FVR SKILLS AND SERVICES EXPONENTS (SKILLEX), et. Al. v. JOVERT SEVA, et. al. FACTS: Jovert and 27 others: employees of FVR FVR: independent contractor engaged in business of providing janitorial and other manpower services to its clients As early as 1998, some of respondents have already been employed by FVR as janitors, supervisor, leadmen, service crew, sanitation aides, or janitor aides 4/21/08: FVR entered into a Contract of Janitorial Service (service contract) with Robinsons Land Corporation o FVR shall supply janitorial, manpower and sanitation services to Robinsons Place Ermita Mall for one year (1/1-12/31 08) Halfway through service contract, FVR asked Jovert et. al. to excecute individual contracts which stipulated that their respective employments shall end on 12/31/08 FVR and Robinsons did not extend their contract of janitorial services. FVR dismissed the respondents – they were project employees whose duration of employment was dependent on service contract Respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal o Argument: they were regular employees, cannot be dismissed without just cause LA: not regular employees, but project employees. Since Service Contract not renewed, employment contracts must also be terminated NLRC: reversed LA ruling; regular employees; had been employed for more than 1 yr, some as early as 1998; no just cause for dismissal CA: affirmed NLRC decision o Work of respondents were necessary or desirable to FVR’s business of providing janitorial, manpower and sanitation services to clients o Continuing need for services (>1 yr) – regular, not project employees o Fixed term employment contracts has NO BINDING EFFECT Contracts were used to justify dismissal and prevent respondents from attaining regular status Respondents were only made to sign when it became clear that service contract with Rob would not be renewed Respondens were threatened that they would not be given their salaries if they did not sign FUlgencio Rana (president) and Monina Burgos (general manager) of FVR are solidarily liable with FVR for payment of monetary awards – acted in bad faith ISSUE 1. WON JOvert et.al. are regular employees of FVR2. 2. WON fixed term contract belatedly executed is valid 3. WON respondents were illegally dismissed 4. WON officers of FVR are solidarily liable HELD 1. Respondents REGULAR EMPLOYEES, not project employees Art. 294 (280) LC Two kinds of regular employees 1. Engaged to perform activities necessary or desirable in usual business or trade of ER 2. Casual employees who became regular after one year of service, whether continuous or broken (only with respect to activitiy for which they have been hired) Project employee One whose employment was fixed for a specific project or undertaking, whose completion or termination had been determined at the time of engagement Court used REASONABLE CONNECTION test: between activity performed by EE and ER’s business or trade Respondents work are necessary or desirable to FBR’s business Were already employed even before service contract D.O. 18-02. Contractor or subcontractor is considered as employer of contractual employee for purposes of enforcing provisions of LC and other social legislation Grants contractual employees all the rights and priviliges due a regular employee Safe and healthful working conditions Labor standards such as service incentive leave, rest days, overtime pay, holiday pay, 13 th month pay and separation pay Social security and welfare benefits Self-organization, collective bargaining and peaceful concerted action Security of tenure
THEREFORE: although respondents were assigned as contractual employees to the clients of FVR, under the law, they remain to be petitioner’s REGULAR employees, who are entitled to all the rights and benefits of regular employment 2. Employment contracts are VOIDABLE If FVR really intended respondents to be project employees, contracts should have been executed at time of hiring, not when service contract with Rob was about to end. It is a ploy to evade right to security of tenure Respondents were threated nonpayment of salaries – intimidation – voidable 3. Respondents ILLEGALLY DISMISSED Dismissal must comply with substantive and procedural requirements od due process SUbstantitve – just or authorized cause Procedural – twin notice and hearing requirements Respondents being regular employees, illegal dismissal took place when FVR failed to comply That resondents were absorved by Rob’s new contractors immaterial. FVR cannot excape liability by relying on goodwill of others Court cannot give credence to FVR’s assertion that under DO 18-02 Sec 10, respondents not entitled to separation pay because employment was terminated due to completion of project Sec 7 treats contractual employees as the independent contractor’s regular employees for purposes of enforcing the LC and other social legislation laws. 4. Officers not solidarily liable Respondents were not able to clearly show the definite participation of Burgos and Rana in their illegal dismissal – malice and bad faith not proven
