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.