FACTS: The root of the controversy at bar is an employment contract of Doroteo R. Alegre, engaged as athletic director by Brent School, Inc. The contract fixed a specific term for its existence, five (5) years. 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. 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 since his services were necessary and desirable in the usual business of his employer, and his employment had lasted for five years. Thus, he had acquired the status of a regular employee and could not be removed except for valid cause.
ISSUE: Whether or not the provisions of the Labor Code have prohibited fixed period employment or employment for a term.
RULING: No, the provisions of the Labor Code have not prohibited fixed period employment or employment for a term subject to limitation.
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.
Respondent 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.
