Regular Employment

The appellate court's premise that regular employees are those who perform activities which are desirable and necessary for the business of the employer is not determinative in this case. In fact, any agreement may provide that one party shall render services for and in behalf of another, no matter how necessary for the latter's business, even without being hired as an employee. Hence, respondent's length of service and petitioner's repeated act of assigning respondent some tasks to be performed did not result to respondent's entitlement to the rights and privileges of a regular employee.

Furthermore, despite the fact that petitioner made use of the services of respondent for eleven years, he still cannot be considered as a regular employee of petitioner. Article 280 of the Labor Code, in which the lower court used to buttress its findings that respondent became a regular employee of the petitioner, is not applicable in the case at bar. Indeed, the Court has ruled that said provision is not the yardstick for determining the existence of an employment relationship because it merely distinguishes between two kinds of employees, i.e., regular employees and casual employees, for purposes of determining the right of an employee to certain benefits, to join or form a union, or to security of tenure; it does not apply where the existence of an employment relationship is in dispute (Atok Big Wedge Company, Inc. Vs. Jesus P. Gison, G.R. No. 169510. August 8, 2011).

Verification by Daughter

In this case, we find that the petition’s verification substantially complied with the requirements of the rules. The SPA authorized Bello-Ona to represent Bello in the case entitled “Francis Bello v. Bonifacio Security Services, Inc. and/or Samuel Tomas, (CA) Case No. 047829-06; NLRC-N[CR] Case No. 00-11-09529-2002”[1][18] – the case from which the present petition originated. As the daughter of Bello, Bello-Ona is deemed to have sufficient knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the petition, which are matters of record in the tribunals and the appellate court below (Francis Bello, represented herein by his daughter and attorney-in-fact, Geraldine Bello-Ona Vs. Bonifacio Security Services, Inc. and Samuel Tomas, G.R. No. 188086. August 3, 2011).

---

Replevin Bond

In Jao v. Royal Financing Corporation, the Court held that defendant therein was precluded from claiming damages against the surety bond since defendant failed to file the application for damages before the termination of the case (Advent Capital and Finance Corporation Vs. Roland Young, G.R. No. 183018. August 3, 2011).

Failure to Prosecute

The dismissal of the replevin case for failure to prosecute results in the restoration of the parties’ status prior to litigation, as if no complaint was filed at all. To let the writ of seizure stand after the dismissal of the complaint would be adjudging Advent as the prevailing party, when precisely no decision on the merits had been rendered. Accordingly, the parties must be reverted to their status quo ante. Since Young possessed the subject car before the filing of the replevin case, the same must be returned to him, as if no complaint was filed at all (Advent Capital and Finance Corporation Vs. Roland Young, G.R. No. 183018. August 3, 2011).

Floating Status

Traditionally invoked by security agencies when guards are temporarily sidelined from duty while waiting to be transferred or assigned to a new post or client, Article 286 of the Labor Codehas been applied to other industries when, as a consequence of the bona fide suspension of the operation of a business or undertaking, an employer is constrained to put employees on floating status for a period not exceeding six months. In brushing aside respondents’ reliance on said provision to justify the act of putting Leynes on floating status, the CA ruled that no evidence was adduced to show that there was a bona fide suspension of NHPI’s business. What said court clearly overlooked, however, is the fact that NHPI had belatedly ventured into building management and, with BGCC as its only client in said undertaking, had no other Property Manager position available to Leynes (Nippon Housing Phil. Inc., and/or Yasuhiro Kawata Vs. Maiah Angela Leynes, G.R. No. 177816. August 3, 2011).

Confidential Employee

Confidential employees are defined as those who (1) assist or act in a confidential capacity, in regard (2) to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies in the field of labor relations. The two criteria are cumulative, and both must be met if an employee is to be considered a confidential employee - that is, the confidential relationship must exist between the employee and his supervisor, and the supervisor must handle the prescribed responsibilities relating to labor relations. The exclusion from bargaining units of employees who, in the normal course of their duties, become aware of management policies relating to labor relations is a principal objective sought to be accomplished by the “confidential employee rule.”

A confidential employee is one entrusted with confidence on delicate, or with the custody, handling or care and protection of the employer’s property. Confidential employees, such as accounting personnel, should be excluded from the bargaining unit, as their access to confidential information may become the source of undue advantage. However, such fact does not apply to the position of Payroll Master and the whole gamut of employees who, as perceived by petitioner, has access to salary and compensation data. The CA correctly held that the position of Payroll Master does not involve dealing with confidential labor relations information in the course of the performance of his functions. Since the nature of his work does not pertain to company rules and regulations and confidential labor relations, it follows that he cannot be excluded from the subject bargaining unit (San Miguel Foods, Inc. Vs. San Miguel Corp. Supervisors and Exempt Union, G.R. No. 146206. August 1, 2011)

Bargaining Unit

Thus, applying the ruling to the present case, the Court affirms the finding of the CA that there should be only one bargaining unit for the employees in Cabuyao, San Fernando, and Otis of Magnolia Poultry Products Plant involved in “dressed” chicken processing and Magnolia Poultry Farms engaged in “live” chicken operations. Certain factors, such as specific line of work, working conditions, location of work, mode of compensation, and other relevant conditions do not affect or impede their commonality of interest. Although they seem separate and distinct from each other, the specific tasks of each division are actually interrelated and there exists mutuality of interests which warrants the formation of a single bargaining unit (San Miguel Foods, Inc. Vs. San Miguel Corp. Supervisors and Exempt Union, G.R. No. 146206. August 1, 2011)