Doctrine
An employee repeatedly and continuously hired for the same work under short-term contracts for at least one year is considered a regular employee of the principal.
Facts
Caballero alleged that she applied for work at Vikings Commissary (Vikings). Caballero claimed that she was told by its HR Manager that Vikings was not directly hiring workers and she would be coursed through Hardworkers Manpower Services, Inc. (Hardworkers) for the signing of her employment contract.
Caballero formally signed a contract with Hardworkers, with an expiry date of April 15, 2015. Then she was trained as a dim sum maker. After the expiration of her three-month contract, she was rehired by Vikings and signed another contract with Hardworkers for a period of five (5) months, from May to September 2015. After her contract expired, Caballero signed another contract from October 2015 to February 2016; and then another contract from March to July 2016.
Caballero claimed that on April 5, 2016, Vikings Executive Chef informed her that he was terminating her services and that she should go home.
On April 7, 2016, Caballero inquired about the status of her employment at the Hardworkers office, but was told to wait for further advice and was not offered reassurance in finding another job.
After two weeks without advice from Hardworkers, Caballero filed a labor case against Hardworkers and Vikings before the National Labor Relations Commission.
Hardworkers countered that Caballero was their employee on a fixed-term/project basis, and her latest assignment was with Vikings as a dim sum maker. They averred that Caballero applied and agreed to become a fixed-term employee of Hardworkers, and she was assigned to work at Vikings. Her fixed-term/project contract was renewed because of her good performance.
The Labor Arbiter held, among others, that she was hired for a fixed period of employment, among others. The NLRC, on the other hand, found that Caballero was a regular employee due to repeated hiring under short-term contracts.
ISSUE: Whether or not Elba J. Caballero is a regular employee of Hardworkers, and not Vikings
Ruling
YES. Caballero’s job as a dim sum maker is directly related to the Vikings’ food business. Indeed, Caballero’s continuous rehiring at the Vikings for more than a year indicates the necessity or desirability of that activity to the business of the employer. Different from project-based employment, working as a dim sum maker is an activity that is (1) within the regular or usual business of Vikings, as a luxury buffet restaurant; and (2) not identifiably distinct and separate from Vikings’ other undertakings.
Parenthetically, Caballero has been continuously employed by the Vikings for more than a year, i.e., from January 2015 until her dismissal in April 2016. Hence, Caballero cannot be considered a project employee.
While “term-employment” is also possible, the Supreme Court laid down indications or criteria under which “term employment” cannot be said to be in circumvention of the law on security of tenure, namely:
- The parties knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon the fixed period of employment without any force, duress, or improper pressure being brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent; or
- It satisfactorily appears that the employer and the employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms, with no moral dominance exercised by the former or the latter.
In this case, however, as a dim sum maker, Caballero cannot be considered to be in equal footing with Hardworkers in the negotiation of their employment contract. Caballero herself claimed that she was compelled to proceed to Hardworkers since it was the only way for her to be hired. Considering her need for a job, Caballero cannot be in a position to make demands on Hardworkers. “There is no genuine freedom to contract when a fixed-term employment is used as a vehicle to exploit the economic disadvantage of workers,” like Caballero.
The continued renewal of Caballero’s contract is a clear manifestation that Hardworkers sought to circumvent Caballero’s tenurial rights by claiming that she was only engaged for a fixed term.
In sum, we hold that Caballero is a regular employee entitled to security of tenure, and may be terminated only for just or authorized causes.