Case Digest (G.R. No. 86408)
Facts:
The case involves Beta Electric Corporation as the petitioner and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Labor Arbiter Cresencio Iniego, Beta Electric Employees Association, and Luzviminda Petilla as respondents. Luzviminda Petilla was employed by Beta Electric Corporation as a Clerk Typist III, starting on December 15, 1986. Her initial employment was set to last until January 16, 1987, but her contract was extended multiple times, with the last extension being until June 30, 1987. On June 22, 1987, her employment was terminated without prior notice or investigation. Following her dismissal, Petilla filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the labor arbiter. The labor arbiter ruled in her favor, and this decision was subsequently affirmed by the NLRC. The petitioner contested the ruling, arguing that Petilla's employment was temporary and could be terminated at will, as she was h...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 86408)
Facts:
Employment Details:
- The private respondent, Luzviminda Petilla, was hired by Beta Electric Corporation as a clerk typist III on December 15, 1986.
- Her initial contract was set to expire on January 16, 1987.
- Her employment was extended multiple times through written contracts:
- January 16, 1987, to February 15, 1987.
- February 15, 1987, to March 15, 1987.
- March 15, 1987, to April 30, 1987.
- May 1, 1987, to May 31, 1987.
- June 1, 1987, to June 30, 1987.
Termination:
- On June 22, 1987, Petilla’s services were terminated without prior notice or investigation.
- On the same day, she filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the labor arbiter.
Labor Arbiter and NLRC Decisions:
- Both the labor arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruled in favor of Petilla, ordering her reinstatement with backwages.
Petitioner’s Argument:
- Beta Electric Corporation argued that Petilla was a temporary employee hired to meet seasonal or peak demands of the business.
- They claimed her termination was lawful as her employment was contract-based and temporary.
Issue:
- Whether the private respondent, Luzviminda Petilla, was a temporary employee or a regular employee under the Labor Code.
- Whether her termination without notice or investigation was lawful.
- Whether the contract-to-contract arrangement was a valid basis to deny her regular employment status.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)