Case Summary (G.R. No. 258658)
Factual Antecedents
Abadilla et al. alleged that they were engaged on a "no work, no pay" basis and performed work which was necessary for PAGCOR's operations. They claimed to have been deprived of certain benefits given to regular employees, including overtime pay and service incentive leave. Following PAGCOR's announcement of the closure of its hotel business and non-renewal of their contracts, some petitioners filed an illegal dismissal complaint before the Civil Service Commission Regional Office (CSCRO-VI), which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The CSC ruled that the contracts provided did not categorize the petitioners as government employees.
Proceedings in Lower Courts
Undeterred, Abadilla et al. filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City, which was subsequently dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and remanded to the CSC. After a series of procedural developments, including a memorandum by PAGCOR terminating the petitioners' services and further CSC orders regarding compliance with complaints, the CSC eventually denied Abadilla et al.'s complaint for lack of requisites for a valid complaint.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the CSC's order, ruling that Abadilla et al. were not regular employees nor covered by civil service laws. They treated the case as an original action rather than an appeal. The CA found that the petitioners did not meet the requirements to be classified as regular employees under the civil service system, and thus maintained that they did not fall under the jurisdiction of the civil service.
Petition for Review to the Supreme Court
In their petition to the Supreme Court, Abadilla et al. argued two points: firstly, that they were not confidential employees, and secondly, that they held regular employee status with entitlement to security of tenure.
Employment Status Determination
The Court affirmed that Abadilla et al. were contract of service and job order workers, rather than regular employees or confidential workers. PAGCOR maintained the authority to hire both regular employees and contract workers. The Court also highlighted that the PAGCOR Charter specifically exempted it from civil service regulations, thereby allowing it to establish its personnel management policies.
Interpretation of PAGCOR Charter
The PAGCOR Charter allows for the characterization of employees as "confidential" but makes clear that this is not ab
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 258658)
Background and Parties
- Petitioners are individuals including Mark Abadilla et al. who claimed to be employees of the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR).
- They worked as cooks, assistant cooks, waiters, purchasers, pantry aides, food processors, food attendants, stewards, assistant food checkers, dishwashers, kitchen supervisors, busboys, and similar roles in PAGCOR's hotel and restaurant business.
- Their employment was under various fixed-term contracts, sometimes renewed, spanning one to 17 years.
- PAGCOR is a government-owned or -controlled corporation (GOCC) established under Presidential Decree No. 1869, amended by Republic Act No. 9487, governed by the PAGCOR Charter.
Employment and Contractual Nature of Petitioners
- Petitioners were engaged on a "no work, no pay" basis performing necessary work for PAGCOR.
- They alleged deprivation of benefits granted to regular PAGCOR employees, including overtime pay, service incentive leave, and vacation leave.
- Prior to their complaint, PAGCOR announced closure of its hotel business in Bacolod City and relocation to a new venue.
- PAGCOR decided not to renew petitioners' individual contracts, leading some workers to file illegal dismissal complaints before the Civil Service Commission Regional Office (CSCRO-VI).
Procedural History
- CSCRO-VI dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint for lack of jurisdiction, ruling petitioners were job order workers not covered by civil service laws.
- Petitioners filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City, which dismissed it and remanded the case back to CSC.
- Petitioners refiled before CSCRO-VI; the case was elevated motu proprio to the CSC in Quezon City.
- CSC required compliance with the requisites of a valid complaint; petitioners complied but their complaint was dismissed for failure to meet requirements.
- A motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners was also denied.
- Petitioners then filed a Petition for Re