Introduction

In Philippine labor law, the question of whether a worker is already a regular employee is one of the most disputed and important issues in employment relationships. It affects security of tenure, entitlement to benefits, due process before dismissal, and the legality of repeated fixed-term, probationary, project, seasonal, agency, and service-contract arrangements. It also sits at the center of the long-running controversy over “endo” or end of contract practices.

In ordinary usage, “endo” refers to the termination of workers at or before the end of a short-term contract so that they do not become regular employees, or so that the employer can repeatedly cycle workers through successive contracts without granting them regular status. In legal terms, however, there is no single article of the Labor Code that uses the word “endo” as a technical category. The law instead examines whether the arrangement violates rules on regular employment, labor-only contracting, probationary work, fixed-term hiring, project or seasonal employment, security of tenure, and illegal dismissal.

This article explains, in Philippine context, the full legal framework on:

what regularization means;
when an employee becomes regular;
how the law distinguishes valid short-term hiring from illegal non-regularization;
when repeated renewals become unlawful;
how “endo” commonly appears in practice;
the consequences for employers;
the remedies available to employees.

I. Constitutional and Statutory Foundation

Philippine labor law strongly protects labor. The Constitution recognizes the rights of workers to:

security of tenure;
humane conditions of work;
a living wage;
self-organization and collective bargaining;
protection from unjust dismissal.

The Labor Code of the Philippines operationalizes these protections. The most important principles for this topic are:

Security of tenure An employee cannot be dismissed except for a just cause or authorized cause, and only after observance of due process.
Regular employment is the default Employment is presumed regular when the employee performs activities usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, unless the worker clearly falls under a recognized exception.
Form does not prevail over substance Contract labels do not control if the real nature of the work shows regular employment. Calling a worker “contractual,” “project-based,” “reliever,” “consultant,” or “agency-hired” does not make it legally true.
Anti-circumvention policy Philippine labor law rejects schemes designed to defeat the employee’s right to regularization and security of tenure.

II. What Is Regular Employment?

A regular employee is one who enjoys security of tenure and whose dismissal must be based on lawful cause and due process. Regularization is not merely about the passage of time. It depends on the nature of the work, the manner of hiring, the structure of the employment relationship, and sometimes the length and continuity of service.

Under Philippine law, there are two major ways by which a worker becomes regular:

A. By nature of work: “necessary or desirable” test

A person is generally regular if engaged to perform activities usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer.

This is the core test.

Examples:

Cashiers, sales clerks, warehouse staff, production workers, drivers, cooks, tellers, machine operators, janitors directly hired by a business whose operations need janitorial services on a continuing basis, office staff, and customer service personnel are commonly treated as regular if their work is integral or desirable to the employer’s normal operations.
Even if contracts are short and repeatedly renewed, the worker may still be regular if the work itself is necessary or desirable to the business.

The law looks at the job’s connection to the business, not merely the wording of the employment papers.

B. By length of service: the six-month rule in probationary situations

A worker who is placed on probationary employment generally becomes regular upon completion of the probationary period if allowed to continue working, provided the probationary period is valid and standards were properly communicated.

The common maximum probationary period is six months, unless a longer period is validly allowed for certain jobs by law, regulation, or the nature of the position.

Important point: the six-month period does not mean every worker automatically becomes regular after six months regardless of category. The six-month rule mainly applies to probationary employment. But in practice, employers often misuse fixed-term or repeated short contracts to avoid the legal effect of what is really probationary or regular employment.

III. Main Categories of Employees in Philippine Law

To understand regularization and illegal contract renewal, one must distinguish valid employment categories.

1. Regular employees

Workers whose work is necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade, or who have otherwise become regular by operation of law.

2. Probationary employees

Workers hired on trial to determine fitness for regularization. They may be terminated for:

a just cause,
an authorized cause, or
failure to meet reasonable standards made known at the time of engagement.

If standards were not properly communicated at the start, the probationary status may be defective, which can strengthen the case for regular status.

3. Project employees

Workers hired for a specific project or undertaking, the completion or termination of which is determined at the time of engagement.

This is common in construction and some project-based industries. The key is that:

the project must be specific and identifiable;
the duration and scope must be determinable at hiring;
project completion must genuinely end the need for the work.

Repeated project hiring can still result in regular status if the employee performs tasks continuously necessary to the business and the project label is merely a device.

