Case Summary (G.R. No. 204684)
Key Dates
• February 2000 – Regala’s initial hiring as waiter/cook helper
• December 2, 2009 – Reduction of Regala’s work days from five to two per week
• March 24, 2011 & May 31, 2011 – NLRC decisions declaring regular status and constructive dismissal
• May 22, 2012 & November 19, 2012 – CA decisions setting aside NLRC rulings
• October 5, 2020 – Supreme Court decision under G.R. No. 204684
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution – security of tenure (Art. XIII, Sec. 3)
• Labor Code of the Philippines (Articles 279–283 on security of tenure; Article 295 on regular employment)
• Rule 45, Rules of Court – certiorari review; NLRC procedural rules
Antecedent Facts
Regala was engaged by MHC in February 2000 as a waiter, later serving as cook helper. He worked six days weekly at a daily rate of ₱382 and MHC remitted SSS and PhilHealth contributions. Regala executed successive “Service Agreements” as an “extra waiter” covering brief periods (e.g., March 1–3, 2010), which MHC described as fixed‐term contracts tied to business spikes. On December 2, 2009, MHC cut Regala’s workdays to two weekly, reducing his pay.
Procedural Posture
• Labor Arbiter: Dismissed claims, ruling Regala a fixed‐term employee who voluntarily entered into Service Agreements and suffered no coercion; held no constructive dismissal.
• NLRC: Reversed, declaring Regala a regular employee (presumption of regularity; duties necessary to MHC’s business) and constructively dismissed by work‐day reduction; ordered reinstatement with backwages.
• Court of Appeals: Set aside NLRC, finding valid fixed‐term contracts and no illegal dismissal upon their expiration.
• Supreme Court: Granting certiorari, reinstated NLRC’s finding of regular status and constructive dismissal.
Issue
- Did Regala attain regular employment status?
- Was the reduction of his workdays tantamount to constructive dismissal?
Presumption of Regular Employment
In the absence of a clear, written agreement limiting Regala’s tenure from February 2000, the law presumes regular status when an employee performs activities usually necessary or desirable to the employer’s business (Art. 295, Labor Code).
• Regala’s waiter duties—table service, mise en place, and customer relations—are indispensable to a hotel’s core functions.
• Continuous service since 2000 confirms the necessity and desirability of his role.
Invalidity of Purported Fixed‐Term Contracts
MHC’s Service Agreements failed to specify definite commencement and expiration dates beyond single days of engagement.
• Lacking a clearly defined term, they do not qualify as valid fixed‐term employment contracts under jurisprudence (Brent School, Poseidon Fishing).
• Agreements were drafted unilaterally by MHC’s Personnel Department, constituting contracts of adhesion that precluded genuine negotiation.
• The absence of any bargaining power and the failure to prove voluntary, informed consent vitiate the purported fixed‐term nature.
Constructive Dismissal by Work‐Day Reduction
Once recognized as a regular employee, Regala enjoyed security of tenure and could be dismissed only for just causes. MHC’s unilateral reduction of his workdays from five to two—resulting i
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 204684)
Antecedent Facts
- Allan Regala was engaged by Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC) in February 2000 as a waiter in its Food and Beverage Department, later serving as a cook helper from October 18, 2004 to June 26, 2006.
- He worked six days a week and earned a daily wage of ₱382.00 until December 2009, with MHC remitting SSS and PhilHealth contributions on his behalf.
- His duties included preparing mise en place, taking orders, and serving food and beverages across various outlets such as Cowrie Grill, Pool Bar, and Banquet Services.
- From October 2008 to May 2009, Regala attended MHC‐sponsored trainings on food safety and customer service.
- Regala claimed that despite over nine years of service he was never regularized, and that on December 2, 2009 MHC unilaterally reduced his workdays from five to two per week—effectively diminishing his salary—and thus constructively dismissed him.
Position of Respondent Manila Hotel Corporation
- MHC maintained that Regala was a freelance or “extra” waiter hired only for short‐term spikes in business volume, alongside referrals and a pool of part‐time waiters.
- It relied on Service Agreements (fixed‐term contracts) executed before each engagement, specifying dates, rates per hour, and declaring that extra waiters were not “employees of the Company.”
- MHC argued that each contract’s natural expiration terminated Regala’s engagement and that no illegal or constructive dismissal occurred.
Labor Arbiter Ruling
- September 8, 2010 Decision dismissed Regala’s complaint for lack of merit.
- Held that Regala was a fixed‐term employee who freely entered into Service Agreements and that there was no proof of coercion or vitiation of consent.
- Found no constructive