G.R. No. L-21587 - Bristol Myers Co. vs. Director of Patents

Respondent TNS Philippines Inc. is primarily engaged in marketing research, information dissemination, research consultancy, and other value-added services to a diverse range of local and international clients.
As a market research facility, TNS conducts public surveys on consumer goods, products, merchandise, and services, thereby gathering data for evaluation and analysis.

Petitioners (Jeanette V. Manalo, Vilma P. Barrios, Lourdes Lynn Michelle Fernandez, and Leila B. Taiao) were hired as field personnel on a project-to-project basis starting in 1996 and were required to sign specific employment contracts for each project engagement.
Their functions included:

Conducting data-gathering activities through personal and telephone interviews as well as other similar methods.
Submitting the gathered data to the company for subsequent evaluation and analysis.

In addition to fieldwork, petitioners were also assigned office-based tasks requiring them to be present from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., often extending beyond these hours without overtime compensation.
Notably, the office-based assignments were not covered by a project-specific contract and were not reported to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).

In August 2008, TNS’ field manager convened a meeting with the Field Interviewers, notifying that veteran FIs would gradually be replaced by new personnel contracted through an agency for tracking projects, while the old FIs would be relegated to seasonal ad hoc projects.
This development prompted petitioners to file a consolidated complaint for regularization, asserting that they were in fact performing tasks that went beyond the mere project-to-project nature originally stipulated.

On October 20, 2008, both petitioners and TNS filed their position papers.
On October 21, 2008, petitioners were informed by TNS to not report for work, as they were being removed from ongoing assignments and their company IDs were surrendered, signaling an effective termination of service.
Subsequently, petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, overtime pay, damages, and attorney’s fees, consolidating their labor cases for both regularization and illegal dismissal.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) on May 29, 2009 ruled in favor of TNS, dismissing the complaint on the ground that petitioners were project employees who knowingly accepted the limited duration of their employment based on fixed project-to-project contracts.
Petitioners appealed the LA’s decision with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which reversed the LA ruling, finding that:

Although initial employment was on a project basis, the absence of corresponding project contracts in subsequent employment after November 30, 2007, rendered petitioners as de facto regular employees.
The continuous engagement without proper documentation of project-to-project arrangements was sufficient to shift their status from project employees to regular employees.

TNS, disagreeing with the NLRC ruling, filed a motion for reconsideration (which was denied) and subsequently petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA) for certiorari.
On January 29, 2013, the CA ruled in favor of TNS, holding that:

The repeated re-hiring for distinct projects did not automatically convert petitioners’ status to regular employees.
The relevant termination reports and project-to-project contracts supported the project employee status.
The NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion by admitting evidence that was belatedly submitted.

The factual circumstances clearly demonstrated their regular employment status through continuous engagement and performance of vital business functions of TNS.
The NLRC properly exercised its discretion in considering all evidence, including those submitted on appeal.

Whether the petitioners were to be classified as project employees engaged under specific, fixed-duration contracts for particular projects.
Whether the absence of valid and complete project employment contracts after November 30, 2007, transformed their employment status into that of regular employees given their continuous engagement.

Whether TNS legally terminated the petitioners’ employment by simply pulling them out from their assignments and denying further engagements without proper due process.
Whether the burden of proving a just or authorized cause for dismissal rested appropriately on TNS, especially under the claim of illegal dismissal.

Whether the belated submission of termination reports and the absence of project contracts should be given weight in determining the true nature of the employment relationship.
Whether the NLRC and the motion for reconsideration were properly guided by the rules of evidence in labor disputes.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the NLRC decision and in holding that the petitioners remained project employees despite continuous re-engagement.
Whether the CA’s finding of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC was supported by the evidence on record.