doctrine
It is the burden of the employer to prove that a person whose services it pays for is an independent contractor rather than a regular employee, with or without a fixed term. That a person has a disease does not, per se, entitle the employer to terminate his or her services. Termination is the last resort. At the very least, a competent public health authority must certify that the disease cannot be cured within six ( 6) months, even with appropriate treatment.
Facts
Arlene S. Espiritu was engaged by Fuji Television Network, Inc. in 2005 as a news correspondent/producer for its Manila Bureau field office. She was initially hired under a fixed-term contract for one year, but her engagement was repeatedly renewed through successive contracts, each time with increased compensation. Her duties involved gathering, writing, and producing news reports. These are functions that were clearly necessary and desirable to Fuji’s broadcasting business.
In January 2009, Espiritu was diagnosed with lung cancer and informed Fuji of her medical condition. Despite her willingness to continue working and submission of a medical certificate attesting to her fitness to work, Fuji expressed reservations about renewing her contract. The parties eventually executed a non-renewal agreement stating that her contract would expire on May 31, 2009, and that she would receive certain monetary benefits in exchange for a release and quitclaim. Espiritu signed the agreement “under protest,” claiming that she was compelled to do so because her salaries and benefits were being withheld.
She thereafter filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. While the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, the NLRC and later the Court of Appeals ruled in her favor, declaring her a regular employee who had been illegally dismissed.
ISSUE: Whether Espiritu was a regular employee notwithstanding her engagement under fixed-term contracts.
Ruling
YES.
The Supreme Court affirmed that Espiritu was a regular employee who had been illegally dismissed. It held that while fixed-term employment is not per se invalid, it is subject to strict scrutiny, especially where the employee performs activities that are necessary and desirable to the usual business of the employer. The Court found that Espiritu’s repeated rehiring and continuous performance of core functions established the existence of regular employment. It further ruled that the supposed non-renewal of her contract was in reality a means to terminate her employment without just or authorized cause.
The Court emphasized that illness cannot justify termination unless there is a certification by a competent public health authority that the disease is incurable within six months, even with proper medical treatment, which was not shown in this case. It also held that the quitclaim executed by Espiritu was not voluntary and could not bar her claims, considering the circumstances under which it was signed. Consequently, the Court upheld the finding of illegal dismissal and the corresponding award of reliefs in her favor.