Title
Brent School, Inc. vs. Zamora
Case
G.R. No. L-48494
Decision Date
Feb 5, 1990
Alegre, hired under a fixed-term contract, contested termination upon expiration, claiming regular employee status. SC upheld contract validity, ruling expiration as lawful termination.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-48494)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Employment Contract
    • On July 18, 1971, Brent School, Inc., through Rev. Gabriel Dimache, hired Doroteo R. Alegre as athletic director for a fixed term of five years (July 18, 1971 to July 17, 1976) at an annual salary of ₱20,000.
    • Subsequent subsidiary agreements (March 15, 1973; August 28, 1973; September 14, 1974) reaffirmed the same duration and conditions.
  • Termination Proceedings
    • On April 20, 1976, Brent School filed a report with the Department of Labor notifying Alegre's services would end on July 16, 1976 due to “completion of contract.” On May 26, 1976, Alegre accepted ₱3,177.71 covering May 16 to July 17, 1976.
    • Alegre protested before a Labor Conciliator, contending that after five years performing duties “usually necessary or desirable,” he had acquired security of tenure and could not be dismissed without just cause.
    • The Regional Director treated Brent School’s submission as an application for clearance to terminate, denied it, and ordered Alegre’s reinstatement as a “permanent employee” with back wages. The Secretary of Labor and the Presidential Assistant for Legal Affairs affirmed these decisions.
  • Petition for Certiorari
    • Brent School filed a petition under Rule 65 seeking reversal of the President’s ruling—arguing no appeal procedure existed under PD 442—and challenging the prohibition of fixed‐term employment.
    • The core issue was whether the amended Labor Code proscribes fixed‐period contracts and whether contract expiration is a valid ground for termination.

Issues:

  • Are fixed‐period employment contracts valid under the Labor Code (PD 442, as amended by PD 850 and BP 130)?
  • Does expiration of an agreed term constitute lawful termination without need for just cause, notice, or administrative clearance?
  • Are all fixed‐term stipulations contrary to public policy, or only those intended to circumvent security of tenure?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.