You are on page 1of 3

BRENT SCHOOL, INC. vs.

RONALDO ZAMORA
G.R. No. L-48494 February 5, 1990
(KIND OF EMPLOYEE FIXED TERM)

Doroteo R. Alegre was engaged as athletic director by Brent School, Inc.. In their employment
contract executed on July 18, 1971, he shall be paid at a yearly compensation of P20,000.00. 4
The contract fixed a specific term for its existence, five (5) years, i.e., from July 18, 1971, the
date of execution of the agreement, to July 17, 1976. Subsequent subsidiary agreements dated
March 15, 1973, August 28, 1973, and September 14, 1974 reiterated the same terms and
conditions, including the expiry date, as those contained in the original contract of July 18, 1971.
5
Some three months before the expiration of the stipulated period, 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. The stated ground for the termination was "completion of
contract, expiration of the definite period of employment."
Alegre protested the announced termination of his employment. He argued that although his
contract did stipulate that the same would terminate on July 17, 1976, since his services were
necessary and desirable in the usual business of his employer, and his employment had lasted for
five years, he had acquired the status of a regular employee and could not be removed except for
valid cause. 6
The Regional Director pronounced "the ground relied upon by the respondent (Brent) in
terminating the services of the complainant (Alegre) . . . (as) not sanctioned by P.D. 442," and,

ISSUE:
Whether or not Alegre acquired the regular status of employment?

In the leading case of Brent School Inc. v. Zamora,[44] we laid down the guideline before a
contract of employment may be held as valid, to wit:

[S]tipulations in employment contracts providing for term employment or fixed period


employment are valid when the period were agreed upon knowingly and voluntarily by the
parties without 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.[45]

Contracts stipulating for an abnormal period like 2 years or 3 years pero at the end sa contract
dili gihapon sila ma consider as regular employee... in short contractual employee gihapon

Maraguinot vs. NLCR, Del Rosario & Viva Films

Facts:
Maraguinot and Enero were separately hired by Vic Del Rosario under Viva Films as part of the
filming crew. Sometime in May 1992, sought the assistance of their supervisor to facilitate their
request that their salary be adjusted in accordance with the minimum wage law.

On June 1992, Mrs. Cesario, their supervisor, told them that Mr. Vic Del Rosario would agree to
their request only if they sign a blank employment contract. Petitioners refused to sign such
document. After which, the Mr. Enero was forced to go on leave on the same month and refused
to take him back when he reported for work. Mr. Maraguinot on the other hand was dropped
from the payroll but was returned days after. He was again asked to sign a blank employment
contract but when he refused, he was terminated.

Consequently, the petitioners sued for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter. The private
respondents claim the following: (a) that VIVA FILMS is the trade name of VIVA
PRODUCTIONS, INC. and that it was primarily engaged in the distribution & exhibition of
movies- but not then making of movies; (b) That they hire contractors called producers who
act as independent contractors as that of Vic Del Rosario; and (c) As such, there is no employee-
employer relation between petitioners and private respondents.

The Labor Arbiter held that the complainants are employees of the private respondents. That the
producers are not independent contractor but should be considered as labor-only contractors and
as such act as mere agent of the real employer. Thus, the said employees are illegally dismissed.

The private respondents appealed to the NLRC which reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter
declaring that the complainants were project employees due to the ff. reasons: (a) Complainants
were hired for specific movie projects and their employment was co-terminus with each movie
project; (b)The work is dependent on the availability of projects. As a result, the total working
hours logged extremely varied; (c) The extremely irregular working days and hours of
complainants work explains the lump sum payment for their service; and (d) The respondents
alleged that the complainants are not prohibited from working with other movie companies
whenever they are not working for the independent movie producers engaged by the respondents.

A motion for reconsideration was filed by the complainants but was denied by NLRC. In effect,
they filed an instant petition claiming that NLRC committed a grave abuse of discretion in: (a)
Finding that petitioners were project employees; (b) Ruling that petitioners were not illegally
dismissed; and (c) Reversing the decision of the Labor Arbiter.

In the instant case, the petitioners allege that the NLRC acted in total disregard of evidence
material or decisive of the controversy.

Issues:

(a) W/N there exist an employee- employer relationship between the petitioners and the private
respondents.
(b) W/N the private respondents are engaged in the business of making movies.

(c) W/N the producer is a job contractor.


Held:

There exist an employee- employer relationship between the petitioners and the private
respondents because of the ff. reasons that nowhere in the appointment slip does it appear that it
was the producer who hired the crew members. Moreover, it was VIVAs corporate name
appearing on heading of the slip. It can likewise be said that it was VIVA who paid for the
petitioners salaries.

Respondents also admit that the petitioners were part of a work pool wherein they attained the
status of regular employees because of the ff. requisites: (a) There is a continuous rehiring of
project employees even after cessation of a project; (b) The tasks performed by the alleged
project employees are vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the
employer; and (c) However, the length of time which the employees are continually re-hired is
not controlling but merely serves as a badge of regular employment.

Since the producer and the crew members are employees of VIVA and that these employees
works deal with the making of movies. It can be said that VIVA is engaged of making movies
and not on the mere distribution of such.

The producer is not a job contractor because of the ff. reasons: (Sec. Rule VII, Book III of the
Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code.)

a. A contractor carries on an independent business and undertakes the contract work on his own
account under his own responsibility according to his own manner and method, free from the
control and direction of his employer or principal in all matters connected with the performance
of the work except as to the results thereof. The said producer has a fix time frame and budget to
make the movies.

b. The contractor should have substantial capital and materials necessary to conduct his business.
The said producer, Del Rosario, does not have his own tools, equipment, machinery, work
premises and other materials to make motion pictures. Such materials were provided by VIVA.

It can be said that the producers are labor-only contractors. Under Article 106 of the Labor Code
(reworded) where the contractor does not have the requisites as that of the job contractors.

You might also like