Case Digest: Oks Designtech, Inc. vs. Caccam

OKS DESIGNTECH, INC. represented by ZAMBY O. PONGAD vs. MARY JAYNE L. CACCAM

G.R. No. 211263 05 August 2015

Perlas-Bernabe, J.

FACTS:

Petitioner hired Respondent as an accountant under a Contract of Employment for a Fixed Period for 6 months. Her contract was thereafter renewed for another 6 months. About nineteen days before the expiration of her second contract, Respondent received a letter from Company Manager Pongad informing her of the impending expiration of her contract.  As Respondent felt that she was summarily dismissed by the aforestated letter, she filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

Respondent claimed that she was a regular employee and argued that the nature of her work was necessary and desirable to the business of the Petitioner. On the other hand, herein Petitioner claims that the present labor case was only filed in retaliation of the criminal case of Qualified Theft and Falsification of Private Documents after having discovered several unauthorized withdrawals amounting to Php500,000.00 from its bank in violation of the trust and confidence reposed in her. Further, the Petitioner interposed that the letter received by the Respondent was a mere notice of the expiration of her contract, and not a termination notice.

Labor Arbiter: The LA found that the Respondent was illegally dismissed after having found that her employment contract was only signed on April 21, 2008, and not on January 21, 2008, the date when she actually started working for the Petitioner.  Although initially deemed as a probationary contract, by extending the same for another year, she attained the status of a regular employee.

NLRC: The NLRC reversed and set aside the LA’s decision and found that there was no factual basis to support the conclusion that the first contract was for a probationary employment.

CA: The Court of Appeals reinstated the decision of the LA. The CA ruled that the terms and conditions of the first contract and the second contract negated a fixed-term employment since they state that respondent’s employment may be terminated prior to the expiration thereof for “just or authorized cause or when the EMPLOYEE fails to meet the reasonable standards made known to him by the EMPLOYER.”

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Respondent was a fixed-period employee.

RULING:

YES. The Supreme Court held that  even if an employee is engaged to perform activities that are necessary or desirable in the usual trade or business of the employer, the same does not preclude the fixing of employment for a definite period. Article 280 [now, Article 294] of the Labor Code does not proscribe 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. 

In fact, the Court, in Brent, had already pronounced that the decisive determinant in fixed-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.