4. Seasonal employees

Workers hired for work that is seasonal in nature and for the duration of the season. If repeatedly engaged for the same seasonal tasks over time, they may become regular seasonal employees with continuing rights during seasons.

5. Fixed-term employees

Workers engaged for a term ending on a date certain. Fixed-term employment is not automatically illegal, but it is closely scrutinized because it can be used to evade security of tenure. A fixed-term contract is more defensible when:

the term was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon;
the parties dealt with each other on relatively equal footing;
the fixed term was not imposed to circumvent labor rights.

This category is one of the most abused in “endo” situations.

6. Casual employees

Traditionally, workers not engaged in work usually necessary or desirable in the employer’s usual business. But even casual employees may become regular with sufficient service under the law.

7. Employees of legitimate contractors

Workers hired by an independent contractor with substantial capital or investment, control over the work, and a business distinct from the principal. If the contractor is legitimate, the contractor is the employer. If not, and the arrangement is labor-only contracting, the principal may be deemed the true employer.

IV. The Core Tests for Regularization

Philippine courts and labor tribunals do not rely on one fact alone. They look at the totality of circumstances. The following are the major tests and indicators.

1. Necessary-or-desirable test

This is the primary test.

Ask:

Is the work directly related to the business?
Is it indispensable, usual, recurring, or beneficial to normal operations?
Would the business ordinarily need this kind of work to function?

If yes, regular employment is strongly indicated.

A supermarket repeatedly hiring sales clerks on five-month contracts is a classic example of a likely circumvention. Selling goods is central to the supermarket’s business. The short contract label will not defeat regularization.

2. Repeated and continuing need test

Even where the work is framed as temporary, repeated rehiring for the same or similar functions suggests the employer has a continuing need for the worker’s services.

Indicators:

multiple contracts for the same job;
no meaningful interruption between contracts;
employee reports to the same supervisors, works at the same location, performs the same duties;
renewals are automatic or routine;
the work never truly ends.

This is one of the strongest patterns associated with illegal “endo.”

3. Control test

The most important test in identifying the employer is the right of control, meaning who controls not only the result but also the means and methods of performing the work.

Ask:

Who hires the worker?
Who pays wages?
Who has the power to dismiss?
Who controls how the work is done?

This is essential in contracting and agency cases. Even if a manpower agency appears on paper, the principal may still be the true employer if the principal actually controls the work and the intermediary is only a labor broker.

4. Economic reality and dependence

Though the control test is central, economic dependence also matters:

Is the worker economically dependent on one company?
Does the worker use the company’s tools, systems, premises, uniforms, schedules?
Is the worker integrated into the company’s daily operations?

These facts often show that the relationship is one of employment, not independent contracting.

5. Genuine project or seasonal character

When the employer claims project or seasonal employment, the employer must show:

a clearly defined project or season;
determinable completion at hiring;
project-specific assignment;
valid reporting and documentation consistent with project employment.

If the supposed project worker does the same ongoing work needed all year or across many projects, regular status becomes likely.

6. Probationary validity test

For probationary employment to be valid:

the worker must be informed at the time of engagement that the status is probationary;
reasonable standards for regularization must be made known at the time of hiring;
the probationary period must be within lawful limits unless a valid exception exists.

Defects here can invalidate the probationary arrangement.

V. What Is “Endo” in Philippine Practice?

“Endo” usually refers to schemes that end a worker’s contract before or upon reaching a threshold that might strengthen a claim to regularization. It often appears in several patterns.

A. Five-month contracting

Perhaps the most familiar pattern. Workers are hired for less than six months, then terminated, sometimes later rehired under a new short contract.

This is not automatically illegal simply because the contract is under six months. It becomes unlawful when the arrangement is used to avoid regularization even though the worker performs necessary and desirable work or is otherwise entitled to regular status.

B. Repeated fixed-term contracts

The employer uses back-to-back fixed-term contracts for the same role even though the work is permanent and ongoing.

C. Rotating workers through agencies

Workers are cycled through contractors or manpower agencies so the principal avoids direct regularization.

D. Paper “project” assignments with no real project basis

The company labels ordinary recurring work as “project-based” despite no genuinely distinct project.

E. Break-in-service manipulation

The employer inserts artificial gaps between contracts to defeat claims of continuity.

