Lawyerly

GR No. 204944-45

2014-12-03

FUJI TELEVISION NETWORK v. ARLENE S. ESPIRITU

LEONEN, J.

Further, an employee can be a regular employee with a fixed-term contract. The law does not preclude the possibility that a regular employee may opt to have a fixed-term contract for valid reasons. This was recognized in Brent: For as long as it was the employee who requested, or bargained, that the contract have a "definite date of termination," or that the fixed-term contract be freely entered into by the employer and the employee, then the validity of the fixed-term contract will be upheld.[230]

GR No. 193857

2012-11-28

MA. MERCEDES L. BARBA v. LICEO DE CAGAYAN UNIVERSITY

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

As we observed in Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora,[38] also cited by the CA, it is common practice in educational institutions to have fixed-term contracts in administrative positions, thus: Some familiar examples may be cited of employment contracts which may be neither for seasonal work nor for specific projects, but to which a fixed term is an essential and natural appurtenance: overseas employment contracts, for one, to which, whatever the nature of the engagement, the concept of regular employment with all that it implies does not appear ever to have been applied, Article 280 of the Labor Code notwithstanding; also appointments to the positions of dean, assistant dean, college secretary, principal, and other administrative offices in educational institutions, which are by practice or tradition rotated among the faculty members, and where fixed terms are a necessity without which no reasonable rotation would be possible. x x x (Emphasis supplied)

GR No. 183572

2010-04-13

YOLANDA M. MERCADO v. AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE-PARAÑAQUE CITY

BRION, J.

Finally, the CA found that the petitioners were hired on a non-tenured basis and for a fixed and predetermined term based on the Teaching Contract exemplified by the contract between the petitioner Lachica and AMACC. The CA ruled that the non-renewal of the petitioners' teaching contracts is sanctioned by the doctrine laid down in Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora [20] where the Court recognized the validity of contracts providing for fixed-period employment.

GR No. 183572

2010-04-13

YOLANDA M. MERCADO v. AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE-PARAÑAQUE CITY

BRION, J.

We have long settled the validity of a fixed-term contract in the case Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora [29] that AMACC cited. Significantly, Brent happened in a school setting. Care should be taken, however, in reading Brent in the context of this case as Brent did not involve any probationary employment issue; it dealt purely and simply with the validity of a fixed-term employment under the terms of the Labor Code, then newly issued and which does not expressly contain a provision on fixed-term employment.

GR No. 163033

2009-10-02

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. EDUARDO L. TEODOSIO

PERALTA, J.

While this Court recognizes the validity of fixed-term employment contracts, it has consistently held that this is the exception rather than the general rule. Verily, a fixed-term contract is valid only under certain circumstances.[28] In the oft-cited case of Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora,[29] this Court made it clear that a contract of employment stipulating a fixed term, even if clear as regards the existence of a period, is invalid if it can be shown that the same was executed with the intention of circumventing an employee's right to security of tenure, and should thus be ignored. Moreover, in that same case, this Court issued a stern admonition that where from the circumstances, it is apparent that the period was imposed to preclude the acquisition of tenurial security by the employee, then it should be struck down as being contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order and public policy.[30]

GR No. 172342

2009-07-13

LWV CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. MARCELO B. DUPO

QUISUMBING, J.

Respondent's service award for the sixth contract is equivalent only to half-month's pay plus the proportionate amount for the additional nine days of service he rendered after one year. Respondent's employment contracts expressly stated that his employment ended upon his departure from work. Each year he departed from work and successively new contracts were executed before he reported for work anew. His service was not cumulative. Pertinently, in Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora,[22] we said that "a fixed term is an essential and natural appurtenance" of overseas employment contracts,[23] as in this case. We also said in that case that under American law, "[w]here a contract specifies the period of its duration, it terminates on the expiration of such period. A contract of employment for a definite period terminates by its own terms at the end of such period."[24] As it is, Article 72 of the Saudi Labor Law is also of similar import. It reads: A labor contract concluded for a specified period shall terminate upon the expiry of its term. If both parties continue to enforce the contract, thereafter, it shall be considered renewed for an unspecified period.[25]

GR No. 167614

2009-03-24

ANTONIO M. SERRANO v. GALLANT MARITIME SERVICES

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

(March 19/31, 1998 to April 1/30, 1998) + 1,060.50[10] TOTAL CLAIM US$ 26,442.73[11] as well as moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.

GR No. 178835

2009-02-13

MAGIS YOUNG ACHIEVERS' LEARNING CENTER v. ADELAIDA P. MANALO

NACHURA, J.

the fixed period of employment was agreed upon knowingly and voluntarily by the parties, without any force, duress or improper pressure being brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent, or where it satisfactorily appears that the employer and employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance whatever being exercised by the former over the latter.[30]

GR No. 178505

2008-09-30

CHERRY J. PRICE v. INNODATA PHILS. INC.

