Across government offices in the Philippines, thousands of Job Order (JO) and Contract of Service (COS) workers render full-time service year after year. They follow fixed schedules, obey directives, and perform core functions — yet are repeatedly told: “You are not employees.” Even worse, they are told they are not protected by either the Civil Service Law or the Labor Code.

But the law says otherwise.

1. Labels Cannot Defeat the Existence of Employment

The primary standard for determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship is the right to control. That is, whether the employer controls or has reserved the right to control the employee, not only as to the result of the work to be done but also as to the means and methods by which the same is to be accomplished.—Aliling v. Feliciano, G.R. No. 185829, April 25, 2012

The legal test does not ask what the contract is called — but how the relationship functions. If a worker is required to report daily, follow office rules, take orders from supervisors, and use government tools, then the government exercises control. That control is the decisive element in forming an employer-employee relationship.

2. Civil Service Rules Do Not Apply to JO and COS Workers

The contract of service and job order are not covered by Civil Service law, rules and regulations; but are governed by the Commission on Audit (COA) rules.— Abadilla v. PAGCOR, G.R. No. 258658, March 12, 2024

This recent Supreme Court decision affirms that JO and COS workers are not civil service employees. Since they fall outside the Civil Service Law, they cannot seek remedies before the CSC. But if the government controls their work, then jurisdiction naturally falls under the Labor Code — or else they are left with no legal protection at all.

3. Work That Is Necessary and Desirable Creates Regular Employment

The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding… 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.— Article 295, Labor Code of the Philippines

This applies regardless of contract title. If a worker performs duties that are integral to the agency’s mission — such as clerical work, public assistance, records management, or payroll — then they may be considered regular employees under the Labor Code, despite being hired repeatedly under short-term JO/COS contracts.

4. Administrative Circulars Cannot Override Statutory Definitions

Administrative issuances cannot amend or supersede statutory laws.— Cawad v. Abad, G.R. No. 207145, February 2, 2016

The CSC-COA-DBM Joint Circular, which claims JO and COS workers are not employees, is not a law. It is an administrative issuance. And as jurisprudence reminds us, no circular can amend the Labor Code — only Congress can create or alter legal rights.

5. The Constitution Demands That All Labor Be Protected

“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.”
— Article XIII, Section 3, 1987 Constitution

This is not limited to private sector workers or those with plantilla status. This clause guarantees that all workers — regardless of classification — deserve protection. To say that JO and COS workers fall outside both Civil Service and Labor Code coverage is to create a legal void that violates the Constitution.

6. Repeated Hiring and Vital Work Are Signs of Employment

The repeated and successive rehiring of project employees do not qualify them as regular employees, as length of service is not the controlling determinant of the employment tenure of a project employee, but whether the employment has been fixed for a specific project… the completion of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee.— William Uy Construction v. Trinidad, G.R. No. 183250, August 3, 2010

But most JO and COS workers are not hired for specific, time-bound projects. Instead, they perform continuous, essential functions — indicating that their work is institutional, not project-based. When rehiring becomes the norm, and work is ongoing, it signals a de facto employment relationship.

Conclusion: The NLRC Is the Proper Forum When CSC Jurisdiction Fails

When JO and COS workers are excluded from the Civil Service Law but are under clear control of the government agency, the Labor Code must apply. Disputes over wage delays, illegal termination, or workplace abuses must be heard by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

To deny these workers recourse under both the CSC and the NLRC is not only unconstitutional — it is unjust.