Labor tribunals often examine whether these gaps are real and meaningful or merely devices.

VI. Is Every End-of-Contract Termination Illegal?

No. Not every end of contract is unlawful.

Employment can validly end upon:

completion of a genuine project;
end of a legitimate seasonal period;
expiration of a valid fixed-term arrangement;
lawful non-regularization of a probationary employee who failed communicated standards;
valid termination for just or authorized cause.

The problem arises when the contract form is used to disguise an employment relationship that is already regular in substance.

The legal question is not simply: Did the contract end? The real question is: Was that contract category valid in the first place?

If the worker was already a regular employee by law, then ending the contract is usually treated not as a mere expiration, but as dismissal, which must satisfy substantive and procedural due process.

VII. Illegal Contract Renewal Practices

“Illegal contract renewal” is not a standard label in the Code, but it accurately describes unlawful renewal schemes that violate labor law. Common forms include the following.

1. Renewing short-term contracts for necessary and desirable work

If a worker keeps receiving short contracts for work essential to the business, the renewals may be evidence that the company has a permanent need and is evading regularization.

Example:

A restaurant hires waiters and kitchen staff on repeated five-month contracts.
A factory repeatedly renews assemblers every few months.
A bank or BPO cycles frontline staff through fixed terms without a legitimate operational reason.

These patterns are highly vulnerable to challenge.

2. Repeated renewals with no real change in assignment

When the worker:

stays in the same position,
performs the same functions,
remains under the same supervision,
serves the same workplace,
follows the same work schedule,

then the renewals often look like a paper device rather than a genuinely temporary hiring need.

3. Renewal through labor-only contractors

A principal may try to avoid liability by moving workers from one agency to another, or by making them sign with an entity that lacks substantial capital and independent business.

Where there is labor-only contracting, the law may treat the principal as the direct employer from the start.

4. Renewal after sham resignation or waiver

Some workers are asked to sign:

resignations,
quitclaims,
waivers,
“end of contract” acknowledgments,

as a condition for final pay or future rehiring. These documents do not automatically bar claims if they were involuntary, deceptive, unfair, or contrary to law.

5. Serial probationary appointments

An employer cannot lawfully keep a worker perpetually probationary by repeated probationary contracts for the same job beyond what the law allows.

VIII. The Six-Month Rule: Common Misunderstandings

This topic is often misunderstood.

Misunderstanding 1: “Anything below six months is always legal.”

False.

A five-month contract does not automatically make the arrangement lawful. If the work is necessary and desirable to the business, or if the arrangement is otherwise a circumvention, the employee may still be regular.

Misunderstanding 2: “A worker becomes regular only after six months.”

Incomplete.

A worker may be regular from day one if hired for work that is necessary or desirable and the supposed non-regular arrangement is invalid. The law does not permit employers to defeat regular status through labels.

Misunderstanding 3: “If there is a signed contract, that ends the issue.”

False.

Labor law examines substance over form. Workers cannot waive statutory labor protections by contract where the law itself grants regular status.

IX. Probationary Employment and Regularization

Probationary employment is valid only within strict limits.

Requirements for valid probationary employment

The employee must be informed at hiring that the employment is probationary.
Reasonable standards for regularization must be communicated at the time of engagement.
The period must be lawful.

Termination of probationary employees

A probationary employee may be terminated for:

just cause;
authorized cause;
failure to meet the employer’s reasonable standards.

But failure to meet standards must not be arbitrary. There should be an actual basis, and the employer generally bears the burden of showing valid standards and fair assessment.

When probationary employees become regular

They become regular when:

they continue working after the probationary period;
the probationary setup is invalid;
standards were not properly communicated;
the employer’s use of probation is merely a device to deny regularization.

X. Fixed-Term Employment: When Valid, When Abusive

Philippine law recognizes fixed-term employment, but with caution.

When fixed-term arrangements may be valid

Examples may include:

a clearly time-bound engagement for a special assignment;
a role tied to a specific external contract or funding period;
hiring where the time limit is genuinely important to both parties.

When fixed-term employment becomes suspect

It is vulnerable when:

the worker performs ordinary, ongoing business functions;
the contract is repeatedly renewed;
the employee has little real bargaining power;
the term was imposed unilaterally;
the arrangement is obviously designed to avoid regularization.

In ordinary labor settings, especially for rank-and-file workers performing core operations, repeated fixed-term contracts are often legally weak.

