Capule vs. NLRC

Under Article 280 of the Labor Code, an employee whose work is not usually necessary or desirable in the employer's usual business or trade is a casual employee; if dismissed before rendering at least one year of service, such employee cannot be considered regular and cannot lawfully claim illegal dismissal.

Private respondent Yakult Philippines, Inc. is engaged in the manufacture of cultured milk sold under the brand name "Yakult." Petitioners Policarpio Capule and Luis Madoro were hired to cut cogon grass and weeds at the back of the factory building used by private respondents. They were not required to work on a fixed schedule and worked on any day of the week at their own discretion and convenience. Article 280 of the Labor Code supplies the statutory framework for determining whether their employment was regular or casual.

Private respondent Yakult Philippines, Inc. manufactures cultured milk sold under the brand name "Yakult." Petitioners Policarpio Capule and Luis Madoro were hired to cut cogon grass and weeds at the back of the factory building used by private respondents. They were not required to work on a fixed schedule; they worked on any day of the week at their own discretion and convenience.

On July 13, 1987, private respondent terminated their services. The termination led petitioners to file a complaint for illegal dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission.

Private respondent had shown that petitioners' services were found to be unsatisfactory, and this was the ground for their termination.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioners alleged that public respondent NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering its decision setting aside the labor arbiter's ruling.
• Resolution of Doubts in Favor of Labor: Petitioners invoked Article 4 of the Labor Code and Article 1702 of the Civil Code, arguing that all doubts should be resolved in favor of labor.

• Dismissal of Casual or Temporary Employees Before One Year: Whether casual or temporary employees may be dismissed by the employer before the expiration of the one-year period of employment.
• Nature of Employment: Whether petitioners were regular employees under Article 280 of the Labor Code, considering that their work consisted of cutting cogon grass and weeds at the back of private respondent's factory.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the labor arbiter's decision and ordering payment of one month's pay each on humanitarian considerations.
• Resolution of Doubts in Favor of Labor: Whether Article 4 of the Labor Code and Article 1702 of the Civil Code require resolution of doubts in favor of petitioners.

• Dismissal of Casual or Temporary Employees Before One Year: No. Casual employees dismissed before completing one year of service cannot lawfully claim illegal dismissal; Article 280 of the Labor Code requires at least one year of service before a casual employee becomes regular.
• Nature of Employment: Casual. Cutting cogon grass and weeds is not usually necessary or desirable in Yakult's business of manufacturing cultured milk; it is alien thereto.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: No. The NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion; the petition is devoid of merit.
• Resolution of Doubts in Favor of Labor: No. The invocation of Article 4 of the Labor Code and Article 1702 of the Civil Code did not warrant relief, the petition being devoid of merit.

• Dismissal of Casual or Temporary Employees Before One Year: Article 280 provides that an employment is regular where the employee is engaged to perform activities usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except fixed project or seasonal work. If not covered, employment is casual. Any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, continuous or broken, is considered regular with respect to the activity in which employed, and employment continues while such activity actually exists. Petitioners were casual employees because their work was not necessary or desirable to Yakult's business. They were dismissed before the expiration of the one-year period. Therefore, they could not lawfully claim illegal dismissal. Private respondent had shown that their services were unsatisfactory, which was the ground for termination.
• Nature of Employment: The usual business or trade of private respondent is the manufacture of cultured milk. Cutting cogon grasses in the premises of its factory is hardly necessary or desirable in that business; indeed, it is alien thereto. The Solicitor General's opinion that such work may be considered usually necessary or desirable was rejected. Thus, petitioners were casual employees, not regular employees under Article 280.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Because petitioners were casual employees and their dismissal before one year of service was not illegal, the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in setting aside the labor arbiter's decision and awarding one month's pay each on humanitarian considerations. The petition lacks merit.
• Resolution of Doubts in Favor of Labor: The Court found the petition devoid of merit notwithstanding petitioners' invocation of Article 4 of the Labor Code and Article 1702 of the Civil Code. The Court did not apply these provisions to overturn the NLRC's ruling.

• Regular and Casual Employment under Article 280 of the Labor Code — An employment is regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities 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 engagement, or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season. An employment is casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph. The Court applied this provision by holding that cutting cogon grass and weeds is not usually necessary or desirable in Yakult's business of manufacturing cultured milk, making petitioners casual employees.
• One-Year Service Requirement for Casual Employees — Any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether 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 actually exists. The Court applied this rule by holding that petitioners, having been dismissed before the expiration of the one-year period, could not be considered regular employees and could not lawfully claim illegal dismissal.

• "The center of controversy in this petition is whether or not casual or temporary employees may be dismissed by the employer before the expiration of the one-year period of employment." — States the core issue resolved by the Court.
• "The usual business or trade of private respondents is the manufacture of cultured milk. The cutting of the cogon grasses in the premises of its factory is hardly necessary or desirable in the usual business of the private respondents. Indeed, it is alien thereto." — Establishes the ratio for classifying petitioners as casual employees.
• "Nevertheless, they may be considered regular employees if they have rendered services for at least one (1) year. When, as in this case, they were dismissed from their employment before the expiration of the one-year period they cannot lawfully claim that their dismissal was illegal." — States the controlling rule on the one-year service requirement for casual employees.
• "Indeed, private respondent had shown that the services of the petitioners were found to be unsatisfactory, so, their termination." — Records the factual basis for the termination.

• Article 280, Labor Code — Defines regular and casual employment. The Court applied it by holding that because cutting cogon grass is not usually necessary or desirable in Yakult's cultured milk business, petitioners were casual employees; because they had not rendered one year of service, they were not regular and their dismissal before one year was not illegal.
• Article 4, Labor Code — Invoked by petitioners for resolution of doubts in favor of labor. The Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
• Article 1702, Civil Code — Invoked by petitioners for construction of labor contracts in favor of labor. The Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit.

Narvasa (Chairman), Cruz, Grino-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.