Case Digest (G.R. No. L-48494)
Facts:
Brent School, Inc., and Rev. Gabriel Dimache, petitioners, v. Ronaldo Zamora, the Presidential Assistant for Legal Affairs, Office of the President, and Doroteo R. Alegre, respondents, G.R. No. L-48494, February 05, 1990, the Supreme Court En Banc, Narvasa, J., writing for the Court.The core dispute arose from a written employment contract dated July 18, 1971 by which Doroteo R. Alegre was engaged by Brent School, Inc. as athletic director for a fixed term of five years (to July 17, 1976) at an annual compensation of P20,000. Successive subsidiary agreements in 1973 and 1974 reiterated the same terms, including the termination date. On April 20, 1976 the school filed a report with the Department of Labor advising that Alegre’s services would terminate effective July 16, 1976 on the ground “completion of contract, expiration of the definite period of employment.” Alegre signed a receipt on May 26, 1976 accepting P3,177.71 “in full payment … as full payment of contract.”
Alegre protested during a Labor Conciliator’s investigation, claiming that despite the stipulation he had become a regular employee (after five years of service) and thus could not be dismissed except for just cause. The Regional Director treated the school’s filing as an application for clearance to terminate, accepted the Labor Conciliator’s recommendation, refused to grant clearance, and ordered Alegre’s reinstatement as a “permanent employee” with full back wages and retention of seniority, finding that termination for expiration of the contract was “not sanctioned by P.D. 442” and pointing to a Bureau of Private Schools circular.
Brent School’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the Regional Director, who forwarded the matter to the Secretary of Labor; the Secretary sustained the Regional Director. The school appealed to the Office of the President, which dismissed the appeal for lack of merit and affirmed that Alegre was a permanent employee who could not be dismissed for mere expiration of the contract. The school then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 in the Supreme Court challenging the Presidential Assistant’s decision and seeking reversal of the orders of reinstatement and back wages.
Relevant statutory background: the written contract predates the Labor Code (Presidential Decree No. 442), which took effect November 1, 1974. The Court reviewed the evolution of PD 442’s provisions (original Articles 319–321, later renumbered and amended by PD 850 and B.P. Blg. ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 the proper mode of review to bring the Office of the President’s decision to the Supreme Court?
- Do the Labor Code and its subsequent amendments (PD 850, B.P. Blg. 130) abolish or render invalid private agreements for fixed-period (term) employment generally?
- Did respondent Alegre become a regular employee entitled to reinstatement and back wages despite the fixed-term contracts, or did his employment lawfully...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)