7/23/2019 Manalo vs Tns

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/manalo-vs-tns 1/2

MANALO et. al. v   TNS PHILIPPINES INC. AND OCAMPO

G.R. No. 208567. Novembe 26! 20"#

$ACTS% Respondent TNS was engaged primarily in the business of marketing research and

information, as well as research consultancy and other value-added services to a widebase of clients, both local and international. Petitioners were hired by TNS as field personnel on various

dates starting !!" for several pro#ects. They were made to sign a pro#ect-to-pro#ect employment

contract. Thereafter, TNS would file the corresponding termination report with the $%&'-

R%.Petitioners were likewise assigned office-based tasks. These office based tasks were not on

a per pro#ect basis and petitioners did not sign any contract for these #obs. These assignments

were not reported to the $%&' either.

( meeting among the )ield *nterviewers was called by TNS+ field manager. They were told

that all old )*s assigned in the tracking pro#ects would be pulled out eventually and replaced by 

new )*s contracted from an agency. This prompted petitioners to file a consolidated complaint forregulariation before the &(.

Petitioners were advised by TNS not to report for work anymore because they were being

pulled out from their current assignments and that they were not being lined up for any 

continuing or incoming pro#ects because it no longer needed their services. Petitioners,

thereafter, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, overtime pay, damages, and attorney+s fees

against TNS.

&( dismissed the complaint on the ground that petitioners were found to be pro#ect

employees who knew the nature of their positions as such at the time of their employment and

who agreed with full understanding that the contracts would lapse upon completion of the pro#ect

stated in their respective contracts. (lso, petitioners were not illegally dismissed because as

pro#ect employees, the employer-employee relationship was terminated upon completion of the

pro#ect or phase for which they were hired.

(ggrieved, petitioners filed an appeal before the N&R. onse/uently, the N&R rendered

its #udgment in favor of petitioners. N&R ruled that in the absence of proof that the subse/uent

employment of the complainants continued to be on a pro#ect-to-pro#ect basis under a contract of 

employment, complainants are considered to have become regular employees. The failure to

present contract of pro#ect employment means that the employees are regular. The N&R further

ruled that, being regular employees, petitioners were illegally.

TNS appealed to (. ( ruled in favor of TNS and stated that the repeated re-hiring of 

petitioners for at least one 01 year did not ipso facto convert their status to regular employees.

2ence, this petition.

ISS&E%  3%N petitioners are regular employees.

7/23/2019 Manalo vs Tns

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/manalo-vs-tns 2/2

DECISION% 'ES. 

(rticle 456 of the &abor ode, as amended, clearly defined a pro#ect employee as one whose

employment has been fi7ed for a specific pro#ect 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

service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the

season. (dditionally, a pro#ect employee is one whose termination of his employment contract is

reported to the $%&' everytime the pro#ect for which he was engaged has been completed.

*n 8araguinot, 9r. v. N&R, the ourt held that once a pro#ect or work pool employee has been:

01 continuously, as opposed to intermittently, rehired by the same employer for the same tasks

or nature of tasks; and 041 these tasks are vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual

business or trade of the employer, then the employee must be deemed a regular employee.

(lthough it is true that the length of time of the employee+s service is not a controlling

determinant of pro#ect employment, it is vital in determining whether he was hired for a specific

undertaking or in fact tasked to perform functions vital, necessary and indispensable to the

usual business or trade of the employer. Petitioners+ successive re-engagement in order to

perform the same kind of work firmly manifested the necessity and desirability of their work inthe usual business of TNS as a market research facility. <ndisputed also is the fact that the

petitioners were assigned office-based tasks from !:66 o+clock in the morning up to ":66 o+clock

in the evening, at the earliest, without any corresponding remuneration.

The pro#ect employment scheme used by TNS easily circumvented the law and precluded its

employees from attaining regular employment status in the subtlest way possible. Petitioners

were rehired not intermittently, but continuously, contract after contract, month after month,

involving the very same tasks. They practically performed e7actly the same functions over several

years. <ltimately, without a doubt, the functions they performed were indeed vital and necessary 

to the very business or trade of TNS.

The supposed pro#ect employment contract was highly doubtful. *n determining the true nature of 

an employment, the entirety of the contract, not merely its designation or by which it was

denominated, is controlling. Though there is a rule that conflicting provisions in a contract should

be harmonied to give effect to all, in this case, however, harmoniation is impossible because

pro#ect employment and probationary employment are distinct from one another and cannot co-

e7ist with each other. 2ence, should there be ambiguity in the provisions of the contract, the rule

is that all doubts, uncertainties, ambiguities and insufficiencies should be resolved in favor of 

labor. This is in consonance with the constitutional policy of providing full protection to labor.

*n sum, petitioners are deemed to have become regular employees. (s such, the burden of 

proving the legality of their dismissal rests upon TNS. 2aving failed to discharge such burden of 

proving a #ust or authoried cause, TNS is liable for illegal dismissal.