XI. Project Employment and the Risk of Misclassification

Employers frequently invoke project employment. This is lawful only if the worker is hired for a specific project or undertaking whose completion was known or determinable at the time of engagement.

Indicators of valid project employment

written project assignment;
specific project scope;
determinable end;
employee informed at hiring of project nature and duration;
separation occurs because the project truly ended.

Indicators of fake project employment

no distinct project identified;
employee does the same standard business tasks as regular staff;
repeated project reassignments over long periods;
worker remains needed regardless of project cycles;
paperwork is generic and unsupported by actual operations.

A construction company may validly hire project employees for a defined build. But if a non-construction company labels store cashiers or plant operators as “project employees,” that is much harder to defend.

XII. Seasonal Employment and Regular Seasonal Status

Seasonal work is lawful where the nature of the business truly depends on a season or peak period. But workers who are repeatedly hired season after season may acquire regular seasonal status.

This means:

they are not necessarily entitled to year-round active duty;
but they have a recognized continuing relationship;
they cannot be casually replaced or denied return when the next season starts without legal basis.

Employers sometimes misuse the term “seasonal” for business fluctuations that are actually continuous and predictable year-round. Seasonal classification must be genuine.

XIII. Contracting, Subcontracting, and “Endo”

A major source of dispute is the use of agencies and contractors.

A. Legitimate contracting

This exists when the contractor:

has substantial capital or investment;
carries on an independent business;
exercises control over its employees;
is not merely supplying manpower.

In that case, the contractor is the employer.

B. Labor-only contracting

This exists where the contractor merely recruits or supplies workers to a principal but lacks real independence, capital, equipment, or control. In such cases:

the contractor is treated as an agent only;
the principal may be deemed the direct employer;
the workers may claim regularization against the principal.

This is a classic legal route for challenging “endo.”

Signs of labor-only contracting

contractor has little or no capital or tools;
workers use principal’s equipment and premises;
principal supervisors directly control day-to-day work;
workers perform tasks directly related to principal’s core business;
contractor changes in name only while work stays the same.

Even where contracting is facially documented, labor tribunals examine real operations.

XIV. Security of Tenure and Illegal Dismissal

Once a worker is regular, the employer cannot simply refuse renewal or rely on contract expiration to end employment.

Termination of a regular employee requires:

A. Substantive due process

There must be a lawful cause:

just cause: serious misconduct, willful disobedience, gross and habitual neglect, fraud, commission of a crime against employer or representative, analogous causes;
authorized cause: retrenchment, redundancy, installation of labor-saving devices, closure, disease, and similar authorized grounds.

B. Procedural due process

The employer must observe the required procedure, such as notice and hearing for just causes, or prior notices to the employee and labor authorities where authorized causes require them.

If a supposedly “expired contract” worker is actually regular, the termination may be treated as illegal dismissal.

XV. Burden of Proof

In labor cases involving regularization and dismissal, the practical burden often unfolds as follows:

The employee alleges facts showing regular work, repeated renewals, or sham contracting.
The employer must justify the non-regular status or termination.
Employers generally must prove the validity of project, seasonal, probationary, fixed-term, or contracting arrangements because these are exceptions to regular employment.

Doubts in the interpretation of labor laws and evidence are generally resolved in favor of labor, but that does not remove the need for evidence.

XVI. Evidence Commonly Used in Regularization and Endo Cases

A worker claiming regular status should be able to point to facts and documents such as:

employment contracts and renewal papers;
IDs, uniforms, company email access, handbooks;
payslips, payroll entries, bank salary deposits;
duty schedules, time records, biometrics;
memos, evaluations, disciplinary notices;
work instructions from company supervisors;
photos of workplace assignments;
proof of repeated rehiring;
agency deployment records;
screenshots or messages showing continuity of work.

Employers, on the other hand, typically present:

project contracts;
service agreements;
contractor registrations and capitalization documents;
probationary standards;
performance evaluations;
notices of completion or termination.

Labor tribunals look past formality and ask whether the documents match reality.

XVII. When Repeated Renewal Becomes a Strong Case for Regularization

Repeated contract renewal becomes especially suspicious when most of the following are present:

The job is core or integral to the employer’s business.
The worker performs the same tasks continuously.
There is little or no meaningful gap between contracts.
The employee works under direct control of company supervisors.
The worker uses company tools, systems, uniforms, and workplace.
The employer’s need for the role is permanent and not project-based.
The worker has served for a substantial period through serial contracts.
The employer cannot convincingly explain why the role remains temporary.

