G.R. No. 70705 - De Leon vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Petitioner, Moises de Leon, was employed by private respondent La Tondena, Inc. on December 11, 1981, at the Maintenance Section of its Engineering Department in Tondo, Manila.
His assigned work consisted primarily of painting company buildings and equipment, as well as performing various odd maintenance tasks (e.g., cleaning, oiling machines, and operating equipment).
Payment was made on a daily basis through petty cash vouchers rather than through the regular payroll.

In early January 1983, after more than one year of service, petitioner requested that he be included in the employer’s regular payroll, transitioning from daily cash payments to regular employment benefits.
In response to his request, La Tondena, Inc. dismissed petitioner on January 16, 1983.
Petitioner maintained that his dismissal was directly linked to his request for regularization.

Having been denied reinstatement despite repeated demands, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, reinstatement, and payment of backwages before the then Labor Arbiter of the Ministry (now Department of Labor and Employment).
Petitioner’s complaint detailed the nature of the tasks performed, emphasizing that he was engaged in work typically associated with regular maintenance manpower, not merely casual painting.

Petitioner alleged that his work included activities inherent to the usual business operations (painting, maintenance, odd jobs) of the company, characterizing him as a regular employee.
In contrast, La Tondena, Inc. contended that petitioner was hired only as a casual worker specifically to paint the Mama Rosa building, with his employment limited to that particular project.

On April 6, 1984, Labor Arbiter Bienvenido S. Hernandez rendered a decision finding in favor of petitioner by deeming his dismissal illegal and ordering his reinstatement with full backwages and other employee benefits.
This ruling was grounded on the findings that petitioner’s work extended beyond mere painting and that his dismissal was strategically linked to his request for regularization.
The decision was later reversed on appeal by the First Division of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) with a majority vote, and the motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting the current petition for certiorari.

Corroborative testimony was provided by regular employee Emiliano Tanque, Jr., who affirmed that petitioner performed similar maintenance tasks, evidencing that his work was integral to the company’s operations.
The respondent company also acknowledged that petitioner was occasionally assigned additional maintenance tasks aside from painting.
Documentary and testimonial evidence indicated that despite being instructed and paid in a manner typical for casual workers (petty cash), the nature and continuity of petitioner’s work aligned with that of regular employment.

The case fundamentally pivots on the application of Article 281 of the Labor Code, which distinguishes between regular and casual employment based on the nature, necessity, and continuity of the work performed relative to the employer’s usual business or trade.
The underlying policy is to protect the worker’s right to secure tenure and to prevent employers from evading obligations under labor law by misclassifying employees.

Was petitioner’s dismissal on January 16, 1983, illegal given that it followed his request for regularization?
Did the dismissal constitute a maneuver to circumvent the employee’s statutory rights and benefits?

Should petitioner be considered a regular employee based on the nature and continuity of the tasks he performed?
Does the inclusion of various maintenance duties, beyond just painting, amount to engagement in activities that are usually necessary or desirable in the company’s line of business?

Did the First Division of the NLRC abuse its discretion by reversing the decision of the Labor Arbiter?
Was the reasoning in the reversal—concentrating solely on the painting aspect of petitioner’s work—factually and legally sound under the provisions of labor law and applicable constitutional mandates?

Does the case illustrate a broader issue regarding the protection of workers from arbitrary contractual stipulations that undermine security of tenure?
How should the court balance procedural hiring terms (e.g., payment method, casual appointment) against the evidentiary record of the actual work performed?