Millares v. NLRC [G.R. No. 110524, March 14, 2000]

FACTS: Petitioners were employed by ESSO International Shipping Company. Petitioner Millares applied for a leave of absence and informed the Operations Manager of his intention to avail of the optional retirement plan under the Consecutive Enlistment Incentive plan (CEIP). Such was denied. Petitioner Lagda also applied for a leave of absence and informed the Operations manager of his intention to avail of the optional early retirement plan in view of his 20 years of service which was likewise denied. Both petitioners requested for extension of their leaves of absence. But later, they discovered that they were dropped from the roster of crew members.


ISSUES:
1. W/N petitioners are contractual employees whose employments are terminated every time their contracts expire and were thus validly dismissed.
2. Whether they should have been granted the retirement benefits under the optional early retirement policy.


HELD:
1. No. The primary standard to determine a regular employment is the reasonable connection between the activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer. In this case it is undisputed that petitioners were employees of private respondents. Also, as they had been in the employ of private respondents for 20 years as they were repeatedly re-hired after the expiration of their respective contracts, it is clear that their service was necessary and indispensable to private respondent’s business. Therefore, they could only be dismissed for just and valid cause. There is no showing that they abandoned their job as there was no showing of their unjustified refusal to resume employment.

2. No. The evidence of petitioners regarding the announcement by Captain Estaniel of the controverted optional retirement plan consisted merely of affidavits of petitioners and their witnesses which were successfully rebutted by the evidence of private respondents. Nowhere in the CEIP is there reference to an optional retirement plan, nor a provision for retirement for service of 20 years. There are clear provisions on retirement benefits.