Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 253 views

    Zosimo Cielo vs. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Balaod Maricor
    This document summarizes a labor case from the Supreme Court of the Philippines. Zosimo Cielo was a truck driver for Henry Lei Trucking Company under a 6-month employment contract. Nine days before the end of the contract, Cielo's employment was terminated. Cielo argued he was a regular employee. The Labor Arbiter ruled in Cielo's favor, but the NLRC reversed this. However, the Supreme Court ultimately held that Cielo was a regular employee, as the trucking company's nature of continuous work meant periods were imposed to prevent tenure, making the fixed contract invalid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Zosimo Cielo vs. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Balaod Maricor
    253 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a labor case from the Supreme Court of the Philippines. Zosimo Cielo was a truck driver for Henry Lei Trucking Company under a 6-month employment contract. Nine days before the end of the contract, Cielo's employment was terminated. Cielo argued he was a regular employee. The Labor Arbiter ruled in Cielo's favor, but the NLRC reversed this. However, the Supreme Court ultimately held that Cielo was a regular employee, as the trucking company's nature of continuous work meant periods were imposed to prevent tenure, making the fixed contract invalid.

    Original Description:

    ZOSIMO CIELO VS. NLRC

    Original Title

    ZOSIMO CIELO VS. NLRC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a labor case from the Supreme Court of the Philippines. Zosimo Cielo was a truck driver for Henry Lei Trucking Company under a 6-month employment contract. Nine days before the end of the contract, Cielo's employment was terminated. Cielo argued he was a regular employee. The Labor Arbiter ruled in Cielo's favor, but the NLRC reversed this. However, the Supreme Court ultimately held that Cielo was a regular employee, as the trucking company's nature of continuous work meant periods were imposed to prevent tenure, making the fixed contract invalid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    253 views3 pages

    Zosimo Cielo vs. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Balaod Maricor
    This document summarizes a labor case from the Supreme Court of the Philippines. Zosimo Cielo was a truck driver for Henry Lei Trucking Company under a 6-month employment contract. Nine days before the end of the contract, Cielo's employment was terminated. Cielo argued he was a regular employee. The Labor Arbiter ruled in Cielo's favor, but the NLRC reversed this. However, the Supreme Court ultimately held that Cielo was a regular employee, as the trucking company's nature of continuous work meant periods were imposed to prevent tenure, making the fixed contract invalid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    75

    Zosimo Cielo
    versus
    The Honorable National Labor Relations Commission, Henry Lei And/Or Henry
    Lei Trucking
    G.R. No. 78693, January 28, 1991

    FACTS:

    Cielo was a truck driver of Henry Lei Trucking Company (HLTC). They executed
    an agreement that the term of his employment is for 6 months. Nine days before the end
    of the contract HLTC formally notified Cielo that his service is terminated on the ground
    of expiration of contract.

    Cielo then filed a complaint at the Ministry of Labor and Employment claiming
    that he acquired the status of regular employee since he worked for HLTC for more than
    six months.

    HLTC rests its case on the agreement and maintains that the labor laws are not
    applicable because the relations of the parties are governed by their voluntary
    stipulations. The contract having expired, it was the prerogative of the trucking company
    to renew it or not as it saw fit.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not Cielo is a regular employee of HLTC despite being hired in a fix
    period base on the agreement they entered into.

    RULING:

    LABOR ARBITER:
    The Labor Arbiter finds that Cielo was a regular employee of HLTC. The LA
    explained that HLTC is engaged in the trucking business as a hauler of cattle, crops and
    other cargo for the Philippine Packing Corporation. This business requires the services of
    drivers, and continuously because the work is not seasonal, nor is it limited to a single
    undertaking or operation. Even if ostensibly hired for a fixed period, Cielo should be
    considered a regular employee of the HLTC, conformably to Article 280 of the Labor
    Code.

    NLRC:
    The NLRC reversed the decision of LA and held that Cielo’s employment had
    expired under a valid contract.

    SUPREME COURT:

    The court held that Cielo was a regular employee. The court accepted the factual
    finding of the Labor Arbiter that the petitioner was a regular employee of the HLTC.
    HLTC is engaged in the trucking business as a hauler of cattle, crops and other cargo for
    the Philippine Packing Corporation. This business requires the services of drivers, and
    continuously because the work is not seasonal, nor is it limited to a single undertaking or
    76

    operation. Even if ostensibly hired for a fixed period, Cielo should be considered a
    regular employee of the HLTC, conformably to Article 280 of the Labor Code providing
    as follows:

    Art. 280. Regular and Casual Employment. — The provisions of written


    agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of
    the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has
    been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessarily or desirable in
    the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has
    been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of
    which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or
    where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the
    employment is for the duration of the season.

    An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the


    preceding paragraph; Provided, that, any employee who has rendered at least one
    year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered
    a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his
    employment shall continue while such actually exists.

    In Brent School, Inc. vs. Zamora, the Court affirmed the general principle that
    "where from the circumstances it is apparent that periods have been imposed to preclude
    acquisition of tenurial security by the employee, they should be struck down or
    disregarded as contrary to public policy, morals, etc." Such circumstances have been
    sufficiently established in the case at bar and justify application of the following
    conclusions:

    Accordingly, and since the entire purpose behind the development of legislation
    culminating in the present Article 280 of the Labor Code clearly appears to have been, as
    already observed, to prevent circumvention of the employee's right to be secure in his
    tenure, the clause in said article indiscriminately and completely ruling out all written or
    oral agreements conflicting with the concept of regular employment as defined therein
    should be construed to refer to the substantive evil that the Code itself has singled out:
    agreements entered into precisely to circumvent security of tenure.

    The agreement in question had such a purpose and so was null and void ab initio.
    77

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy