Title
Pantranco North Express, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Case
G.R. No. 106654
Decision Date
Dec 16, 1994
Driver rehired on a fixed-term contract after prior dismissal; termination upheld as contractual terms were validly agreed upon, negating claims of illegal dismissal and security of tenure.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 106654)

Employment History

Rodolfo Peronila was employed as a driver by Pantranco North Express, Inc. in 1971 and faced an administrative investigation in 1973 due to absences without leave spanning over two months. The investigation concluded with the corporation dismissing him for violating company policies, with the dismissal being affirmed by NLRC's Mediator-Factfinder in March 1973.

Reemployment and Contractual Agreement

Fifteen years after his dismissal, Peronila requested to be rehired, which Pantranco initially denied. However, they later hired him on a fixed-term contract on April 5, 1988, for one month, which outlined a clear absence of an employer-employee relationship, thereby excluding him from employee benefits such as sick leave or overtime pay.

Termination of Employment

On April 20, 1988, just fifteen days into his contractual employment, Peronila was involved in a vehicular accident, resulting in an administrative investigation. Following this investigation, his employment contract was terminated, and he was denied renewal.

Legal Proceedings and NLRC Rulings

On January 18, 1989, Peronila filed a case for illegal dismissal, claiming constructive dismissal due to refusal of assignment after his contract ended. The Labor Arbiter dismissed his complaint, emphasizing the defined nature of his one-month contract. However, the NLRC overturned this decision, deeming Peronila's dismissal illegal for lack of just cause and ordered his reinstatement along with back wages.

Supreme Court Analysis

The Supreme Court reviewed the NLRC's ruling to determine the validity of Peronila's employment contract, which stated no employer-employee relationship. The Court concluded that Peronila's reemployment was more of an act of goodwill than a legal obligation, given his past infractions. It noted that the contract's parameters adhered to the stipulations under Article 280 of the Labor Code, affirming that the nature of employment can be affected by the intentions and agreements of both parties, and did not violate workers' rights to tenure.

Conclusions on Employment Status

Ultimately, the Court established that the employment contract signed by Peronila allowed for a fixed term that was not invalid under the law, provided there was no intention b

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.