Você está na página 1de 3

Jamaias VS NLRC

G.R. NO. 159350 March 09, 2016


Ponente: BERSAMIN, J.
Nature Of case: Labor Law
Facts:
1. Respondent Innodata Philippines, Inc., a domestic corporation engaged in the
business of data processing and conversion for foreign clients, hired several
individuals on various dates.
2. After their respective contracts expired, the aforenamed individuals filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal claiming that respondent had made it appear
that they had been hired as project employees in order to from becoming
regular employees.
3. Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit
4. NLRC affirmed the decision of the LA.
5. CA upheld the decision of the NLRC
6. Out of the said individuals only 3 of the original complainant made an appeal
to the SC.

Procedural:
Labor Arbiter Decision: Dismissed the Complaint
NLRC Decision: Dismissed the appeal
CA Decision: Dismissed the appeal

Issues:
1. W/N the doctrine of stare decisis apply?
2. W/N a fixed period in a contract of employment signifies an intention to
circumvent the law?

Case For Employee:


1. The nature of their case has already been settled in 2 previous jurisprudence
namely: Villanueva v. National Labor Relations Commission and Servidad v.
National Labor Relations Commission, whereby the court awarded regular
status to the employees because the work they performed were necessary
and desirable to the business of data encoding, processing and conversion.

2. The principle of stare decisis was ignored declaring their employment as


governed by the contract of employment.
3. Article 280 of the Labor Code guarantees the right of workers to security of
tenure, which rendered the contracts between the petitioners and Innodata
meaningless
4. They should be accorded regular status because their work as editors and
proofreaders were usually necessary and desirable to respondents business.
Case For Company:
1. The contracts entered into by petitioners are different to what was mentioned
on the jurisprudence provided for by the petitioner. That the previous
case/jurisprudence contains provisions/stipulation in violation of the provision
of the labor code on probationary employment and security of tenure while
the latter contained terms known and explained to the petitioners who then
willingly signed the same.
2. That it was a service provider, it did not create jobs because its operations
depended on the availability of job orders or undertakings from its client
3. Article 280 of the Labor Code allowed term employment as an exception to
security of tenure; and that the decisive determinant was the day certain
agreed upon by the parties, not the activities that the employees were called
upon to perform
Supreme Court Decision: Petition was denied
1. No the doctrine of Stare Decisis does not apply when the facts are essentially
different
2. No a fixed period in a contract of employment does not signify an intention to
circumvent the law.
Ratio Decidendi (Reasoning Of the Court):
1. Issue No. 1
1.1.The doctrine of stare decisis enjoins adherence to judicial precedents. When
a court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of
facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases in which
the facts are substantially the same but it does not apply when the facts are
essentially different.
1.2.The jurisprudence under the cases Villanueva and Servidad does not apply to
this case. The Servidad and Villanueva involved contracts that contained
stipulations not found in the contracts entered by the petitioners.
1.3.Unlike in the Servidad and Villanueva cases, the written contracts governing
the relations of the respondent company and the petitioners herein do not
embody such illicit stipulation. Under the case Innodata Philippines, Inc. v.
Quejada-Lopez, the contract placed the employees under probation.

1.4.The terms of the petitioners contracts did not subject them to a


probationary period similar to that indicated in the contracts struck down in
Innodata, Villanueva and Servidad.
2. Issue No. 2
2.1.The provision under Article 280 of the Labor Code, contemplates 3 kind of
employment: (a) regular employees; (b) project employees; and (c) casuals
who are neither regular nor project employees. The nature of employment of
a worker is determined by the factors provided under the said provision of
the law and it does not preclude an agreement providing for a fixed term of
employment knowingly and voluntarily executed by the parties
2.2.A fixed term agreement, to be valid, must strictly conform with the
requirements and conditions provided in Article 280 of the Labor Code, which
includes:
2.2.1. Whether or not the employee is assigned to carry out a specific project
or undertaking
2.2.2. The duration or scope of which was specified at the time of his
engagement
2.2.3. There must be a determination of, or a clear agreement on, the
completion or termination of the project at the time the employee is
engaged
2.2.4. Or a fixed period of employment must be knowingly and voluntarily
agreed upon 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 it must satisfactorily appear that
the employer and employee dealt with each other on more or less equal
terms with no moral dominance
2.3.The contracts of the petitioners indicated the one-year duration of their
engagement as well as their respective project assignments.
2.4.No indication that the petitioners were made to sign the contracts against
their will. Neither did they refute Respondents assertion that it did not
employ force, intimidate or fraudulently manipulate the petitioners into
signing their contracts, and that the terms thereof had been explained and
made known to them.
2.5.Petitioners knowingly agreed to the terms of and voluntarily signed their
respective contracts.
2.6.Respondent drafted the contracts with its business interest as its overriding
consideration and there was no il-motive to circumvent the law.
2.7.The necessity and desirability of the work performed by the employees are
not the determinants in term employment, but rather the day certain
voluntarily agreed upon by the parties