2. Pier 8 Arrastre & Stevedoring Services v. Boclot (Kara) obtained without prior membership in the union.
September 8, 2007 | Chico-Nazario, J. | Classes of Employment
PETITIONER: PIER 8 ARRASTRE & STEVEDORING SERVICES, INC.
and/ or ELIODORO C. CRUZ
RESPONDENT: JEFF B. BOCLOT
SUMMARY: Boclot was hired by PASSI to perform the functions of a
stevedore. Later on, Boclot filed Complaint with the Labor Arbiter claiming
regularization; payment of service incentive leave and 13th month pays;
moral, exemplary and actual damages; and attorney’s fees.
He alleged that he was hired by PASSI in October 1999 and was issued
company ID No. 304, a PPA Pass and SSS documents. In fact, respondent
contended that he became a regular employee by April 2000, since it was his
sixth continuous month in service in PASSI’s regular course of business. He
argued on the basis of Articles 280 and 281 of the Labor Code. He maintains
that under paragraph 2 of Article 280, he should be deemed a regular
employee having rendered at least one year of service with the company.
WON he has attained regular status? YES. Though usual and necessary, his
employment is dependent on availability of work (he can only as a stevedore
in the absence of the employee regularly employed for the very same
function). The situation of respondent is akin to that of a seasonal or project
or term employee, albeit on a daily basis.
The Supreme Court still finds respondent to be a regular employee on the
basis of pertinent provisions under the CBA between PASSI and its Workers’
union, wherein it was stated that it agrees to convert to regular status all
incumbent probationary or casual employees and workers in the Company
who have served the Company for an accumulated service term of
employment of not less than six (6) months from his original date of hiring.
Respondent assents that he is not a member of the union, as he was not
recognized by PASSI as its regular employee, but this Court notes that PASSI
adopts a union-shop agreement, culling from Article II of its CBA. Under a
union-shop agreement, although nonmembers may be hired, an employee is
required to become a union member after a certain period, in order to retain
employment.This requirement applies to present and future employees. The
same article of the CBA stipulates that employment in PASSI cannot be
Hence, applying the foregoing provisions of the CBA, respondent should be
considered a regular employee after six months of accumulated service.
Having rendered 228.5 days, or eight months of service to petitioners since
1999, then respondent is entitled to regularization by virtue of the said CBA
provisions.
DOCTRINE: Under the foregoing provision, a regular employee is (1) one
who is either engaged to perform activities that are necessary or desirable in
the usual trade or business of the employer except for project or seasonal
employees; or (2) a casual employee who has rendered at least one year of
service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in which
he is employed. Additionally, Article 281 of the Labor Code further considers
a regular employee as one who is allowed to work after a probationary
period.
FACTS:
1. Octobe Petitioner Pier 8 Arrastre and Stevedoring Services, Inc.
(PASSI) is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of
providing arrastre and stevedoring services[5] at Pier 8 in the
Manila North Harbor. PASSI has been rendering arrastre and
stevedoring services at the port area since 1974 and employs
stevedores who assist in the loading and unloading of cargoes to
and from the vessels. Petitioner Eliodoro C. Cruz is its Vice-
President and General Manager. Respondent Jeff B. Boclot was
hired by PASSI to perform the functions of a stevedore starting 20
September 1999.
2. On 15 April 2000, the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) seized the
facilities and took over the operations of PASSI through its Special
Takeover Unit, absorbing PASSI workers as well as their relievers.
By virtue of a Decision dated 9 January 2001 of the Court of
Appeals, petitioners were able to regain control of their arrastre
and stevedoring operations at Pier 8 on 12 March 2001.
3. On 9 May 2003, respondent filed a Complaint with the Labor
Arbiter of the NLRC, claiming regularization; payment of service
incentive leave and 13th month pays; moral, exemplary and actual
 damages; and attorney's fees. Respondent alleged that he was hired
by PASSI in October 1999 and was issued company ID No. 304, 8
a PPA Pass and SSS documents. In fact, respondent contended that
he became a regular employee by April 2000, since it was his sixth
continuous month in service in PASSI's regular course of business.
He argued on the basis of Articles 280 9 and 281 10 of the Labor
Code. He maintains that under paragraph 2 of Article 280, he
should be deemed a regular employee having rendered at least one
year of service with the company. In opposition thereto, petitioners
alleged that respondent was hired as a mere "reliever" stevedore
and could thus not become a regular employee
ISSUE:
1. W/N he has attained regular status? YES.
RATIO:
1. Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the State affords full
protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized;
and the promotion of full employment and equality of employment
opportunities for all. The State affirms labor as a primary social
economic force and guarantees that it shall protect the rights of
workers and promote their welfare.
2. The Labor Code, which implements the foregoing Constitutional
mandate, draws a fine line between regular and casual employees
to protect the interests of labor. 19 "Its language evidently
manifests the intent to safeguard the tenurial interest of the worker
who may be denied the rights and benefits due a regular employee
by virtue of lopsided agreements with the economically powerful
employer who can maneuver to keep an employee on a casual
status for as long as convenient." Thus, the standards for
determining whether an employee is a regular employee or a casual
or project employee have been delineated in Article 280 of the
Labor Code.
