G.R. No. 173849 - PIER 8 ARRASTRE & STEVEDORING SERVICES, INC. AND/ OR ELIODORO C. CRUZ, VS. JEFF B. BOCLOT. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, complainants appeal is partly GRANTED. The Labor Arbiters assailed Decision in the above-entitled case is hereby MODIFIED. Complainant is hereby declared a regular employee of Respondents. The dismissal of Complainants claim for benefits under the CBA and other monetary claims are AFFIRMED for lack of jurisdiction and lack of merit, respectively. [14] (Italics ours.) The NLRC gave credence to respondents allegations that the Labor Arbiter committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing respondents claim for regularization. The NLRC ruled that petitioners failure, without reasonable explanation, to present proof of absences of regular stevedores leads to the conclusion that the stevedores, termed by petitioners as relievers, work on rotation basis, just like the regular stevedores. The NLRC predicated its findings that respondent is a regular employee of petitioners on the reasonable connection between the activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer. According to the NLRC, although respondent rendered an average of 6.34 days of work a month, the activities performed were usually necessary and desirable in the business of petitioners. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the foregoing NLRC Resolution dated 29 October 2004 but this was subsequently denied in another NLRC Resolution issued on 29 December 2004. Upon a denial of their motion for reconsideration by the NLRC, petitioners elevated their case to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction. On 18 November 2005, the Court of Appeals dismissed the Petition for Certiorari and affirmed the Resolutions of the NLRC finding respondent to be a regular employee. The Court of Appeals grounded its Decision on this Courts previous rulings that what determines regularity or casualness is not the employment contract, written or otherwise, but the nature of the job. Citing De Leon v. National Labor Relations Commission, [15] which enumerated the standards for determining regular employment, the Court of Appeals ruled that even assuming that respondent was able to render services for only 228.5 days in a period of 36 months, the fact remains that his services were continuously utilized by petitioners in their business. Where the job is usually necessary or desirable to the main business of the employer, then the employment is regular. [16] The pertinent portions of the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals are herein reproduced: Applying the above-mentioned principles, private respondents task of loading and unloading cargoes to and from the vessels is undoubtedly necessary and desirable to the business of petitioners arrastre and stevedoring services. Equally unavailing is the petitioners contention that being a reliever or an extra worker, private respondent cannot be deemed as