The more of these are present, the stronger the case that the arrangement is unlawful “endo.”

XVIII. Practical Examples

Example 1: Retail cashier on five-month renewals

A department store hires a cashier for five months, then again for five months, then again through a manpower agency.

Likely issues:

cashiering is necessary and desirable to the business;
repeated renewals show continuing need;
agency use may be labor-only contracting.

Possible result:

worker may be deemed regular;
non-renewal may amount to illegal dismissal.

Example 2: Probationary office worker without disclosed standards

A company hires an administrative assistant on probation but does not explain the standards for regularization. At month five, the worker is told they “did not qualify.”

Likely issue:

failure to communicate standards can invalidate the probationary arrangement.

Possible result:

termination may be illegal;
worker may be treated as regular or unlawfully dismissed.

Example 3: Genuine construction project employee

A worker is engaged for a named building project, informed of the project scope and expected completion, and separated when the project ends.

Likely result:

termination may be valid if the project setup is genuine and properly documented.

Example 4: “Project employee” in a restaurant chain

A restaurant classifies cooks and servers as project employees assigned to “operational projects.”

Likely issue:

food preparation and service are ongoing core business functions, not specific projects.

Possible result:

project classification may fail;
workers may be regular employees.

XIX. Legal Consequences for Employers

When an employer is found to have illegally denied regularization or illegally dismissed a worker through “endo” practices, consequences may include:

1. Declaration of regular employment

The worker may be declared a regular employee of the direct employer or principal.

2. Reinstatement

The employee may be ordered reinstated to former position or equivalent without loss of seniority rights.

3. Full backwages

If dismissal is illegal, the employee may recover backwages from dismissal until actual reinstatement, subject to prevailing labor rules and case disposition.

4. Separation pay in lieu of reinstatement

If reinstatement is no longer feasible because of strained relations or closure, separation pay may be awarded instead.

5. Unpaid benefits

The employer may be liable for:

13th month pay differentials;
service incentive leave pay, where applicable;
holiday pay;
overtime pay;
premium pay;
rest day pay;
underpayment of wages;
social welfare contribution issues where relevant.

6. Solidary liability in contracting cases

In legitimate job contracting, the principal may still have certain liabilities under labor standards. In labor-only contracting, the principal may face direct liability as employer.

7. Administrative or regulatory exposure

Improper contracting practices may expose employers and contractors to regulatory action.

XX. Remedies Available to Employees

An employee who believes they were illegally subjected to “endo” or denied regularization may pursue remedies through labor mechanisms, commonly involving the labor arbiters and the National Labor Relations Commission process.

Typical claims may include:

declaration of regular employment;
illegal dismissal;
reinstatement;
full backwages;
separation pay in lieu of reinstatement;
wage and benefit differentials;
damages and attorney’s fees where justified.

Practical relief often sought

“Declare me a regular employee.”
“Declare my dismissal illegal.”
“Order my reinstatement.”
“Award full backwages and benefits.”
“Declare the contractor labor-only and the principal my employer.”

XXI. Common Employer Defenses

Employers often argue:

The employee signed a fixed-term contract. Response: signatures do not automatically validate a labor arrangement contrary to law.
The worker knew the job was temporary. Response: awareness does not erase statutory rights if the arrangement is a circumvention.
The worker was project-based. Response: the employer must prove a genuine project and valid assignment.
The worker was hired by an agency. Response: the agency may be a labor-only contractor; the principal may be the true employer.
There were breaks in service. Response: labor tribunals examine whether the breaks were real or artificially inserted.
The employee failed probation. Response: the employer must show valid standards were timely communicated and fairly applied.

XXII. Common Employee Mistakes

Employees also weaken cases when they:

rely only on verbal claims without documents or witnesses;
ignore agency and principal relationships that could identify the true employer;
sign documents without retaining copies;
fail to preserve payslips, chats, schedules, IDs, or notices;
focus only on “I worked more than six months” without explaining why the work was necessary and desirable.

The strongest regularization cases usually combine:

the nature of the work,
continuity of service,
repeated renewals,
evidence of control,
proof of sham contracting or classification.