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The NLRC found that petitioners were not regular employees, but were fixed-term employees as stipulated in their respective contracts of employment. The NLRC applied Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora[13] and St. Theresa's School of Novaliches Foundation v. National Labor Relations Commission,[14] in which this Court upheld the validity of fixed-term contracts. The determining factor of such contracts is not the duty of the employee but the day certain agreed upon by the parties for the commencement and termination of the employment relationship. The NLRC observed that the petitioners freely and voluntarily entered into the fixed-term employment contracts with INNODATA. Hence, INNODATA was not guilty of illegal dismissal when it terminated petitioners' employment upon the expiration of their contracts on 16 February 2000.

GR No. 172038

2008-04-14

DANTE D. DE LA CRUZ v. MAERSK FILIPINAS CREWING

CORONA, J.

It is well to remind both parties that, as early as Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora,[19] we already held that seafarers are not covered by the term regular employment, as defined under Article 280 of the Labor Code. This was reiterated in Coyoca v. National Labor Relations Commission.[20] Instead, they are considered contractual employees whose rights and obligations are governed primarily by the POEA Standard Employment Contract for Filipino Seamen (POEA Standard Employment Contract), the Rules and Regulations Governing Overseas Employment, and, more importantly, by Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.[21] Even the POEA Standard Employment Contract itself mandates that in no case shall a contract of employment concerning seamen exceed 12 months.

GR No. 164078

2007-11-23

AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE v. ROLANDO A. AUSTRIA

NACHURA, J.

Thus, this Court's ruling in Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora[35] is instructive: The question immediately provoked. . . is whether or not a voluntary agreement on a fixed term or period would be valid where the employee "has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer." The definition seems non sequitur. From the premise that the duties of an employee entail "activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer" the conclusion does not necessarily follow that the employer and employee should be forbidden to stipulate any period of time for the performance of those activities. There is nothing essentially contradictory between a definite period of an employment contract and the nature of the employee's duties set down in that contract as being "usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer." The concept of the employee's duties as being "usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer" is not synonymous with or identical to employment with a fixed term. Logically, the decisive determinant in term 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." Seasonal employment, and employment for a particular project are merely instances of employment in which a period, where not expressly set down, is necessarily implied.

GR NO. 150658

2007-02-09

NOELITO FABELA v. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Although Article 280 does not expressly recognize employment for a fixed period, which is distinct from employment which has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora[11] has clarified that employment for a fixed period is not in itself illegal, viz:There can of course be no quarrel with the proposition that where from the circumstances it is apparent that periods have been imposed to preclude acquisition of tenurial security by the employee, they should be struck down or disregarded as contrary to public policy, morals, etc. But where no such intent to circumvent the law is shown, or stated otherwise, where the reason for the law does not exist, e.g., where it is indeed the employee himself who insists upon a period or where the nature of the engagement is such that, without being seasonal or for a specific project, a definite date of termination is a sine qua non, would an agreement fixing a period essentially evil or illicit, therefore anathema? Would such an agreement come within the scope of Article 280 which admittedly was enacted "to prevent the circumvention of the right of the employee to be secured in x x (his) employment?"

GR NO. 148130

2006-06-16

PETROLEUM SHIPPING LIMITED v. NLRC

CARPIO, J.

In Ravago v. Esso Eastern Marine, Ltd.,[14] the Court traced its ruling in a number of cases that seafarers are contractual, not regular, employees. Thus, in Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora,[15] the Court cited overseas employment contract as an example of contracts where the concept of regular employment does not apply, whatever the nature of the engagement and despite the provisions of Article 280 of the Labor Code. In Coyoca v. NLRC,[16] the Court held that the agency is liable for payment of a seaman's medical and disability benefits in the event that the principal fails or refuses to pay the benefits or wages due the seaman although the seaman may not be a regular employee of the agency.

GR NO. 168052

2006-02-20

POSEIDON FISHING v. NLRC

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Petitioners lament that fixed-term employment contracts are recognized as valid under the law notwithstanding the provision of Article 280 of the Labor Code. Petitioners theorize that the Civil Code has always recognized the validity of contracts with a fixed and definite period, and imposes no restraints on the freedom of the parties to fix the duration of the contract, whatever its object, be it species, goods or services, except the general admonition against stipulations contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order and public policy. Quoting Brent School Inc. v. Zamora,[14] petitioners are hamstrung on their reasoning that under the Civil Code, fixed-term employment contracts are not limited, as they are under the present Labor Code, to those that by their nature are seasonal or for specific projects with pre-determined dates of completion as they also include those to which the parties by free choice have assigned a specific date of termination. Hence, persons may enter into such contracts as long as they are capacitated to act, petitioners bemoan.

