Security of Tenure and

Kinds of Employment
Prepared by: Ruth P. Mocorro
Legal Aspects of Management
 Security of Tenure
Article 279. Security of tenure.

In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the

services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by
this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be
entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other
privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his
other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time
his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual
reinstatement. (As amended by Section 34, Republic Act No. 6715,
March 21, 1989)
 Security of Tenure
 It is one of the Basic Rights of workers
(BWC-DOLE)
 Every employee shall be assured security of
tenure.
 The right NOT TO BE REMOVED from work
except for a just or authorized cause, and
only after due process.
 Security of Tenure
Excerpt from Sec. 3 Art. XIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

“The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and

overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full
employment and equality of employment opportunities for all. It
shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization,
collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted
activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law.
They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane
conditions of work, and a living wage.”
 Security of Tenure
JUST CAUSE AUTHORIZED CAUSE
(any wrongdoing committed by an (an economic circumstance not due to
employee) the employee's fault)

•serious misconduct •the introduction of labor-saving devices

•willful disobedience of employers' lawful •redundancy
orders connected with work •retrenchment to prevent losses
•gross and habitual neglect of duty •closure or cessation of business
•fraud or willful breach of trust
•commission of crime or offense against the
employer, employer's family member/s or
representative
•other analogous case

DUE PROCESS in cases of just cause involves:

• notice to employee of intent to dismiss and grounds for dismissal
• opportunity for employee to explain his or her side
• notice of decision to dismiss
 Kinds of Employment
Article 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 necessary 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 service to
be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the
duration of the season.
 Kinds of Employment
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 activity exists.
 Kinds of Employment
Article 281. Probationary employment.

Probationary employment shall not exceed six (6) months from the
date the employee started working, unless it is covered by an
apprenticeship agreement stipulating a longer period. The services of
an employee who has been engaged on a probationary basis may be
terminated for a just cause or when he fails to qualify as a regular
employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by
the employer to the employee at the time of his engagement.
An employee who is allowed to work after a probationary period
shall be considered a regular employee.
 Sample Case
[G.R. NO. 177937. 19 JANUARY 2011]

ROBINSONS GALLERIA/ ROBINSONS SUPERMARKET

CORPORATION AND/OR JESS MANUEL,
Petitioner,

VS.

IRENE R. RANCHEZ,
Respondent.
 Sample Case
[G.R. NO. 177937. 19 JANUARY 2011]
THE FACTS:
•Sanchez was a probationary employee of Robinsons Galleria/Robinsons Supermarket Corp for a
period of five (5) months, or from Oct 15, 1997 to Mar 14, 1998.
•She underwent 6 weeks of training as cashier before she was hired last Oct 15, 1997.
•She reported loss of Php20,000 to management. Management ordered that Sanchez be strip-
searched but yielded nothing.
•Sanchez acknowledged her responsibility and requested that she be allowed to settle and pay
the lost amount. However, petitioner Manuel did not heed her request and instead reported the
matter to the police.
•Sanchez was jailed for two weeks and charged for qualified theft.
•On Nov 25, 1997, Sanchez filed a case for illegal dismissal and damages.
•Petitioners sent to respondent by mail a notice of termination and/or notice of expiration of
probationary employment dated March 9, 1998.
•Labor arbiter dismissed complaint but ordered reinstatement. NLRC ruled that there was
constructive dismissal and ordered reinstatement and backwages. CA affirmed but ruled that
separation pay would be paid in lieu of reinstatement.
 Sample Case
[G.R. NO. 177937. 19 JANUARY 2011]
THE ISSUE:
•Whether there was illegal dismissal.
THE RULING:
•Yes, Sanchez was not afforded due process. As probationary employee, she could be dismissed
for just cause, authorized cause or for failure to meet the standards set.
•The due process requirements under the Labor Code are mandatory and may not be supplanted
by police investigation or court proceedings. Thus, employers are mandated to conduct their own
separate investigation, and to accord the employee every opportunity to defend himself.
•Respondent was constructively dismissed by petitioner Supermarket effective October 30, 1997.
It was unreasonable for petitioners to charge her with abandonment for not reporting for work
upon her release in jail.
•As an illegally or constructively dismissed employee, respondent is entitled to: (1) either
reinstatement, if viable, or separation pay, if reinstatement is no longer viable; and (2)
backwages.
THE DECISION:
•That petitioners were ordered to pay respondent Irene R. Ranchez separation pay equivalent to
one (1) month pay and backwages from October 30, 1997 to March 14, 1998.
 References
• http://www.dole.gov.ph/labor_codes/view/7
• http://www.bwc.dole.gov.ph/FAQ/ViewDetails.aspx?id=2
• http://www.chanrobles.com/republicactno6656.htm#.VbzC9_mqqkq
• http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/177937.htm
• http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/july2007/164532.htm
• http://jabbulao.com/2011/02/13/legal-note-0029-illegal-dismissal-of-a-
probationary-employee-how-is-backwages-computed-and-more-issues/