G.R. NO. 150658 - NOELITO FABELA, MARCELO DELA CRUZ III, ROGELIO LASAT, HENRY MALIWANAG, MANUEL DELOS SANTOS, AND ROMMEL QUINES, VS. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION AND ARMAN HICARTE. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter and of the NLRC. The appellate court accordingly dismissed petitioners' complaints. In granting respondents' petition, the appellate court ratiocinated: At bar, there is not any least indication that the employment contract was not knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon between the parties nary any force or improper pressure upon the employee nor any circumstances vitiating his consent. Neither is there any indication or signal of improper pressure in the execution of the contract nor that the employer and the employee did not deal with each other on equal terms absent any moral dominance by the employer upon the employee. Finally, at the time the contracts were entered into, the parties were pretty aware of the day certain which must necessarily come although still unknown when at which time the contract will self- expire. [8] (Underscoring supplied) Their motion for reconsideration having been denied by the Court of Appeals by Resolution of October 29, 2001, petitioners filed the present petition. The validity of the termination of petitioners' services depends on whether they were hired for a fixed period, as claimed by respondents, or as regular employees who may not be dismissed except for just or authorized causes. Article 280 of the Labor Code defines regular employment as follows: 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 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 actually exists. (Emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied) In Pure Foods Corp. v. NLRC, [9] this Court held that under the above-quoted provision, there are two kinds of regular employees, namely: (1) those who are engaged to perform activities which are necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, and (2) those casual employees who have rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in which they are employed. Article 280 also recognizes project employees, those whose "employment has been fixed for a specific project or under