	GR No. 204944-45 2014-12-03	FUJI TELEVISION NETWORK v. ARLENE S. ESPIRITU LEONEN, J.
Further, an employee can be a regular employee with a fixed-term contract. The law does not preclude the possibility that a regular employee may opt to have a fixed-term contract for valid reasons. This was recognized in Brent: For as long as it was the employee who requested, or bargained, that the contract have a "definite date of termination," or that the fixed-term contract be freely entered into by the employer and the employee, then the validity of the fixed-term contract will be upheld.[230]
	GR No. 193857 2012-11-28	MA. MERCEDES L. BARBA v. LICEO DE CAGAYAN UNIVERSITY VILLARAMA, JR., J.
As we observed in Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora,[38] also cited by the CA, it is common practice in educational institutions to have fixed-term contracts in administrative positions, thus: Some familiar examples may be cited of employment contracts which may be neither for seasonal work nor for specific projects, but to which a fixed term is an essential and natural appurtenance: overseas employment contracts, for one, to which, whatever the nature of the engagement, the concept of regular employment with all that it implies does not appear ever to have been applied, Article 280 of the Labor Code notwithstanding; also appointments to the positions of dean, assistant dean, college secretary, principal, and other administrative offices in educational institutions, which are by practice or tradition rotated among the faculty members, and where fixed terms are a necessity without which no reasonable rotation would be possible. x x x (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 183572 2010-04-13	YOLANDA M. MERCADO v. AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE-PARAÑAQUE CITY BRION, J.
Finally, the CA found that the petitioners were hired on a non-tenured basis and for a fixed and predetermined term based on the Teaching Contract exemplified by the contract between the petitioner Lachica and AMACC. The CA ruled that the non-renewal of the petitioners' teaching contracts is sanctioned by the doctrine laid down in Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora [20] where the Court recognized the validity of contracts providing for fixed-period employment.
	GR No. 183572 2010-04-13	YOLANDA M. MERCADO v. AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE-PARAÑAQUE CITY BRION, J.
We have long settled the validity of a fixed-term contract in the case Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora [29] that AMACC cited. Significantly, Brent happened in a school setting. Care should be taken, however, in reading Brent in the context of this case as Brent did not involve any probationary employment issue; it dealt purely and simply with the validity of a fixed-term employment under the terms of the Labor Code, then newly issued and which does not expressly contain a provision on fixed-term employment.
	GR No. 163033 2009-10-02	SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. EDUARDO L. TEODOSIO PERALTA, J.
While this Court recognizes the validity of fixed-term employment contracts, it has consistently held that this is the exception rather than the general rule. Verily, a fixed-term contract is valid only under certain circumstances.[28] In the oft-cited case of Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora,[29] this Court made it clear that a contract of employment stipulating a fixed term, even if clear as regards the existence of a period, is invalid if it can be shown that the same was executed with the intention of circumventing an employee's right to security of tenure, and should thus be ignored. Moreover, in that same case, this Court issued a stern admonition that where from the circumstances, it is apparent that the period was imposed to preclude the acquisition of tenurial security by the employee, then it should be struck down as being contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order and public policy.[30]
	GR No. 172342 2009-07-13	LWV CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. MARCELO B. DUPO QUISUMBING, J.
Respondent's service award for the sixth contract is equivalent only to half-month's pay plus the proportionate amount for the additional nine days of service he rendered after one year. Respondent's employment contracts expressly stated that his employment ended upon his departure from work. Each year he departed from work and successively new contracts were executed before he reported for work anew. His service was not cumulative. Pertinently, in Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora,[22] we said that "a fixed term is an essential and natural appurtenance" of overseas employment contracts,[23] as in this case. We also said in that case that under American law, "[w]here a contract specifies the period of its duration, it terminates on the expiration of such period. A contract of employment for a definite period terminates by its own terms at the end of such period."[24] As it is, Article 72 of the Saudi Labor Law is also of similar import. It reads: A labor contract concluded for a specified period shall terminate upon the expiry of its term. If both parties continue to enforce the contract, thereafter, it shall be considered renewed for an unspecified period.[25]
	GR No. 167614 2009-03-24	ANTONIO M. SERRANO v. GALLANT MARITIME SERVICES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
(March 19/31, 1998 to April 1/30, 1998) + 1,060.50[10] TOTAL CLAIM US$ 26,442.73[11] as well as moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.
	GR No. 178835 2009-02-13	MAGIS YOUNG ACHIEVERS' LEARNING CENTER v. ADELAIDA P. MANALO NACHURA, J.
the fixed period of employment was agreed upon knowingly and voluntarily by the parties, without any force, duress or improper pressure being brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent, or where it satisfactorily appears that the employer and employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance whatever being exercised by the former over the latter.[30]