XXIII. Industry-Specific Risk Areas

Certain industries repeatedly generate regularization disputes:

Retail

Cashiers, merchandisers, baggers, stock clerks, promo personnel, warehouse staff.

Manufacturing

Assemblers, packers, machine operators, production line workers, quality checkers.

Food and hospitality

Servers, cooks, kitchen crew, housekeeping, front desk staff.

Logistics and delivery

Riders, drivers, helpers, warehouse personnel.

BPO and office support

Customer service representatives, data encoders, back-office staff, clerical workers.

Construction

Project classification is more common here, but disputes arise when project status is used outside genuine project contexts.

Security, janitorial, and maintenance services

These often involve contractor-principal issues and labor-only contracting disputes.

XXIV. Quitclaims, Releases, and Waivers

Employers frequently obtain quitclaims at the end of employment. In Philippine labor law, quitclaims are not automatically invalid, but they are strictly scrutinized.

A quitclaim may be ineffective if:

the consideration is unconscionably low;
the worker was pressured or misled;
the waiver attempts to surrender rights guaranteed by law;
the employee did not fully understand what was signed.

Thus, a worker who signed an “end of contract clearance” may still challenge illegal dismissal or denial of regularization.

XXV. Why Substance Prevails Over Contract Labels

Philippine labor law consistently focuses on reality. The following labels do not settle the issue by themselves:

contractual
probationary
project-based
reliever
casual
seasonal
consultant
independent contractor
agency-hired

What matters is:

what work the worker actually performs;
how necessary that work is to the business;
who controls the worker;
whether the arrangement is genuinely temporary or only made to look temporary.

This is the heart of the legal response to “endo.”

XXVI. Key Doctrinal Themes in Philippine Context

Even without reducing the subject to a list of cases, the major doctrinal themes in Philippine labor law are consistent:

Regular employment is favored.
Security of tenure is a protected right.
Contractual language cannot defeat statutory policy.
Repeated renewals may show continuing necessity.
Probation must be validly structured.
Project and seasonal classifications must be genuine.
Labor-only contracting is prohibited.
Non-renewal can be illegal dismissal if the employee is already regular.

XXVII. A Practical Legal Test for Assessing a Suspected “Endo” Arrangement

A useful way to evaluate a case is to ask these questions in order:

Step 1: What is the employer’s business?

Identify the usual business or trade.

Step 2: What exactly does the worker do?

Describe the actual daily functions, not the contract label.

Step 3: Is that work necessary or desirable to the business?

If yes, regular status is strongly indicated.

Step 4: Was the worker placed under probation, fixed term, project, seasonal, or agency setup?

Identify the claimed exception.

Step 5: Is that exception genuine and legally valid?

Check the factual basis and documentation.

Step 6: Was the worker repeatedly rehired or renewed?

Repeated renewals suggest continuing need.

Step 7: Who controlled the work?

If the principal controlled it, contracting defenses may fail.

Step 8: Why did employment end?

Was it a real project completion, valid non-regularization, lawful cause, or just contract expiration used as a device?

Step 9: Was due process observed?

Even valid grounds require proper procedure.

Step 10: What remedies follow?

Regularization, reinstatement, backwages, separation pay, benefits, and related relief may be available.

XXVIII. The Bottom Line

In the Philippines, employee regularization depends primarily on the real nature of the work and the actual employment relationship, not on the title of the contract. A worker may already be regular if performing tasks usually necessary or desirable to the employer’s business, even where the employer repeatedly uses short-term, probationary, project, agency, or fixed-term labels.

“Endo” becomes legally problematic when contract expiration or repeated renewal is used to defeat the worker’s rights. The law permits legitimate temporary, project-based, seasonal, and fixed-term hiring, but it does not allow those categories to be used as masks for what is, in substance, regular employment.

The most important rules are these:

regular employment is the norm, not the exception;
the six-month period is not a blanket license for short-term hiring;
repeated contract renewals for core work are highly suspect;
sham project, seasonal, probationary, or agency arrangements can be struck down;
once a worker is regular, termination must comply with lawful cause and due process;
where the employer uses “endo” to evade labor rights, the worker may be entitled to declaration of regular status, reinstatement, backwages, and other relief.

In Philippine labor law, the decisive principle is simple: what the parties call the relationship does not control; what the law sees in the actual facts does.