Brent School, Inc. vs. Zamora, G.R. No. 48494 (Feb. 5, 1990) - Narvasa, J.

Brent School, Inc. vs. Zamora, G.R. No. 48494 (Feb. 5, 1990). Narvasa, J.
Facts: Private respondent Doroteo R. Alegre was engaged as athletic director by petitioner Brent School, Inc., such
contract fixed a specific term for its existence, five (5) years from July 18, 1971 to July 17, 1976.
On April 20,1976, Alegre was given a copy of the report filed by Brent School with the Department of Labor
advising of the termination of his services effective on July 16, 1976 on the ground of "completion of contract,
expiration of the definite period of employment." Although protesting the announced termination, Alegre accepted
the amount of P3,177.71, and signed a receipt therefor containing the phrase, "in full payment of services for the
period May 16, to July 17, 1976 as full payment of contract."
The Regional Director considered Brent School's report as an application for clearance to terminate employment
(not a report of termination), and accepting the recommendation of the Labor Conciliator, refused to give such
clearance and instead required the reinstatement of Alegre, as a "permanent employee," to his former position
without loss of seniority rights and with full back wages.
Brent School filed a motion for reconsideration. The Regional Director denied the motion and forwarded the case to
the Secretary of Labor for review. 8 The latter sustained the Regional Director. 9 Brent appealed to the Office of the
President. Again it was rebuffed. That Office dismissed its appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the Labor
Secretary's decision, ruling that Alegre was a permanent employee who could not be dismissed except for just cause,
and expiration of the employment contract was not one of the just causes provided in the Labor Code for termination
of services. Hence, this petition.
Issue: Whether or not the provisions of the Labor Code, as amended, have anathematized "fixed period
employment" or employment for a term.
Ruling: No. Respondent Alegre's contract of employment with Brent School having lawfully terminated with and by
reason of the expiration of the agreed term of period thereof, he is declared not entitled to reinstatement.
The employment contract between Brent School and Alegre was executed on July 18, 1971, at a time when the
Labor Code of the Philippines (P.D. 442) had not yet been promulgated. At that time, the validity of term
employment was impliedly recognized by the Termination Pay Law, R.A. 1052, as amended by R.A. 1787. Prior,
thereto, it was the Code of Commerce (Article 302) which governed employment without a fixed period, and also
implicitly acknowledged the propriety of employment with a fixed period. The Civil Code of the Philippines, which
was approved on June 18, 1949 and became effective on August 30,1950, itself deals with obligations with a period.
No prohibition against term-or fixed-period employment is contained in any of its articles or is otherwise deducible
therefrom.
It is plain then that when the employment contract was signed between Brent School and Alegre, it was perfectly
legitimate for them to include in it a stipulation fixing the duration thereof Stipulations for a term were explicitly
recognized as valid by this Court.
Accordingly, and since the entire purpose behind the development of legislation culminating in the present Article
280 of the Labor Code clearly appears to have been, as already observed, to prevent circumvention of the
employee's right to be secure in his tenure, the clause in said article indiscriminately and completely ruling out all
written or oral agreements conflicting with the concept of regular employment as defined therein should be
construed to refer to the substantive evil that the Code itself has singled out: agreements entered into precisely to
circumvent security of tenure. It should have no application to instances where a fixed period of employment was
agreed upon knowingly and voluntarily by the parties, without any force, duress or improper pressure being brought
to bear upon the employee and absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent, or where it satisfactorily
appears that the employer and employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance
whatever being exercised by the former over the latter. Unless thus limited in its purview, the law would be made to
apply to purposes other than those explicitly stated by its framers; it thus becomes pointless and arbitrary, unjust in
its effects and apt to lead to absurd and unintended consequences.
Alegre's employment was terminated upon the expiration of his last contract with Brent School on July 16, 1976
without the necessity of any notice. The advance written advice given the Department of Labor with copy to said
petitioner was a mere reminder of the impending expiration of his contract, not a letter of termination, nor an
application for clearance to terminate which needed the approval of the Department of Labor to make the
termination of his services effective. In any case, such clearance should properly have been given, not denied.

Brent School, Inc. vs. Zamora, G.R. No. 48494 (Feb. 5, 1990) - Narvasa, J.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brent School, Inc. vs. Zamora, G.R. No. 48494 (Feb. 5, 1990) - Narvasa, J.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brent School, Inc. vs. Zamora, G.R. No. 48494 (Feb. 5, 1990). Narvasa, J.

You might also like