Case Digest (G.R. No. 127448)
Facts:
Juanito Villanueva v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 127448, September 10, 1998, the Supreme Court First Division, Davide, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Juanito M. Villanueva was hired by private respondent Innodata Philippines, Inc. / Innodata Processing Corporation on 21 February 1994 as an "abstractor" at a daily wage of P180 under a written contract. Section 2 of the contract recited that it would be "effective for a period of one year commencing on Feb. 21, 1994 until Aug. 21, 1995," specified that the first six months (Feb. 21 to Aug. 21, 1994) would be "contractual" — terminable by written notice within that period — and provided that if the employee continued beyond Aug. 21, 1994 he would "become a regular employee upon demonstration of sufficient skill," with a further clause on possible probation for another six months if the employee failed to master the task.
On 21 February 1995 petitioner was informed his services were terminated for "end of contract." About three weeks later he was rehired as a data encoder effective 13 March 1995 to 15 August 1995 at a lower daily rate (P164.10). Petitioner was again separated on 13 August 1995 for "end of contract" and thereafter filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with a prayer for reinstatement, back wages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.
Labor Arbiter Manuel R. Caday, in a 21 May 1996 decision, found that petitioner’s duties (processing, encoding, precoding, editing, proofreading and scoring) were necessary or desirable to the usual business of the employer and that petitioner, having worked beyond the six-month period, had become a regular employee under Article 280 and Article 281 of the Labor Code; the Arbiter ordered reinstatement with full back wages less wages earned under the second contract. On appeal the Second Division of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed by decision of 11 October 1996 and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration by resolution of 29 November 1996. Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari before the Supreme Court attacking the NLRC’s reversal. The Office of the Solicitor General filed a manifestation supporting petitioner; the NLRC and Innodata maintained the termination was by reason of a fixed-term contract. The Court resolved the case on certiorari.
Issues:
- Did the National Labor Relations Commission commit grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Labor Arbiter’s factual findings and decision?
- Was petitioner a regular employee entitled to security of tenure, reinstatement and full back wages, or was his employment a fixed-term contractual engagement terminable upon expiration?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)