Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
*
G.R. No. 106331. March 9, 1998.
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
214
215
MENDOZA, J.:
_______________
1 Petition, Annex E, p. 2.
216
_______________
2 Id., p. 3.
3 Id., Annex C, p. 1.
4 Id., Annex F, pp. 2-3.
217
_______________
5 Id., pp. 3-4.
6 Should be August 22, 1986 as per complaint form.
7 Petition, Annex F, p. 1.
8 Id., Annex E, pp. 2-3.
218
219
9
9
In Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora, it was held that although work
done under a contract is necessary and desirable in relation to the
usual business of the employer, a contract for a xed period may
nonetheless be made so long as it is entered into freely, voluntarily
and knowingly by the parties. Applying this ruling to the case at bar,
the NLRC held that the written contract between petitioner and
private respondent was valid, but, after its expiration on March 18,
1984, as the petitioner had decided to continue her services, it must
respect the security of tenure of the employee in accordance with
Art. 280. It said:
The NLRC cited the following facts to justify its ruling: Quintia was
continued as Medical Director and even given the additional
function of company physician after the expiration of the original
contract; she undertook various civic activities for and in behalf of
petitioner, such as conducting free clinics and giving out IPI
products; she did work which was necessary and desirable in
relation to the trade or business of petitioner; and her employment
lasted for more than (3) three years.
Petitioner contends:
_______________
220
The denition that regular employees are those who perform activities
which are desirable and necessary for the business of the employer is not
determinative in this case. Any agreement may provide that one party shall
render services for and in behalf of another for a consideration (no matter
how necessary for the latters business) even without being hired as an
employee. This is precisely true in the case of an independent contractorship
as well as in an agency agreement. The Court agrees with the petitioners
argument that Article 280 is not the yardstick for determining the existence
of an employment relationship because it merely distinguishes between two
kinds of employees, i.e., regular employees and casual employees, for
purposes of determining the right of an employee to certain benets, to join
or form a union, or to security of tenure. Article 280 does not apply where
the existence of an employment relationship is in dispute.
Petitioner argues:
_______________
221
_______________
222
_______________
14 Id., Annex A, p. 4.
15 Ibid.
16 Id., Annex E, p. 2.
17 Id., Annex A, p. 2.
18 Chua v. National Labor Relations Commission, 267 SCRA 196 (1997).
223
which the latter accepts, under the following terms and conditions, to wit:
_______________
19 Petition, p. 13.
20 Id., Annex G, p. 7.
21 De Leon v. National Labor Relations Commission, 176 SCRA 615, 621 (1989).
Accord, Capitol Industrial Construction Groups v. National Labor Relations
Commission, 221 SCRA 469 (1993).
224
Neither does the fact that private respondent was teaching full-time
at the Cebu Doctors College negate her regular status since this fact
does not affect the nature of Quintias work. Whether ones
employment is regular is not determined by the number of hours one
works, but by the nature of the work and by the length of time one
has been in that particular job.
Considering the foregoing, it is clear that Quintia became a
regular employee of petitioner after her contract expired on March
18, 1984 and her services were continued for more than two years in
the usual trade or business of the employer.
Petitioner goes on to state his third point that there is clearly no
legal or factual basis to support respondent NLRCs reliance on the
absence of a new written contract as22 indicating that respondent
Quintia became a regular employee.23
In support, the petitioner
again cites the Brent School case
24
where it was recognized that term
contracts can be made orally. Hence, it is argued that the mere fact
that there was no subsequent written contract does not mean that the
original agreement was abandoned and/or that respondent became
_______________
225
VOL. 287, MARCH 9, 1998 225
International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. vs. NLRC (4th Division)
a regular employee due to the absence thereof and/or that the parties
had executed a new agreement, in the absence of evidence showing
intent to abandon and/or novate the same. It posits that, based on
the acts of the parties, an implied renewal was entered into, or, at the
very least, petitioner claims, the absence of a written contract only
indicates that the parties impliedly agreed to extend their written
contract.
There is absolutely no principle of law to support the proposition
urged by petitioner. On the other hand the written contract in this
case provided that it was subject to renewal by mutual consent of the
parties at least thirty days before its expiration on March 18, 1984.
There is no evidence to show that the parties mutually agreed to
renew their contract. On the other hand, to sustain petitioners
contention that there was an implied extension after the expiration of
the original contract would make it possible for employers like
petitioner to circumvent Art. 280 of the Labor Code and thus prevent
an employee from becoming regular through the simple expedient of
making him sign a contract for a term and then extend to him a
contract term, after term, after term.
Moreover, assuming that petitioner is correct that there was at
least an implied renewal of the written contract containing the same
terms and conditions, then Quintias termination should have been
effective in March of 1986 or March of 1987 rather than July of
1986. It should be noted that the xed term stated in the written
contract allegedly renewed is one year. Considering that the said
contract was executed on March 19, 1983, then if there really were
implied renewals with the same terms and conditions, private
respondents employment should not have been terminated in July of
1986. As discussed earlier, the decision of the NLRC is based not
alone on inference drawn from the expiration of the contract but on
facts which, in light of Art. 280, show that private respondents work
was in pursuance of the business of petitioner.
Second. Prescinding from the premise that private respondent
was a project employee, petitioner claims that because it had
discontinued its herbal medicine project after it had been
226
_______________
25 LABOR CODE, Art. 280; Rules to Implement the Labor Code, Book VI, Rule I,
5(a).
26 CONSTITUTION, Art. XIII, 3; LABOR CODE, Art. 279.
27 Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 172
SCRA 751 (1989); Metro Drug Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 143
SCRA 132 (1986).
28 253 SCRA 405 (1996).
227
The law requires that the employer must furnish the worker sought to be
dismissed with two written notices before termination of employee can be
legally effected: (1) notice which apprises the employee of the particular
acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the subsequent
notice which informs the employee of the employers decision to dismiss
him (Section 13, BP 130; Sections 2-6, Rule XIV, Book V, Rules and
Regulations Implementing the Labor Code as amended). Failure to comply
with the requirements taints the dismissal with illegality. This procedure is
mandatory; in the absence of which, any judgment reached by management
is void and inexistent. (Tingson, Jr. v. NLRC, 185 SCRA 498 [1990];
National Service Corporation v. NLRC, 168 SCRA 122 [1988]; Ruffy v.
NLRC, 182 SCRA 365 [1990]).
The memoranda dated July 12, 1986 and July 10, 1986, copies of
which were furnished the complainant, informing her of the
termination of her contract and the appointment of a replacement,
without apprising her of the particular acts or omissions for which
her dismissal was sought, do not sufce to satisfy the requirements
30
of notice. Nor was petitioner given the opportunity to be heard.
Consequently, her dismissal from the service was illegal.
_______________
228
_______________
229
o0o