
reinstatement, less the amount of P1,427.67. The award of P894.00 for
holiday pay is AFFIRMED but the award of P5,811.00 for financial
assistance is deleted. The award for attorney’s fees is hereby adjusted to ten
7
percent (10%) of [respondent Taripe’s] total monetary award.”

Dissatisfied, petitioner RIC moved for the reconsideration of the

aforesaid Resolution but it was denied in the Resolution of the
NLRC dated 20 August 2002.
Consequently, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule
65 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure before the Court of
Appeals with the following assignment of errors:

_______________

6 Id., at p. 35.
7 Id., at pp. 45–46.

697

VOL. 517, MARCH 7, 2007 697

Rowell Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cd3d9b44f5dd6ffe1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/13
8/28/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 517
I. THE [NLRC] GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION
AND IS IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION WHEN IT
MISINTERPRETED ARTICLE 280 OF THE LABOR
CODE AND IGNORED JURISPRUDENCE WHEN IT
DECIDED THAT [RESPONDENT TARIPE] IS A
REGULAR EMPLOYEE AND THUS, ILLEGALLY
DISMISSED.
II. THE [NLRC] GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION
AND IS IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION WHEN IT
ORDERED [EDWIN TANG] TO (sic) JOINTLY AND
SEVERALLY LIABLE FOR MONETARY CLAIMS OF
[RESPONDEN TARIPE].
III. THE [NLRC] GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION
AND IS IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION WHEN IT
ORDERED PAYMENT OF MONETARY CLAIMS
8
COMPUTED ON AN ERRONEOUS WAGE RATE.

The Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Decision on 30

September 2004, affirming the Resolution of the NLRC dated 7 June
2002, with modifications. Thus, it disposed—

“WHEREFORE, the Resolutions dated [7 June 2002] and [20 August 2002]
of [the NLRC] are affirmed, subject to the modification that [Edwin Tang] is
exonerated from liability and the computation of backwages of [respondent
9
Taripe] shall be based on P223.50, the last salary he received.”

A Motion for Reconsideration of the aforesaid Decision was filed by

petitioner RIC, but the same was denied for lack of merit in a
10
Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated 1 April 2005.
Hence, this Petition.
Petitioner RIC comes before this Court with the lone issue of
whether the Court of Appeals misinterpreted Article 280 of the
Labor Code, as amended, and ignored jurisprudence when it
affirmed that respondent Taripe was a regular employee and was
illegally dismissed.

_______________

8 Id., at p. 21.
9 Id., at p. 26.
10 Supra note 2.

698

698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Rowell Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

11
Petitioner RIC, in its Memorandum, argues that the Court of
Appeals had narrowly interpreted Article 280 of the Labor Code, as
amended, and disregarded a contract voluntarily entered into by the
parties.
Petitioner RIC emphasizes that while an employee’s status of
employment is vested by law pursuant to Article 280 of the Labor
Code, as amended, said provision of law admits of two exceptions,
to wit: (1) those employments which have been fixed for a specific
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cd3d9b44f5dd6ffe1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/13
8/28/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 517
project or undertaking, the completion or termination of which has
been determined at the time of the engagement of the employment;
and (2) when the work or services to be performed are seasonal;
hence, the employment is for the duration of the season. Thus, there
are certain forms of employment which entail the performance of
usual and desirable functions and which exceed one year but do not
necessarily qualify as regular employment under Article 280 of the
Labor Code, as amended.
The Petition is unmeritorious.
A closer examination of Article 280 of the Labor Code, as
amended, is imperative to resolve the issue raised in the present
case.
In declaring that respondent Taripe was a regular employee of the
petitioner and, thus, his dismissal was illegal, the Court of Appeals
ratiocinated in this manner:

“In determining the employment status of [herein respondent Taripe],

reference must be made to Article 280 of the Labor Code, which provides:
xxxx
Thus, there are two kinds of regular employees, namely: (1) those who
are engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in
the usual business or trade of the employer; and (2) those who have
rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, with
respect to the activity in which they are