3. 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 actually exist.
4. Under the foregoing provision, a regular employee is (1) one who
is either engaged to perform activities that are necessary or
desirable in the usual trade or business of the employer except for
project 21 or seasonal employees; or (2) a casual employee who
has rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or
broken, with respect to the activity in which he is employed. 22
Additionally, Article 281 of the Labor Code further considers a
regular employee as one who is allowed to work after a
probationary period. Based on the aforementioned, although
performing activities that are necessary or desirable in the usual
trade or business of the employer, an employee such as a project or
seasonal employee is not necessarily a regular employee. The
situation of respondent is similar to that of a project or seasonal
employee, albeit on a daily basis.
5. Under the second paragraph of the same provision, all other
employees who do not fall under the definition of the preceding
paragraph are casual employees. However, the second paragraph
also provides that it deems as regular employees those casual
employees who have rendered at least one year of service
regardless of the fact that such service may be continuous or
broken.
6. The primary standard, therefore, of determining a regular
employment is the reasonable connection between the particular
activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual
business or trade of the employer. The test is whether the former is
usually necessary or desirable in the usual 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. Also, if the employee
has been performing the job for at least one year, even if the
performance is not continuous or merely intermittent, the law
deems the repeated and continuing need for its performance as
sufficient evidence of the necessity if not indispensability of that
activity to the business. Hence, the employment is also considered
 regular, but only with respect to such activity and while such
activity exists. (Emphasis supplied.)
7. PASSI is engaged in providing stevedoring and arrastre services in
the port area in Manila. Stevedoring, dock and arrastre operations
include, but are not limited to, the opening and closing of a vessel's
hatches; discharging of cargoes from ship to truck or dock, lighters
and barges, and vice-versa; movement of cargoes inside vessels,
warehouses, terminals and docks; and other related work. In line
with this, petitioners hire stevedores who assist in the loading and
unloading of cargoes to and from the vessels.
8. Based on the circumstances of the instant case, this Court agrees. It
takes judicial notice 24 that it is an industry practice in port
services to hire "reliever" stevedores in order to ensure smooth-
flowing 24-hour stevedoring and arrastre operations in the port
area. No doubt, serving as a stevedore, respondent performs tasks
necessary or desirable to the usual business of petitioners.
However, it should be deemed part of the nature of his work that
he can only work as a stevedore in the absence of the employee
regularly employed for the very same function. Bearing in mind
that respondent performed services from September 1999 until
June 2003 for a period of only 228.5 days in 36 months, or roughly
an average of 6.34 days a month; while a regular stevedore
working for petitioners, on the other hand, renders service for an
average of 16 days a month, demonstrates that respondent's
employment is subject to the availability of work, depending on
the absences of the regular stevedores. Moreover, respondent does
not contest that he was well aware that he would only be given
work when there are absent or unavailable employees. Respondent
also does not allege, nor is there any showing, that he was
disallowed or prevented from offering his services to other cargo
handlers in the other piers at the North Harbor other than
petitioners. As aforestated, the situation of respondent is akin to
that of a seasonal or project or term employee, albeit on a daily
basis
9. The second paragraph thereof stipulates in unequivocal terms that
all other employees who do not fall under the definitions in the
first paragraph of regular, project and seasonal employees, are
deemed casual employees. 25 Not qualifying under any of the
kinds of employees covered by the first paragraph of Article 280 of
the Labor Code, then respondent is a casual employee under the
second paragraph of the same provision.
10. The same provision, however, provides that a casual employee can
be considered as regular employee if said casual employee has
rendered at least one year of service regardless of the fact that such
service may be continuous or broken. Section 3, Rule V, Book II
of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code
clearly defines the term "at least one year of service" to mean
service within 12 months, whether continuous or broken, reckoned
from the date the employee started working, including authorized
absences and paid regular holidays, unless the working days in the
establishment as a matter of practice or policy, or that provided in
the employment contract, is less than 12 months, in which case
said period shall be considered one year. 26 If the employee has
been performing the job for at least one year, even if the
performance is not continuous or merely intermittent, the law
deems the repeated and continuing need for its performance as
sufficient evidence of the necessity, if not indispensability, of that
activity to the business of the employer. 27 Applying the
foregoing, respondent, who has performed actual stevedoring
services for petitioners only for an accumulated period of 228.5
days does not fall under the classification of a casual turned regular
employee after rendering at least one year of service, whether
continuous or intermittent.
11. Where from the circumstances it is apparent that periods have been
imposed to preclude acquisition of tenurial security by an
employee, such imposition should be struck down or disregarded
as contrary to public policy and morals. 30 However, we take this
occasion to emphasize that the law, while protecting the rights of
the employees, authorizes neither the oppression nor the
destruction of the employer. When the law tilts the scale of justice
in favor of labor, the scale should never be so tilted if the result
would be an injustice to the employer. Thus, this Court cannot be
compelled to declare respondent as a regular employee when by
the nature of respondent's work as a reliever stevedore and his
accumulated length of service of only eight months do not qualify
him to be declared as such under the provisions of the Labor Code
alone.