544 Phil. 223
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
NAME | DATE HIRED | DATE OF TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT |
NOELITO FABELA | MAY, 1992 | AUGUST, 1996 |
ROGELIO LASAT | AUGUST, 1995 | SEPTEMBER, 1997 |
HENRY MALIWANAG | MAY, 1995 | SEPTEMBER, 1997 |
JOSELITO DE LARA | MAY, 1994 | JULY 30,1997 |
ROMMEL QUINES | OCTOBER, 1994 | SEPTEMBER, 1997 |
MARCELO DELA CRUZ | DECEMBER, 1991 | MAY, 1997 |
JOHN ALOVERA | JUNE, 1992 | MAY, 1997 |
IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the respondents are hereby ordered to reinstate Marcelo Dela Cruz, Norlito Fabela, Henry Maliwanag, Rogelio Lasat, Manuel Delos Santos and Rommel Quines to their former positions with full backwages from the time their salaries were withheld until they are actually reinstated. As of this date, their backwages has reached the sum of P562,336.64. (See attached computation). The complaints of Jun Alovera and Joselito De Lara must be dismissed for lack of merit.The Decision of the Labor Arbiter was affirmed on appeal by the NLRC, by Resolution of April 28, 2000. Respondents' Motion for Reconsideration was denied, hence, they filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals before which they contended that herein petitioners were validly hired for a fixed period which was not renewed, hence, the termination of their services was valid.
SO ORDERED.
At bar, there is not any least indication that the employment contract was not knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon between the parties nary any force or improper pressure upon the employee nor any circumstances vitiating his consent. Neither is there any indication or signal of improper pressure in the execution of the contract nor that the employer and the employee did not deal with each other on equal terms absent any moral dominance by the employer upon the employee. Finally, at the time the contracts were entered into, the parties were pretty aware of the day certain which must necessarily come although still unknown when at which time the contract will self- expire.[8] (Underscoring supplied)Their motion for reconsideration having been denied by the Court of Appeals by Resolution of October 29, 2001, petitioners filed the present petition.
ART. 280. Regular and casual employment. - The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement 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 services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.In Pure Foods Corp. v. NLRC,[9] this Court held that under the above-quoted provision, there are two kinds of regular employees, namely: (1) those who are engaged to perform activities which are necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, and (2) those casual employees who have rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in which they are employed.An employment shall be deemed to be 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 activity actually exists. (Emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
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?"Thus, even if the duties of an employee consist of activities usually necessary or desirable in the usual business of the employer, it does not necessarily follow that the parties are forbidden from agreeing on a period of time for the performance of such activities through a contract of employment for a fixed term.[12]x x x x
Accordingly, and since the entire purpose behind the development of legislation culminating in the present Article 280 of the Labor Code clearly appears to have been,. as already observed, to prevent circumvention of the employee's right to be secure in his tenure, the clause in said article indiscriminately and completely ruling out all written or oral agreements conflicting with the concept of regular employment as defined therein should be construed to refer to the substantive evil that the Code itself has singled out: agreements entered into precisely to circumvent security of tenure. It should have no application to instances where a 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. x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
This Court has consistently adhered to the rule that in reviewing administrative decisions such as those rendered by the NLRC, the findings of fact made therein are to be accorded not only great weight and respect, but even finality, for as long as they are supported by substantial evidence. It is not the function of the Court to once again review and weigh the conflicting evidence, determine the credibility of the witnesses or otherwise substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative agency on the sufficiency of the evidence. Nevertheless, when the inference made or the conclusion drawn on the basis of certain state of facts is manifestly mistaken, the Court is not estopped from exercising its power of review. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)Significantly, both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC found that petitioners were all regular employees. The NLRC even explicitly stated that the periods stated in petitioners' contracts were fixed not because of temporary exigencies but because of a scheme to preclude petitioners from acquiring tenurial security.
x x x A stipulation [for a fixed-term] in an agreement can be ignored as and when it is utilized to deprive the employee of his security of tenure. The sheer inequality that characterizes employer-employee relations, where the scales generally tip against the employee, often scarcely provides him real and better options.Indeed, substantial evidence exists in the present case showing that the subject contracts were utilized to deprive petitioners of their security of tenure.
WHEREAS, the FIRST PARTY [San Miguel Corporation] is undertaking a project to manage the transition in fully implementing the pre-selling system;It bears noting, however, that petitioner Fabela, besides being hired again for another fixed period of four (4) months after the lapse in April 1996 of the one-year contract, had already been working for respondent SMC on a fixed-term basis as early as 1992, or one year before respondent SMC even began its shift to the Pre-selling System in 1993.
WHEREAS, during the transition period, which is twelve (12) months before the new system will be fully implemented in the districts planned for in 1995, the FIRST PARTY will conduct a training for the regular Salesmen and will continue to sell its therefore (sic) beer products using the conventional system and will therefore need to hire relief personnel to undertake the activities thereinafter mentioned which are to be undertaken/performed for a limited/specific period which activities shall hereinafter be referred to as PROJECT ACTIVITIES.x x x xSECTION ONE: "TERM OF CONTRACT"
The FIRST PARTY hereby hires the SECOND PARTY as "PROJECT RELIEF SALESMAN" to perform/undertake the activities listed in Annex "A" hereof at its Greater Manila Area Sales Operations, San Miguel Brewing Group and the latter hereby accepts and agrees such undertaking for a period of twelve (12) months, starting from April 4, 1995 to April 3, 1996 or upon completion of the project hereinafter referred to, whichever comes first, subject to the general supervision, order, advice and directions of the FIRST PARTY.x x x x[18] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
"3.1 Under the Route System, the basic unit of the Company's Sales Force was a Route Crew composed of a Regular Salesman and two (2) Route Helpers. Compensation for the Regular Salesman consisted of a basic salary and a sales commission. The Route Crew was assigned a Company-owned truck and a specified route or territory consisting of outlets or stores to which the Company sells and delivers its products. Regular Route Salesman and Route Helpers within a specified territory were under the supervision of a District Sales Supervisor.[3] Respondents explain the meaning of the Pre-Selling System in their Supplemental Comment, as follows:
3.2 The Route Crew performed both selling and delivery functions. At the start of the day, the crew loads products in the Company-owned truck and sells and delivers the products to outlets within the Route. Necessarily, the products which will be sold by the crew are limited only to those which they have with them during their visit to the customers." (Rollo, pp. 503-504)
"5.1 Under the Pre-Selling System, the Company separated the selling and delivery functions. Route crews were abolished and Company trucks were disposed of. Selling would be undertaken by an "Accounts Specialist," a new position with upgraded qualifications in lieu of the Salesman, to undertake the relatively difficult functions of marketing and selling multi-brands.[4] Rollo, pp. 521-522.
5.2 To address the problem of the Salesman pushing only fast moving products to get their commissions, a new compensation structure was devised for the Account Specialists. A portion of the commission was integrated into basic pay and a variable pay was formulated dependent on the Accounts Specialists meeting his sales forecast.
5.3 The delivery of products will then be undertaken by third party warehouse and delivery contractors equipped with warehouse, trucks and delivery crews in accordance with the booking with the book orders received from the Account Specialists.
5.4 Consequently, the Account Specialists, with the separation of selling and delivery functions, will have more time to devote to selling activities compared to a Salesman who had to wait for the route crew to complete delivery, checking of the outlets inventory and retrieve empty bottles, before he can move on to the next customer.
5.5 With more time devoted to selling, Account Specialists will have more time to open new outlets and develop the market." (Rollo, pp. 505-506)