_______________

11 Rollo, pp. 98–104.

699

VOL. 517, MARCH 7, 2007 699

Rowell Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

employed. [Respondent Taripe] belonged to the first category of regular

employees.
The purported contract of employment providing that [respondent
Taripe] was hired as contractual employee for five (5) months only, cannot
prevail over the undisputed fact that [respondent Taripe] was hired to
perform the function of power press operator, a function necessary or
desirable in [petitioner’s] business of manufacturing tin cans. [Herein
petitioner RIC’s] contention that the four (4) months length of service of
[respondent Taripe] did not grant him a regular status is inconsequential,
considering that length of service assumes importance only when the
activity in which the employee has been engaged to perform is not
necessary or desirable to the usual business or trade of the employer.
As aptly ruled by [the NLRC]:
“In the instant case, there is no doubt that [respondent Taripe], as power
press operator, has been engaged to perform activities which are usually
necessary or desirable in [petitioner RIC’s] usual business or trade of
manufacturing of tin cans for use in packaging of food, paint and others. We
also find that [respondent Taripe] does not fall under any of the
abovementioned exceptions. Other that (sic) [petitioner RIC’s] bare
allegation thereof, [it] failed to present any evidence to prove that he was
employed for a fixed or specific project or undertaking the completion of

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cd3d9b44f5dd6ffe1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/13
8/28/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 517
which has been determined at the time of his engagement or that
[respondent Taripe’s] services are seasonal in nature and that his
12
employment was for the duration of the season.”

Article 280 of the Labor Code, as amended, provides:

“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

_______________

12 Id., at pp. 22-23.

700

700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Rowell Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

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.”
[Emphasis supplied]

The aforesaid Article 280 of the Labor Code, as amended, classifies

employees into three categories, namely: (1) regular employees or
those whose work is necessary or desirable to the usual business of
the employer; (2) project employees or those 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 services to be
performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the
duration of the season; and (3) casual employees or those who are
13
neither regular nor project employees.
Regular employees are further classified into: (1) regular
employees by nature of work; and (2) regular employees by years of
14
service. The former refers to those employees who perform a
particular activity which is necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer, regardless of their length of
service; while the latter refers to those employees who have been
performing the job, regardless of the nature thereof, for at least a
15
year.
The aforesaid Article 280 of the Labor Code, as amended,
however, does not proscribe or prohibit an employment con-

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cd3d9b44f5dd6ffe1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/13
8/28/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 517
_______________

13 Pangilinan vs. General Milling Corporation, G.R. No. 149329, 12 July 2004,
434 SCRA 159, 169.
14 E. Ganzon, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 123769, 22
December 1999, 321 SCRA 434, 440.
15 Pangilinan vs. General Milling Corporation, supra note 13 at pp. 169–170.

701

VOL. 517, MARCH 7, 2007 701

Rowell Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

tract with a fixed period. It does not necessarily follow that where
the duties of the employee consist of activities usually necessary or
desirable in the usual business of the employer, the parties are
forbidden from agreeing on a period of time for the performance of
such activities. There is nothing essentially contradictory between a
definite period of employment and the nature of the employee’s
16
duties. What Article 280 of the Labor Code, as amended, seeks to
prevent is the practice of some unscrupulous and covetous
employers who wish to circumvent the law that protects lowly
workers from capricious dismissal from their employment. The
aforesaid provision, however, should not be interpreted in such a
way as to deprive employers of the right and prerogative to choose
their own workers if they have sufficient basis to refuse an employee
a regular status. Management has rights which should also be
17
protected.
In the case at bar, respondent Taripe signed a contract of
employment prior to his admission into the petitioner’s company.
Said contract of employment provides, among other things:

“4. That my employment shall be contractual for the period of five (5)
months which means that the end of the said period, I can (sic) discharged
18
unless this contract is renewed by mutual consent or terminated for cause.”

Based on the said contract, respondent Taripe’s employment with the

petitioner is good only for a period of five months unless the said
contract is renewed by mutual consent. And as claimed by petitioner
RIC, respondent Taripe, along with its other contractual employees,
was hired only to meet the increase in demand for packaging
materials during

_______________

16 Id., at p. 170.
17 Pantranco North Express, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R.
No. 106654, 16 December 1994, 239 SCRA 272, 279.
18 CA Rollo, p. 27.

