Purefoods Corporation vs. NLRC, et.

al
G.R. No. 122653
Decemer 12, 1!!"
#$C%&'
The private respondents (numbering 906) were hired by petitioner Pure Foods Corporation to work
for a fixed period of five months at its tuna annery p!ant in Tamb!er" #enera! $antos City% &fter the
expiration of their respetive ontrats of emp!oyment in 'une and 'u!y (99(" their servies were
terminated% They forthwith exeuted a )*e!ease and +uit!aim, stating that they had no !aim
whatsoever against the petitioner% -n .eember (99/" Private respondents fi!ed before the 01*C a
omp!aint for i!!ega! dismissa! against the petitioner and its p!ant manager" 2ariano &ganon%
The Laor $riter dismissed t(e complaint on t(e )round t(at t(e private respondents *ere
mere contractual *or+ers, and not re)ular emplo,ees- (ence, t(e, could not avail of t(e la* on
securit, of tenure% The private respondents appea!ed from the deision to the NLRC *(ic( affirmed
t(e Laor $riter.s decision. -n private respondents/ motion for reconsideration, t(e NLRC
rendered anot(er decision on 30 1anuar, 1!!5 vacatin) and settin) aside its earlier decision and
(eld t(at t(e private respondents and t(eir co2complainants *ere re)ular emplo,ees. 3t de!ared
that the ontrat of emp!oyment for five months was a )!andestine sheme emp!oyed by 4the petitioner5
to stif!e 4private respondents65 right to seurity of tenure, and shou!d therefore be struk down and
disregarded for being ontrary to !aw" pub!i po!iy" and mora!s% 7ene" their dismissa! on aount of the
expiration of their respetive ontrats was i!!ega!%
Petitioner6s motion for reonsideration was denied8 hene" this appea!%
Petitioner/s sumission efore t(e Court' the private respondents are now estopped from questioning
their separation from petitioners employ in view of their express conformity with the five-month
duration of their employment contracts. 3n the instant ase" the private respondents were emp!oyed for a
period of five months on!y% 3n any event" private respondents9 prayer for reinstatement is we!! within the
purview of the )*e!ease and +uit!aim, they had exeuted wherein they unonditiona!!y re!eased the
petitioner from any and a!! other !aims whih might have arisen from their past emp!oyment with the
petitioner%
3&&45' :hether or not the ;<month period speified in private respondents6 emp!oyment ontrat is
inva!id and is therefore vio!ative of their onstitutiona! right to seurity of tenure%
Rulin)'
%(e five2mont( period specified in private respondents/ emplo,ment contract is invalid. 3n
the !eading ase of =rent $hoo!" 3n% v. >amora" a!though the Court has uphe!d the !ega!ity of fixed<
term emp!oyment" the Court a!so he!d that *(ere from t(e circumstances it is apparent t(at t(e
periods (ave een imposed to preclude ac6uisition of tenurial securit, , t(e emplo,ee, t(e, s(ould
e struc+ do*n or disre)arded as contrar, to pulic polic, and morals.
Brent also laid do*n t(e criteria under *(ic( term emplo,ment cannot e said to e in
circumvention of t(e la* on securit, of tenure' 17 %(e fi8ed period of emplo,ment *as +no*in)l,
and voluntaril, a)reed upon , t(e parties *it(out an, force, duress, or improper pressure ein)
rou)(t to ear upon t(e emplo,ee and asent an, ot(er circumstances vitiatin) (is consent- or 27
3t satisfactoril, appears t(at t(e emplo,er and t(e emplo,ee dealt *it( eac( ot(er on more or less
e6ual terms *it( no moral dominance e8ercised , t(e former or t(e latter.
None of t(ese criteria (ad een met in t(e present case% 3t ou!d not be supposed that private
respondents and a!! other so<a!!ed )asua!, workers of 4the petitioner5 ?0-:30#1@ and
A-1B0T&*31@ agreed to the ;<month emp!oyment ontrat%
The petitioner does not deny or rebut private respondents9 averments (() that the main bu!k of its
workfore onsisted of its so<a!!ed )asua!, emp!oyees8 (/) that as of 'u!y (99(" )asua!, workers
numbered ("CD;8 and regu!ar emp!oyees" /6D8 (D) that the ompany hired )asua!, every month for the
duration of five months" after whih their servies were terminated and they were rep!aed by other
)asua!, emp!oyees on the same five<month duration8 and (E) that these )asua!, emp!oyees were atua!!y
doing work that were neessary and desirab!e in petitioner6s usua! business%
%(is sc(eme of t(e petitioner *as apparentl, desi)ned to prevent t(e private respondents and
t(e ot(er 9casual: emplo,ees from attainin) t(e status of a re)ular emplo,ee. 3t *as a clear
circumvention of t(e emplo,ees/ ri)(t to securit, of tenure and to other benefits !ike minimum wage"
ost<of<!iving a!!owane" sik !eave" ho!iday pay" and (Dth month pay% 3ndeed" the petitioner sueeded in
evading the app!iation of !abor !aws% &!so" it saved itse!f from the troub!e or burden of estab!ishing a
Fust ause for terminating emp!oyees by the simp!e expedient of refusing to renew the emp!oyment
ontrats%
The five<month period speified in private respondents6 emp!oyment ontrats having been imposed
preise!y to irumvent the onstitutiona! guarantee on seurity of tenure shou!d" therefore" be struk
down or disregarded as ontrary to pub!i po!iy or mora!s% To upho!d the ontratua! arrangement
between the petitioner and the private respondents wou!d" in effet" permit the former to avoid hiring
permanent or regu!ar emp!oyees by simp!y hiring them on a temporary or asua! basis" thereby vio!ating
the emp!oyees6 seurity of tenure in their Fobs%
The 01*C was orret in finding that the private respondents were regu!ar emp!oyees and that they
were i!!ega!!y dismissed from their Fobs% Bnder &rti!e /G9 of the 1abor Code and the reent
Furisprudene" the le)al conse6uence of ille)al dismissal is reinstatement *it(out loss of seniorit,
ri)(ts and ot(er privile)es, *it( full ac+ *a)es computed from t(e time of dismissal up to t(e time
of actual reinstatement, *it(out deductin) t(e earnin)s derived else*(ere pendin) t(e resolution of
t(e case%
7owever" sine reinstatement is no !onger possib!e beause the petitioner9s tuna annery p!ant had"
admitted!y" been !osed in 0ovember (99E" the proper award is separation pay eHuiva!ent to one month
pay or one<ha!f month pay for every year of servie" whihever is higher" to be omputed from the
ommenement of their emp!oyment up to the !osure of the tuna annery p!ant% The amount of bak
wages must be omputed from the time the private respondents were dismissed unti! the time petitioner9s
annery p!ant eased operation%
Decision' ;<5R5#=R5" for !ak of merit" the instant petition is .3$23$$I. and the ha!!enged
deision of D0 'anuary (99; of the 0ationa! 1abor *e!ations Commission in 01*C C& 0o% 2<00(D/D<
9D is hereby &FF3*2I. subFet to the above modifiation on the omputation of the separation pay and
bak wages.