Facts
This case stemmed from a complaint for constructive dismissal and claims for back wages filed by Regala against Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC), and Emilio Yap (Yap), Teresita Gabut (Gabut), and Marcelo Ele (Ele), President, Food and Beverage Manager, and Vice President for Legal, Personnel and Security Administration, respectively, of MHC.
Regala was hired by MHC sometime in February 2006 as one of its waiters assigned to the Food and Beverage Department. In the course of his employment as a waiter/cook helper, MHC also remitted contributions on Regala’s behalf to the Social Security System (SSS) and the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth). Regala alleged that he was not recognized as a regular rank-and-file employee despite having rendered services to MHC for several years. Regala also claimed that MHC constructively dismissed him from employment when it allegedly reduced his regular work days to two (2) days from the normal five (5)-day work week starting December 2, 2009, which resulted in the diminution of his take-home salary.
MHC denied outright that Regala is its regular employee, and claimed that he is a mere freelance or “extra waiter” engaged by MHC on a short-term basis. It explained that it employs extra waiters at fixed and/or determinable periods, particularly when there are temporary spikes in the volume of its business. MHC contended that prior to engaging the services of extra waiters, applicant waiters, such as Regala, and MHC execute fixed-term service contracts and agree on a specific duration of engagement depending on the requirements of the hotel in a given period. MHC argued that there can be no illegal dismissal to speak of since the expiration of the period under Regala’s Service Agreements simply caused the natural cessation of his fixed-term employment with MHC.
ISSUE:
1. Whether Regala is a regular employee of MHC.
2. Whether Regala was constructively dismissed from employment.
Ruling
- Yes. MHC does not deny that Regala was employed as one of its waiters. On this point, the records of the case are bereft of evidence that Regala was duly informed of the nature and status of his engagement with the hotel. Notably, in the absence of a clear agreement or contract, whether written or otherwise, which would clearly show that Regala was properly informed of his employment status with MHC, Regala enjoys the presumption of regular employment in his favor. The employment status of a person is defined and prescribed by law and not by what the parties say it should be. In this regard, Article 295 of the Labor Code “provides for two types of regular employees, namely: (a) those who are engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer (first category); and (b) those who have rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in which they are employed (second category).” While MHC insists that Regala was engaged under a fixed-term employment agreement, the circumstances and evidence on record, and provisions of law, however, dictate that Regala is its regular employee.
- Yes. Regala was constructively dismissed. The Court noted that MHC failed to deny Regala’s allegation of constructive dismissal, nor did it present any controverting evidence to prove otherwise. There is constructive dismissal where “there is cessation of work because ‘continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank or a diminution in pay’ and other benefits. Aptly called a dismissal in disguise or an act amounting to dismissal but made to appear as if it were not, constructive dismissal may, likewise, exist if an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it could foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued employment.”