G.R. No. 149985 - Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. vs. Arceo

In May 1990, respondent Rosalina C. Arceo applied for the position of telephone operator with Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) - Tarlac Exchange.
Arceo failed the pre-employment qualifying examination required for the position.

Despite failing the exam, Arceo requested to work without pay at PLDT's office, which PLDT allowed.
She was assigned tasks in the commercial section, such as photocopying documents, sorting telephone bills and notices of disconnection, and other minor assignments.
After two weeks, PLDT began paying her the minimum wage.

On February 15, 1991, PLDT intended to terminate her employment but, upon recommendation by the commercial section supervisor, Arceo was instead assigned to on-the-job training in minor traffic work.
When she failed to learn traffic procedures, she was transferred to auxiliary services, a minor facility.
Arceo took the pre-qualifying exams for telephone operator two more times but failed both.

On October 13, 1991, PLDT discharged Arceo from employment.
She filed a case for illegal dismissal before the labor arbiter.
On May 11, 1993, the labor arbiter ruled in her favor, ordering PLDT to reinstate her as a casual employee with minimum wage and perform minor tasks similar to before.
On June 9, 1993, Arceo was reinstated under the said conditions.

More than three years after reinstatement, on September 3, 1996, Arceo filed a complaint for unfair labor practice and underpayment of salary, overtime pay, holiday pay, rest day pay, and other monetary claims.
She alleged non-regularization and denial of benefits due to regular employees since reinstatement.

On August 18, 1997, Labor Arbiter Dominador B. Saludares declared Arceo qualified to be a regular employee and ordered PLDT to pay various accrued benefits (totaling P316,496.24) and attorney’s fees. The claim for damages was dismissed.
On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed Arceo’s qualification as a regular employee but remanded the monetary claims for further evidence and ruled part of her claims beyond the three-year prescriptive period.

PLDT’s petition for certiorari before the CA was dismissed, affirming the NLRC's ruling emphasizing the doctrine that an employee who has rendered more than one year of service becomes a regular employee by operation of law.
PLDT filed a motion for reconsideration which the CA denied.
PLDT then filed this petition for review with the Supreme Court.

Whether respondent Rosalina Arceo is entitled to be considered a regular employee of PLDT.
Whether the employment services rendered by Arceo, albeit initially casual and involving minor tasks, qualify her for regularization under Article 280 of the Labor Code.
Whether PLDT’s claim that Arceo’s position was already abolished precludes her regularization.
Whether Arceo’s failure on multiple qualifying exams for the telephone operator position affects her right to regularization.