Viernes V NLRC Digest YNGAYO

Viernes v NLRC out: agreements entered into precisely to circumvent security of tenure.
It
should have no application to instances where a fixed period of employment
Facts:
was agreed upon knowingly and voluntarily by the parties, without any force,
15 consolidated cases for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages and duress or improper pressure being brought to bear upon the employee and
claim for indemnity pay against a common respondent, the Benguet Electric absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent, or where it satisfactorily
Cooperative, Inc., (BENECO) 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
Complainants services as meter readers were contracted for hardly a months former over the latter.
duration, or from October 8 to 31, 1990. The complainants were allowed to
work until January 2, 1991. On January 3, 1991, they were each served their The principle we have enunciated in Brent applies only with respect to fixed
identical notices of termination dated December 29, 1990 (because we have term employments. While it is true that petitioners were initially employed on
to retrench on personnel as we are already overstaffed.) a fixed term basis as their employment contracts were only for October 8 to
31, 1990, after October 31, 1990, they were allowed to continue working in
It is the contention of the complainants that they were not apprentices but the same capacity as meter readers without the benefit of a new contract or
regular employees whose services were illegally and unjustly terminated in a agreement or without the term of their employment being fixed anew. After
manner that was whimsical and capricious. On the other hand, the October 31, 1990, the employment of petitioners is no longer on a fixed term
respondent invokes Article 283 of the Labor Code in defense of the basis. The complexion of the employment relationship of petitioners and
questioned dismissal. private respondent is thereby totally changed. Petitioners have attained the
status of regular employees.
LA: Dismissed the complaints for illegal dismissal filed by the complainants
for lack of merit. However in view of the offer of the respondent to enter into There are two separate instances whereby it can be determined that an
another temporary employment contract with the complainants, the employment is regular: (1) The particular activity performed by the employee
respondent is directed to so extend such contract to each complainant, with is necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer; or
the exception of Jaime Viernes, (2) if the employee has been performing the job for at least a year.
Ordered the respondent to extend to complainant Jaime Viernes an Herein petitioners fall under the first category. They were engaged to
appointment as regular employee for the position of meter reader, the job he perform activities that are necessary to the usual business of private
held prior to his termination respondent. We agree with the labor arbiters pronouncement that the job of
a meter reader is necessary to the business of private respondent because
unless a meter reader records the electric consumption of the subscribing
NLRC: modified the appealed decision by declaring complainants dismissal public, there could not be a valid basis for billing the customers of private
illegal, thus ordering their reinstatement to their former position as meter respondent. The fact that the petitioners were allowed to continue working
readers or to any equivalent position after the expiration of their employment contract is evidence of the necessity
and desirability of their service to private respondents business. In addition,
Issue: during the preliminary hearing of the case on February 4, 1991, private
respondent even offered to enter into another temporary employment
W/N petitioners should be reinstated as meter readers on probationary contract with petitioners. This only proves private respondents need for the
status. services of herein petitioners. With the continuation of their employment
beyond the original term, petitioners have become full-fledged regular
employees. The fact alone that petitioners have rendered service for a period
Held: of less than six months does not make their employment status as
probationary.
No. The court sustained petitioners claim that they should be reinstated to
their former position as meter readers, not on a probationary status, but as Since petitioners are already regular employees at the time of their illegal
regular employees. dismissal from employment, they are entitled to be reinstated to their former
position as regular employees, not merely probationary.
Reinstatement means restoration to a state or condition from which one had
been removed or separated. In case of probationary employment, Article 281
of the Labor Code requires the employer to make known to his employee at
the time of the latter’s engagement of the reasonable standards under which
he may qualify as a regular employee.
A review of the records shows that petitioners have never been probationary
employees. There is nothing in the letter of appointment, to indicate that their
employment as meter readers was on a probationary basis. It was not shown
that petitioners were informed by the private respondent, at the time of the
latter’s employment, of the reasonable standards under which they could
qualify as regular employees. Instead, petitioners were initially engaged to
perform their job for a limited duration, their employment being fixed for a
definite period, from October 8 to 31, 1990.
Private respondents relied on the case of Brent School, Inc. vs.

Zamora wherein it was held that the clause in the Labor Code
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

Viernes V NLRC Digest YNGAYO

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Viernes V NLRC Digest YNGAYO

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

Viernes V NLRC Digest YNGAYO

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Viernes v NLRC out: agreements entered into precisely to circumvent security of tenure.

Private respondents relied on the case of Brent School, Inc. vs.

You might also like