Case Summary (G.R. No. L-36545)
Labor Arbiter Findings
The Labor Arbiter held respondent to be a regular employee illegally dismissed. Citing repeated hiring over three years, absence of a knowingly and voluntarily agreed fixed‐term (per Brent), and her economic compulsion to accept successive contracts, the Arbiter ruled that the fixed‐term agreements were not validly entered. Alleged misconduct (theft of relief goods) was disregarded as Claret failed to investigate promptly. Reinstatement with backwages and attorney’s fees was ordered.
National Labor Relations Commission Findings
The NLRC reversed, finding substantial documentary evidence (application letters, biodata) that respondent clearly understood her engagements were part‐time fixed‐term contracts, not regular. It held no circumvention of tenure rights, no moral dominance, and that her intermittent reporting schedule was advantageous. The lack of a formal contract for each term did not presume regular status in view of contrary evidence. The complaint was dismissed.
Court of Appeals Findings
On certiorari, the Court of Appeals reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision. It held that no “day certain” termination date was established, and Brent’s criteria (knowingly‐agreed fixed term or equal bargaining terms) were unmet. The absence of written fixed‐term contracts raised doubt whether respondent was properly informed of the duration and nature of her employment. Under Article 295, she was presumed regular, having performed activities necessary in Claret’s usual business. The CA ordered backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, ECOLA, 13th‐month pay, interest, and costs.
Supreme Court’s Resolution of Issues
- Scope of Review: Under Rule 45, only questions of law and clear absence of evidentiary support for factual findings may be reviewed. Divergent findings among labor tribunals and the CA permit reexamination of facts.
- Validity of Fixed‐Term Employment: Article 295’s regularity presumption is rebuttable only if the parties knowingly and voluntarily agreed to a fixed term without duress, or dealt on equal footing (Brent). Here, economic dependence (respondent’s family ties to Claret, limited qualifications) demonstrated moral dominance and unequal bargaining power. Absence of written day‐certain contracts for most engagements further undermined Claret’s claim.
- Regular Employment Status: Repeated engagements over three years in roles necessary or desirable in Claret
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-36545)
Facts of the Case
- Claret School of Quezon City (“Claret”) is an educational institution in UP Village, Quezon City; Madelyn I. Sinday (“Sinday”) is married to one of Claret’s drivers and their children are Claret scholars.
- April 2010 to July 14, 2011: Sinday was successively engaged by Claret as a releasing clerk and filing clerk under fixed‐term arrangements, handling inventory, records updating, memoranda delivery, and program assistance.
- July 15, 2011 to July 31, 2013: Sinday worked at Claret Technical‐Vocational Training Center (“Claretech”) as secretary, preparing materials, encoding and filing documents, and assisting in correspondence; she was allegedly classified as regular on January 10, 2013, and received a salary differential payment in February 2013.
- May 2013: Claret presented Sinday a Probationary Employment Contract for January–July 2013; upon its expiration, she was informed that her tenure would end July 31, 2013 due to administrative changes and cost‐cutting.
- August 1 to October 25, 2013: Sinday served as substitute teacher aide; thereafter, her requests for other positions were denied.
- Sinday filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal on February 18, 2014, contending she was a regular employee entitled to security of tenure; Claret pleaded she was a part-time, fixed‐term contractual employee and raised an uninvestigated theft allegation as just cause.
Procedural History
- September 11, 2014: Labor Arbiter ruled Sinday was a regular employee illegally dismissed; ordered reinstatement with P116,268.08 backwages and 10% attorney’s fees.
- January 14, 2015: National Labor Relations Commission (“NLRC”) reversed, finding Sinday a part-time contractual employee and dismissal valid; denied reconsideration on May 4, 2015.
- March 30, 2016: Court of Appeals (“CA”) reversed NLRC, affirmed illegal dismissal, awarded backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, ECOLA, 13th-month pay, legal interest, and costs.
- July 26, 2016: CA denied Claret’s motion for reconsideration.
- September 2, 2016 to March 20, 2017: Parties filed Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45) with Supreme Court, exchanged comments and reply, raising questions of law on employee status and dismissal.
Issues
- Whether factual issues may be resolved in this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.
- Whether Sinday was a regular employee of Claret.
- Whether Sinday was illegally dismissed requiring reinstatement or separation pay.