FACTS: The petitioner Philips Semiconductors Inc. is a domestic corporation engaged in the production and assembly of semiconductors and caters to domestic and foreign corporations that manufacture computers, telecommunications equipment and cars. Respondent Fadriquela was hired as a production operator with an initial contract for a period of three months up to August 8, 1992; but was extended for two months, renewed again for two months; and then again extended until June 4, 1993. During these period, the petitioner alleged that the respondent incurred several absences, and without valid justification, her contract will not be renewed.
The respondent filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal against the petitioner. She alleged there was no valid cause for the termination of her employment. She was not notified of any infractions she allegedly committed; neither was she accorded a chance to be heard. According to the respondent, the petitioner did not conduct any formal investigation before her employment was terminated. Furthermore, considering that she had rendered more than six months of service to the petitioner, she was already a regular employee and could not be terminated without any justifiable cause.
On the other hand, the petitioner contended that the respondent had not been dismissed, but that her contract of employment merely expired and was no longer renewed because of her low performance rating. Hence, there was no need for a notice or investigation.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent was a contractual employee, and that she was not dismissed, but rather the employment contract expired.
RULING: No, the respondent was not a contractual employee. She was illegally dismissed.
The Supreme Court held that, Article 280 of the Labor Code of the Philippines was placed in our statute books to prevent the circumvention by unscrupulous employers of the employee’s right to be secure in his tenure by indiscriminately and completely ruling out all written and oral agreements inconsistent with the concept of regular employment defined therein. The language of the law manifests the intent to protect the tenurial interest of the worker who may be denied the rights and benefits due a regular employee because of lopsided agreements with the economically powerful employer who can maneuver to keep an employee on a casual or temporary status for as long as it is convenient to it. In was designed to put an end to the pernicious practice of making permanent casuals of our lowly employees by the simple expedient of extending to them temporary or probationary appointments, ad infinitum.
In this case, the respondent was employed by the petitioner on May 8, 1992 as production operator. She was assigned to wire-building at the transistor division. There is no dispute that the work of the respondent was necessary or desirable in the business or trade of the petitioner. She remained under the employ of the petitioner without any interruption since May 8, 1992 to June 4, 1993 or for one (1) year and twenty-eight (28) days. The original contract of employment had been extended or renewed for four times, to the same position, with the same chores.
Such a continuing need for the services of the respondent is sufficient evidence of the necessity and indispensability of her services to the petitioner’s business. By operation of law, then, the respondent had attained the regular status of her employment with the petitioner.