702

702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Rowell Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cd3d9b44f5dd6ffe1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/13
8/28/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 517
the Christmas season and also to build up stock levels during the
early part of the year.
Although Article 280 of the Labor Code, as amended, does not
forbid fixed term employment, it must, nevertheless, meet any of the
following guidelines in order that it cannot be said to circumvent
security of tenure: (1) that the fixed period of employment was
knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties, without any
force, duress or improper pressure being brought to bear upon the
employee and absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent;
or (2) it satisfactorily appears that the employer and employee dealt
with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral
19
dominance whatever being exercised by the former on the latter.
In the present case, it cannot be denied that the employment
contract signed by respondent Taripe did not mention that he was
hired only for a specific undertaking, the completion of which had
been determined at the time of his engagement. The said
employment contract neither mentioned that respondent Taripe’s
services were seasonal in nature and that his employment was only
for the duration of the Christmas season as purposely claimed by
petitioner RIC. What was stipulated in the said contract was that
respondent Taripe’s employment was contractual for the period of
five months.
Likewise, as the NLRC mentioned in its Resolution, to which the
Court of Appeals agreed, other than the bare allegations of petitioner
RIC that respondent Taripe was hired only because of the increase in
the demand for packaging materials during the Christmas season,
petitioner RIC failed to substantiate such claim with any other
evidence. Petitioner RIC did not present any evidence which might
prove that respondent Taripe was employed for a fixed or specific
project or that his services were seasonal in nature.

_______________

19 Philippine National Oil Co.-Energy Dev’t. Corp. vs. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 97747, 31 March 1993, 220 SCRA 695, 699.

703

VOL. 517, MARCH 7, 2007 703

Rowell Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

Also, petitioner RIC failed to controvert the claim of respondent

Taripe that he was made to sign the contract of employment,
prepared by petitioner RIC, as a condition for his hiring. Such
contract in which the terms are prepared by only one party and the
other party merely affixes his signature signifying his adhesion
20
thereto is called contract of adhesion. It is an agreement in which
the parties bargaining are not on equal footing, the weaker party’s
21
participation being reduced to the alternative “to take it or leave it.”
In the present case, respondent Taripe, in need of a job, was
compelled to agree to the contract, including the five-month period
of employment, just so he could be hired. Hence, it cannot be argued
that respondent Taripe signed the employment contract with a fixed
term of five months willingly and with full knowledge of the impact
thereof.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cd3d9b44f5dd6ffe1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/13
8/28/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 517
With regard to the second guideline, this Court agrees with the
Court of Appeals that petitioner RIC and respondent Taripe cannot
be said to have dealt with each other on more or less equal terms
with no moral dominance exercised by the former over the latter. As
a power press operator, a rank and file employee, he can hardly be
on equal terms with petitioner RIC. As the Court of Appeals said,
“almost always, employees agree to any terms of an employment
contract just to get employed considering that it is difficult to find
22
work given their ordinary qualifications.”
Therefore, for failure of petitioner RIC to comply with the
necessary guidelines for a valid fixed term employment contract, it
can be safely stated that the aforesaid contract signed by respondent
Taripe for a period of five months was a mere subterfuge to deny to
the latter a regular status of employment.

_______________

20 Fabrigas vs. San Francisco del Monte, Inc., G.R. No. 152346, 25 November
2005, 476 SCRA 247, 263.
21 Qua Chee Gan vs. Law Union and Rock Insurance Co., Ltd., 98 Phil. 85, 95
(1955).
22 Rollo, p. 25.

