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 Summary (G.R. No. L-48494)

Material Facts

• On July 18, 1971, Brent School and Alegre executed a five-year fixed-term contract (July 18, 1971–July 17, 1976) at an annual salary of ₱20,000.
• Subsequent agreements (1973–1974) reiterated the same term and conditions.
• On April 20, 1976, Brent School notified the Department of Labor of contract expiration effective July 16, 1976.
• Alegre protested before a Labor Conciliator, claiming he became a regular employee after five years and could be dismissed only for just cause.

Procedural History

• The Labor Conciliator treated the school’s report as an application for clearance to terminate and ordered Alegre’s reinstatement as a permanent employee with back wages.
• The Regional Director, the Secretary of Labor, and finally the Office of the President all sustained that order, ruling expiration of a fixed-term contract is not a just cause under the Labor Code.
• Brent School petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari, contending that its contract lawfully expired by its own terms.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Constitution (Security of tenure; freedom of contract)
• Labor Code of the Philippines (P.D. 442, as amended by P.D. 850 and B.P. Blg. 130)
• Civil Code (Republic Act No. 386; Articles on period of obligations and contracts of service)
• Termination Pay Law (R.A. 1052, as amended by R.A. 1787)

Evolution of Term Employment under Philippine Law

• Pre-1950: Code of Commerce recognized “mesada” (one-month notice for terminable employment without fixed term).
• Civil Code (1950): No prohibition against fixed-term contracts; allowed stipulations for definite periods.
• Termination Pay Law (1954, 1957): Implied recognition of fixed-term employment alongside notice requirements.
• Labor Code (1974): Explicitly defined probationary, regular, casual, and fixed-period employment; initially regulated termination of fixed-period tenure.
• P.D. 850 (1975) removed references to fixed-period employment in probationary rules but retained just-cause grounds for jobs without definite period.
• B.P. Blg. 130 (1981) eliminated all express references to fixed-term employment in just-cause provisions.

Interpretation of Labor Code Provisions

• Article 280 (formerly Art. 270/319): Defines regular employment by necessity of work in the employer’s business, excluding seasonality and specific projects; contains a “written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding” clause.
• Article 283 (formerly Art. 272): Lists just causes for terminating employment without a definite period, omitting any reference to expiration of a fixed term.
• The Court held these amendments did not intend to render all fixed-term contracts void, but to outlaw only those agreements used to evade security-of-tenure protections.

Constitutional and Public Policy Considerations

• Freedom of contract and respect for civil-law principles permit parties to stipulate definite terms, absent coercion or evasion of labor safeguards.
• The 1987 Constitution guards security of tenure (Art. 13, Sec. 3) but does not categorically prohibit fixed-t



...continue reading

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