This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-10-07 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Aware of the possible abuse of fixed-term employment contracts, the Court stressed in Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora that where from the circumstances it is apparent that the periods have been imposed to preclude acquisition of tenurial security by the employee, they should be struck down as contrary to public policy or morals.[29] The Court thus laid down indications or criteria under which the term "employment" cannot be said to be in circumvention of the law on security of tenure, namely: 1) The fixed period of employment was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon 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 | |||||
|
2015-02-04 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Thus, under the above Brent doctrine, while it was not expressly mentioned in the Labor Code, this Court has recognized a fixed-term type of employment embodied in a contract specifying that the services of the employee shall be engaged only for a definite period, the termination of which occurs upon the expiration of said period irrespective of the existence of just cause and regardless of the activity the employee is called upon to perform.[28] Considering, however, the possibility of abuse by employers in the utilization of fixed-term employment contracts, this Court, in Brent, laid down the following criteria to prevent the circumvention of the employee's security of tenure: 1) The fixed period of employment was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon 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 | |||||
|
2015-02-04 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| While fixed term employment is not per se illegal or against public policy, the criteria above must first be established to the satisfaction of this Court. Yet, the records of this case reveal that for years, petitioners were repeatedly engaged to perform functions necessary to respondent's business for fixed periods short of the six-month probationary period of employment. If there was really no intent to circumvent security of tenure, respondent should have made it clear to petitioners that they were being hired only for fixed periods in an agreement freely entered into by the parties. To this Court, respondent's act of hiring and re-hiring petitioners for periods short of the legal probationary period evidences its intent to thwart petitioner's security of tenure, especially in view of an awareness that ordinary workers, such as petitioners herein, are never on equal terms with their employers.[32] It is rather unjustifiable to allow respondent to hire and rehire petitioners on fixed terms, never attaining regular status.[33] Hence, in the absence of proof showing that petitioners knowingly agreed upon a fixed term of employment, We uphold the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC and so rule that petitioners are, indeed, regular employees, entitled to security of tenure. Consequently, for lack of any clear, valid, and just or authorized cause in terminating petitioners' employment, We find respondent guilty of illegal dismissal. | |||||
|
2014-12-03 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| GMA Network, Inc. v. Pabriga[154] expounded the doctrine on fixed-term contracts laid down in Brent in the following manner: Cognizant of the possibility of abuse in the utilization of fixed-term employment contracts, we emphasized in Brent that where from the circumstances it is apparent that the periods have been imposed to preclude acquisition of tenurial security by the employee, they should be struck down as contrary to public policy or morals. We thus laid down indications or criteria under which "term employment" cannot be said to be in circumvention of the law on security of tenure, namely: | |||||
|
2014-12-03 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| However, the level of protection to labor should vary from case to case; otherwise, the state might appear to be too paternalistic in affording protection to labor. As stated in GMA Network, Inc. v. Pabriga, the ruling in Brent applies in cases where it appears that the employer and employee are on equal footing.[177] This recognizes the fact that not all workers are weak. To reiterate the discussion in GMA Network v. Pabriga: The reason for this is evident: when a prospective employee, on account of special skills or market forces, is in a position to make demands upon the prospective employer, such prospective employee needs less protection than the ordinary worker. Lesser limitations on the parties' freedom of contract are thus required for the protection of the employee.[178] | |||||