G.R. No. 258658 , June 19, 2024
MARK ABADILLA, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT & GAMING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioners were engaged by the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) as cooks, waiters, pantry aides, and other similar positions for its hotel and restaurant business in Bacolod City. Their employment was evidenced by various fixed-term contracts, renewed occasionally, with their total period of service ranging from one to 17 years. They were engaged on a “no work, no pay” basis. Petitioners averred they were deprived of benefits given to regular PAGCOR employees. When PAGCOR announced the closure of its Bacolod hotel business and the non-renewal of their contracts, some workers filed an illegal dismissal complaint before the Civil Service Commission Regional Office (CSCRO-VI). The CSCRO-VI dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, finding petitioners were job order workers, not government employees covered by civil service laws. Petitioners refiled the case with the Regional Trial Court, which also dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction and remanded it to the CSC. The case was elevated to the CSC Central Office. During pendency, PAGCOR issued a memorandum terminating petitioners’ services. The CSC dismissed the complaint for petitioners’ failure to comply with the requisites of a valid complaint under its rules. The Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling civil service laws did not apply to petitioners. Petitioners filed this Petition, arguing they are regular employees of PAGCOR entitled to security of tenure.

ISSUE

Whether petitioners are regular employees of PAGCOR under the civil service, thereby placing them under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling. Petitioners are contract of service and job order workers, not regular employees under the civil service, and thus not under the jurisdiction of the CSC. PAGCOR is a government-owned or -controlled corporation with an original charter. Its charter explicitly exempts all positions in PAGCOR from the coverage of the Civil Service Law and states that PAGCOR shall be governed by its own personnel management policies. Consequently, the employer-employee relationship between PAGCOR and its personnel is governed primarily by the PAGCOR Charter and the contracts they execute, not by civil service laws. The nature of petitioners’ engagement, as evidenced by their fixed-term contracts and “no work, no pay” arrangement, aligns with the characteristics of contract of service and job order workers as defined by relevant CSC guidelines and joint circulars. Such workers are hired for specific tasks or services, with no employer-employee relationship, and are not entitled to benefits accorded to regular government employees. Therefore, the CSC correctly found it had no jurisdiction over the complaint.