FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 159350, March 09, 2016
ALUMAMAY O. JAMIAS, JENNIFER C. MATUGUINAS AND JENNIFER F. CRUZ,*Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION), HON. COMMISSIONERS: RAUL T. AQUINO, VICTORIANO R. CALAYCAY AND ANGELITA A. GACUTAN; HON. LABOR ARBITER VICENTE R. LAYAWEN; INNODATA PHILIPPINES, INC., INNODATA PROCESSING CORPORATION, (INNODATA CORPORATION), AND TODD SOLOMON, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
BERSAMIN, J.:
The petitioners appeal the adverse judgment promulgated on July 31, 2002,1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) declaring them as project employees hired for a fixed period.
After their respective contracts expired, the aforenamed individuals filed a complaint for illegal dismissal claiming that Innodata had made it appear that they had been hired as project employees in order to prevent them from becoming regular employees.14
Name Position Duration of Contract Alumamay Jamias Manual Editor August 7, 1995 to August 7, 19963 Marietha V. Delos Santos Manual Editor August 7, 1995 to August 7, 19964 Lilian R. Guamil Manual Editor August 16, 1995 to August 16, 19965 Rina C. Duque Manual Editor August 7, 1995 to August 7, 19966 Marilen Agabayani Manual Editor August 23, 1995 to August 23, 19967 Alvin V. Patnon Production Personnel September 1, 1995 to September 1, 19968 Analyn I. Beter Type Reader September 18, 1995 to September 18, 19969 Jerry O. Soldevilla Production Personnel September 18, 1995 to September 18, 199610 Ma. Concepcion A. Dela Cruz Production Personnel September 18, 1995 to September 18, 199611 Jennifer Cruz Data Encoder November 20, 1995 to November 20, 199612 Jennifer Matuguinas Data Encoder November 20, 1995 to November 20, 199613
[I]t is distinctly provided that complainants were hired for a definite period of one year incidental upon the needs of the respondent by reason of the seasonal increase in the volume of its business. Consequently, following the rulings in Pantranco North Express, Inc. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 106654, December 16, 1994, the decisive determinant in term of employment should not be the activities that the employee is called upon to perform, but the day certain agreed upon by the parties for the commencement and termination of their employment relationship, a day certain being understood to be "that which must necessarily come, although it may not be known when." Further, Article 280 of the Labor Code does not prescribe or prohibit an employment contract with a fixed period provided, the same is entered into by the parties, without any force, duress or improper pressure being brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other circumstance vitiating consent. It does not necessarily follow that where the duties of the employee consist of activities usually necessary or desirable in the usual business of the employer, the parties are forbidden from agreeing on a period of time for the performance of such activities. There is thus nothing essentially contradictory between a definite period of employment and the nature of the employee's duties. x x x17ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
The petitioners maintain that the nature of employment in Innodata had been settled in Villanueva v. National Labor Relations Commission (Second Division)23 and Servidad v. National Labor Relations Commission,24 whereby the Court accorded regular status to the employees because the work they performed were necessary and desirable to the business of data encoding, processing and conversion.25 They insist that the CA consequently committed serious error in not applying the pronouncement in said rulings, thereby ignoring the principle of stare decisis in declaring their employment as governed by the contract of employment; that the CA also erroneously found that the engagement of the petitioners was coterminous with the project that was nonexistent; that Innodata engaged in "semantic interplay of words" by introducing the concept of "fixed term employment" or "project employment" that were not founded in law;26 and that Article 280 of the Labor Code guarantees the right of workers to security of tenure, which rendered the contracts between the petitioners and Innodata meaningless.27cralawredI
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION AS IT CANNOT REVERSE OR ALTER THE SUPREME COURT DECISION
THE SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT THE NATURE OF EMPLOYMENT AT RESPONDENTS IS REGULAR NOT FIXED OR CONTRACTUAL IN AT LEAST TWO (2) CASES AGAINST INNODATA PHILS., INC.II
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW WHEN IT DID NOT STICK TO PRECENDENT AS IT HAS ALREADY RULED IN AN EARLIER CASE THAT THE NATURE OF EMPLOYMENT AT INNODATA PHILS., INC. IS REGULAR AND NOT CONTRACTUALIII
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS PATENTLY ERRED IN LAW AND COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION IN RULING THAT PETITIONERS' EMPLOYMENT IS FOR A FIXED PERIOD CO-TERMINOUS WITH A PROJECT WHEN THERE IS NO PROJECT TO SPEAK OFIV
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS PALPABLY ERRED IN LAW IN RULING THAT THE STIPULATION IN CONTRACT IS GOVERNING AND NOT THE NATURE OF EMPLOYMENT AS DEFINED BY LAW.22ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
A cursory examination of the facts would reveal that while all the cases abovementioned involved employment contracts with a fixed term, the employment contract subject of contention in the Servidad and Villanueva cases provided for double probation, meaning, that the employees concerned, by virtue of a clause incorporated in their contracts, were made to remain as probationary employees even if they continue to work beyond the six month probation period set by law. Indeed, such stipulation militates against Constitutional policy of guaranteeing the tenurial security of the workingman. To Our mind, the provision alluded to is what prodded the Supreme Court to disregard and nullify altogether the terms of the written entente. Nonetheless, it does not appear to be the intendment of the High Tribunal to sweepingly invalidate or declare as unlawful all employment contracts with a fixed period. To phrase it differently, the said agreements providing for a one year term would have been declared valid and, consequently, the separation from work of the employees concerned would have been sustained had their contracts not included any unlawful and circumventive condition.We also disagree with the petitioners' manifestation36 that the Court struck down in Innodata Philippines, Inc. v. Quejada-Lopez37 a contract of employment that was similarly worded as their contracts with Innodata. What the Court invalidated in Innodata Philippines, Inc. v. Quejada-Lopez was the purported fixed-term contract that provided for two periods - a fixed term of one year under paragraph 1 of the contract, and a three-month period under paragraph 7.4 of the contract - that in reality placed the employees under probation. In contrast, the petitioners' contracts did not contain similar stipulations, but stipulations to the effect that their engagement was for the fixed period of 12 months, to wit:
It ought to be underscored that unlike in the Servidad and Villanueva cases, the written contracts governing the relations of the respondent company and the petitioners herein do not embody such illicit stipulation.35ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
1. The EMPLOYER shall employ the EMPLOYEE and the EMPLOYEE shall serve the EMPLOYER in the EMPLOYER'S business as a MANUAL EDITOR on a fixed term only and for a fixed and definite period of twelve months, commencing on August 7, 1995 and terminating on August 7, 1996, x x x.38ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryIn other words, the terms of the petitioners' contracts did not subject them to a probationary period similar to that indicated in the contracts struck down in Innodata, Villanueva and Servidad.