	GR No. 178505 2008-09-30	CHERRY J. PRICE v. INNODATA PHILS. INC. CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The NLRC found that petitioners were not regular employees, but were fixed-term employees as stipulated in their respective contracts of employment. The NLRC applied Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora[13] and St. Theresa's School of Novaliches Foundation v. National Labor Relations Commission,[14] in which this Court upheld the validity of fixed-term contracts. The determining factor of such contracts is not the duty of the employee but the day certain agreed upon by the parties for the commencement and termination of the employment relationship. The NLRC observed that the petitioners freely and voluntarily entered into the fixed-term employment contracts with INNODATA. Hence, INNODATA was not guilty of illegal dismissal when it terminated petitioners' employment upon the expiration of their contracts on 16 February 2000.
	GR No. 172038 2008-04-14	DANTE D. DE LA CRUZ v. MAERSK FILIPINAS CREWING CORONA, J.
It is well to remind both parties that, as early as Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora,[19] we already held that seafarers are not covered by the term regular employment, as defined under Article 280 of the Labor Code. This was reiterated in Coyoca v. National Labor Relations Commission.[20] Instead, they are considered contractual employees whose rights and obligations are governed primarily by the POEA Standard Employment Contract for Filipino Seamen (POEA Standard Employment Contract), the Rules and Regulations Governing Overseas Employment, and, more importantly, by Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995.[21] Even the POEA Standard Employment Contract itself mandates that in no case shall a contract of employment concerning seamen exceed 12 months.
	GR No. 164078 2007-11-23	AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE v. ROLANDO A. AUSTRIA NACHURA, J.
Thus, this Court's ruling in Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora[35] is instructive: The question immediately provoked. . . is whether or not a voluntary agreement on a fixed term or period would be valid where the employee "has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer." The definition seems non sequitur. From the premise that the duties of an employee entail "activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer" the conclusion does not necessarily follow that the employer and employee should be forbidden to stipulate any period of time for the performance of those activities. There is nothing essentially contradictory between a definite period of an employment contract and the nature of the employee's duties set down in that contract as being "usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer." The concept of the employee's duties as being "usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer" is not synonymous with or identical to employment with a fixed term. Logically, the decisive determinant in term 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." Seasonal employment, and employment for a particular project are merely instances of employment in which a period, where not expressly set down, is necessarily implied.
	GR NO. 150658 2007-02-09	NOELITO FABELA v. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION CARPIO MORALES, J.
Although Article 280 does not expressly recognize employment for a fixed period, which is distinct from employment which has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora[11] has clarified that employment for a fixed period is not in itself illegal, viz:There can of course be no quarrel with the proposition that where from the circumstances it is apparent that periods have been imposed to preclude acquisition of tenurial security by the employee, they should be struck down or disregarded as contrary to public policy, morals, etc. But where no such intent to circumvent the law is shown, or stated otherwise, where the reason for the law does not exist, e.g., where it is indeed the employee himself who insists upon a period or where the nature of the engagement is such that, without being seasonal or for a specific project, a definite date of termination is a sine qua non, would an agreement fixing a period essentially evil or illicit, therefore anathema? Would such an agreement come within the scope of Article 280 which admittedly was enacted "to prevent the circumvention of the right of the employee to be secured in x x (his) employment?"
	GR NO. 148130 2006-06-16	PETROLEUM SHIPPING LIMITED v. NLRC CARPIO, J.
In Ravago v. Esso Eastern Marine, Ltd.,[14] the Court traced its ruling in a number of cases that seafarers are contractual, not regular, employees. Thus, in Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora,[15] the Court cited overseas employment contract as an example of contracts where the concept of regular employment does not apply, whatever the nature of the engagement and despite the provisions of Article 280 of the Labor Code. In Coyoca v. NLRC,[16] the Court held that the agency is liable for payment of a seaman's medical and disability benefits in the event that the principal fails or refuses to pay the benefits or wages due the seaman although the seaman may not be a regular employee of the agency.
	GR NO. 168052 2006-02-20	POSEIDON FISHING v. NLRC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Petitioners lament that fixed-term employment contracts are recognized as valid under the law notwithstanding the provision of Article 280 of the Labor Code. Petitioners theorize that the Civil Code has always recognized the validity of contracts with a fixed and definite period, and imposes no restraints on the freedom of the parties to fix the duration of the contract, whatever its object, be it species, goods or services, except the general admonition against stipulations contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order and public policy. Quoting Brent School Inc. v. Zamora,[14] petitioners are hamstrung on their reasoning that under the Civil Code, fixed-term employment contracts are not limited, as they are under the present Labor Code, to those that by their nature are seasonal or for specific projects with pre-determined dates of completion as they also include those to which the parties by free choice have assigned a specific date of termination. Hence, persons may enter into such contracts as long as they are capacitated to act, petitioners bemoan.

BRENT SCHOOL v. RONALDO ZAMORA