IN 2002, petitioner Augorio A. dela Rosa was hired by respondent ABS-CBN Corp., which is engaged in the business of television and radio broadcasting, as a video editor for its television broadcasting at an hourly rate of P230. He was rehired repeatedly and continuously for the same position under fixed-term contracts.
On Sept. 1, 2015, respondent imposed upon petitioner the penalty of dismissal for a misconduct. Aggrieved, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of holiday pay, non-payment of salary/wages, 13th month pay, separation pay and night-shift differential, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees against respondent.
Respondent argued that petitioner was not illegally dismissed. It maintained that petitioner was engaged only for a fixed period or from March 16, 2015 until Sept. 15, 2015, and consequently his employment automatically ceased on the end date.
Is respondent’s contention meritorious?
Ruling: No.
Respondent claims that petitioner is a fixed-term employee. According to jurisprudence, for a fixed-term employment contract to be valid, it must be shown that the fixed period was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties, who dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance being exercised by the employer over the employee. Moreover, while fixed-term employment contracts have been recognized to be valid, the Court has held that if it is apparent that the period has been imposed to preclude acquisition of tenurial security by the employee, then such period must be struck down for being contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order and public policy.
Applying these standards, the Court finds that contrary to respondent’s postulation, petitioner was not a fixed-term employee, but rather, a regular employee. Records show that petitioner was engaged by respondent, through various contracts, as a video editor for the latter’s several programs. Among others, his initial contracts for both ANC NEWS AM and ANC NEWS PM started on Aug. 16, 2010 up to Feb. 15, 2011. This same contract was subsequently renewed from Feb. 16, 2011 to Aug. 15, 2011; Aug. 16, 2011 to Aug. 15, 2012; Aug. 16, 2012 to Feb. 15, 2013; and finally, from Feb. 16, 2013 to Aug. 15, 2013.
While there are other contracts intermittently spanning the years 2014 to 2015, it is nonetheless clear from the foregoing that petitioner was under the employ of respondent for a period of at least three years without interruption. His employment contracts during said period had been repeatedly extended or renewed covering the same position, and involving the same duties. Case law holds that the repeated engagement under a contract of hire is indicative of the necessity and desirability of the employee’s work in the employer’s business; and if an employee’s contract has been continuously extended or renewed for the same position, with the same duties, without any interruption, then such employee is a regular employee.
Moreover, the fixed terms were not shown to be mutually advantageous to both parties or reasonably necessary to respondent’s business, as it is, in fact, apparent that the same were merely imposed to prevent his acquisition of tenurial security. (Augorio A. dela Rosa vs. ABS-CBN Corp., G.R. 242875, Aug. 28, 2019).