704

704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Rowell Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

Settled is the rule that the primary standard of determining regular

employment is the reasonable connection between the particular
activity performed by the employee in relation to the casual business
or trade of the employer. The connection can be determined by
considering the nature of the work performed and its relation to the
23
scheme of the particular business or trade in its entirety.
Given the foregoing, this Court agrees in the findings of the
Court of Appeals and the NLRC that, indeed, respondent Taripe, as a
rectangular power press machine operator, in charge of
manufacturing covers for “four liters rectangular tin cans,” was
holding a position which is necessary and desirable in the usual
business or trade of petitioner RIC, which was the manufacture of
tin cans. Therefore, respondent Taripe was a regular employee of
petitioner RIC by the nature of work he performed in the company.
Respondent Taripe does not fall under the exceptions mentioned
in Article 280 of the Labor Code, as amended, because it was not
proven by petitioner RIC that he was employed only for a specific
project or undertaking or his employment was merely seasonal.
Similarly, the position and function of power press operator cannot
be said to be merely seasonal. Such position cannot be considered as
only needed for a specific project or undertaking because of the very
nature of the business of petitioner RIC. Indeed, respondent Taripe is
a regular employee of petitioner RIC and as such, he cannot be
dismissed from his employment unless there is just or authorized
cause for his dismissal.
Well-established is the rule that regular employees enjoy security
of tenure and they can only be dismissed for just cause and with due
24
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cd3d9b44f5dd6ffe1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/13
8/28/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 517
24
process, notice and hearing. And in case of employees’ dismissal,
the burden is on the employer to

_______________

23 Lopez vs. Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System, G.R. No. 154472, 30
June 2005, 462 SCRA 428, 453.
24 Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation vs. Angara, G.R. No. 142937,
15 November 2005, 475 SCRA 41, 61.

705

VOL. 517, MARCH 7, 2007 705

Rowell Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

prove that the dismissal was legal. Thus, respondent Taripe’s

summary dismissal, not being based on any of the just or authorized
25 26 27
causes enumerated under Articles 282, 283, and 284 of the
Labor Code, as amended, is illegal.

_______________

25 ART. 282. TERMINATION BY EMPLOYER.—An employer may terminate an

employment for any of the following causes.
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful
orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;
(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his
employer or duly authorized representatives;
(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his
employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized
representative; and
Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
26 ART. 283. CLOSURE OF ESTABLISHMENT AND REDUCTION OF
PERSONNEL.—The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee
due to the installation of labor saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent
losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking
unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by
serving a written notice on the worker and the Ministry of Labor and Employment
[now Secretary of Labor] at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. In
case of termination due to the installation of labor saving devices or redundancy, the
worker affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least one
(1) month pay or to at least one (1) month pay for every year of service, whichever is
higher. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation
of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or
financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at
least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A
fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered as one (1) whole year.
27 ART. 284. DISEASE AS GROUND FOR TERMINATION.—An employer
may terminate the services of an employee who has been found to be suffering from
any disease and whose continued

706

706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cd3d9b44f5dd6ffe1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/13
8/28/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 517

Rowell Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

Before concluding, we once more underscore the settled precept that

factual findings of the NLRC, having deemed to acquire expertise in
matters within its jurisdiction, are generally accorded not only
respect but finality especially when such factual findings are
28
affirmed by the Court of Appeals; hence, such factual findings are
binding on this Court.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is
hereby DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of
Appeals dated 30 September 2004 and 1 April 2005, respectively,
which affirmed with modification the Resolutions of the NLRC
dated 7 June 2002 and 20 August 2002, respectively, finding herein
respondent Taripe as a regular employee who had been illegally
dismissed from employment by petitioner RIC, are hereby
AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner RIC.
SO ORDERED.

          Ynares-Santiago (Chairperson), Austria-Martinez and

Nachura, JJ., concur.
     Callejo, Sr., J., On Leave.

Petition denied.

Note.—Contracts of adhesion are as binding as ordinary

contracts. (Serra vs. Court of Appeals, 229 SCRA 60 [1994])

——o0o——

_______________

employment is prohibited by law or is prejudicial to his health as well as to the

health of his co-employees: Provided, That he is paid separation pay equivalent to at
least one (1) month salary or to onehalf (1/2) month salary for every year of service,
whichever is greater, a fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one (1)
whole year.
28 Land and Housing Development Corporation vs. Esquillo, G.R. No. 152012, 30
September 2005, 471 SCRA 488, 494.

707

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cd3d9b44f5dd6ffe1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/13