Art. 280. Regular and Casual Employment. - The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreements of the parties, 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 except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.The provision contemplates three kinds of employees, namely: (a) regular employees; (b) project employees; and (c) casuals who are neither regular nor project employees. The nature of employment of a worker is determined by the factors provided in Article 280 of the Labor Code, regardless of any stipulation in the contract to the contrary.39 Thus, in Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora,40 we explained that the clause referring to written contracts should be construed to refer to agreements entered into for the purpose of circumventing the security of tenure. Obviously, Article 280 does not preclude an agreement providing for a fixed term of employment knowingly and voluntarily executed by the parties.41
An employment shall be deemed casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, That, any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such actuallv exists.
There is proof to establish that Innodata's operations indeed rests upon job orders or undertakings coming from its foreign clients. Apparently, its employees are assigned to projects - one batch may be given a fixed period of one year, others, a slightly shorter duration, depending on the estimated time of completion of the particular job or undertaking farmed out by the client to the company.51ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryIn fine, the employment of the petitioners who were engaged as project employees for a fixed term legally ended upon the expiration of their contract. Their complaint for illegal dismissal was plainly lacking in merit.chanrobleslaw
Endnotes:
* Although the petition for review on certiorari was filed in the names of all the original parties in the Court of Appeals, namely: Alvin V. Patnon, Marietha V. Delos Santos, Mary Rose V. Macabuhay, Alumamay O. .lamias, Marilen Agbayani, Rina O. Duque, Lilian R. Guamil, Jerry F. Soldevilla, Ma. Concepcion A. Dela Cruz, Analyn I. Beter, Michael L. Aguirre, Jennifer C. Matuguinas and Jennifer F. Cruz, the Court captions this decision only with the names of the three who brought this appeal, namely: Alumamay O. Jarnias, Jennifer C. Maluguinas and Jennifer F. Cruz.
1Rollo, pp. 38-46; penned by CA Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes (now a Member of the Court), with Associate Justice Roberto A. Barrios (retired/deceased) and Associate Justice Edgardo F. Sundiam (retired/deceased), concurring.
2 Id. at 179-180.
3 Id. at 217.
4 CA rollo, pp. 41-42.
5 Id.
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 Id. at 42-43.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12Rollo, p. 218.
13 Id. at 219.
14 CA rollo, p. 48.
15 Id. at 40-47.
16 Id. at 25-38.
17 Id. at 35-36.
18Rollo, pp. 43-44.
19 Id. at 45.
20 CA rollo, pp. 528-547.
21Rollo, pp. 48-49.
22 Id. at 14.
23 G.R. No. 127448, September 10, 1998, 295 SCRA 326.
24 G.R. No. 128682, March 18, 1999, 305 SCRA 49.cralawred
25Rollo, p. 18.
26 Id. at 27-28.cralawred
27 Id. at 30-31.
28 Id. at 186-188.
29 Id. at 192-193.
30 Id. at 195.
31 Id. at 197-198.
32 Id. at 190-200.
33Lazatin v. Desierto, G.R. No. 147097, June 5, 2009, 588 SCRA 285, 293-294; citing Fermin v. People, G.R. No. 157643, March 28, 2008, 550 SCRA 132, 145.
34Hacienda Bino/Hortencia Starke, Inc./Hortencia Starke v. Cuenca, G.R. No. 150478, April 15, 2005, 456 SCRA 300, 309.
35Rollo, pp. 42-43.
36 Id. at 555-562.
37 G.R. No. 162839, October 12, 2006, 504 SCRA 253.
38Rollo, p. 217.
39Villa v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 117043, January 14, 1998, 284 SCRA 105, 127.cralawred
40 G.R. No. 48494, February 5, 1990, 181 SCRA 702.
41 Id., at 716.
42Violeta v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 119523, October 10, 1997, 280 SCRA 520, 528.
43 Id.
44 Philippine National Oil Co.-Energy Dev't Corp. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 97747 March 31, 1993, 220 SCRA 695, 699.
45Rollo, pp. 217-219.
46 Id. at 195.
47Villa v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra, note 39, at 128.
48Pakistan International Airlines Corporation v. Ople, G.R. No. 61594, September 28, 1990, 190 SCRA 90.
49ALU-TUCP v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 109902, August 2, 1994, 234 SCRA 678, 684.
50Brent School, Inc. v, Zamora, supra, note 40, at 710.
51 Supra note 1, at 45.