Digest: G.R. No. 162839: Innodata Philippines, Inc. v. Jocelyn L. Quejada-Lopez and Estella G. Natividad-Pascual

 Innodata Philippines, Inc. v. Jocelyn L. Quejada-Lopez and Estella G. Natividad-Pascual

G.R. No. 162839 | October 12, 2006

Panganiban, CJ. 

 

Facts:

This is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse the September 18, 2003 Decision of the Court of Appeals whereby respondents were regular employees in accordance with Section 280 of the Labor Code.  It said that the fixed-term contract prepared by petitioner was a crude attempt to circumvent respondents' right to security of tenure.

 

Innodata Philippines, Inc. (Innodata), is engaged in the encoding/data conversion business.  It employs encoders, indexers, formatters, programmers, quality/quantity staff, and others, to maintain its business and do the job orders of its clients.

 

Estrella G. Natividad=Pascual and Jocelyn L. Quejada-Lopez (respondents) were employed as formatters by Innodata Philippines, Inc. They [worked] from March 4, 1997, until their separation on March 3, 1998.

 

Claiming that their job was necessary and desirable to the usual business of the company which is data processing/conversion and that their employment is regular pursuant to Article 280 of the Labor Code, [respondents] filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and for damages as well as for attorney's fees against Innodata.

 

On the other hand, Innodata contends that [respondents'] employment contracts expired, for [these were] only for a fixed period of one (1) year.  Innodata company further invoked the Brent School case by saying that since the period expired, [respondents'] employment was likewise terminated.

 

The Labor Arbiter rendered Judgement in favor of the complainants. However, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision and dismissed the respondent’s complaint for lack of merit declaring that the contract between the parties was of a fixed-term employment contract and dismissal therefrom was valid.

 

The Court of Appeals, however, ruled that respondents were regular employees and reversed the NLRC’s decision.

 

Issue/s:

Whether or not the alleged fixed-term employment contracts entered by the respective parties are valid

 

Ruling:

NO, the petition has no merit and the fixed-term contract entered by the respective parties is invalid.

 

While this Court has recognized the validity of fixed-term employment contracts in several cases, it has consistently emphasized that when the circumstances of a case show that the periods were imposed to block the acquisition of security of tenure, they should be struck down for being contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.

 

In a feeble attempt to conform to the earlier rulings of this Court in Villanueva and Servidad, petitioner has reworded its present employment contracts.  A scrutiny of the provisions, however, show that the double-bladed scheme to block the acquisition of tenurial security still exists.