PUREFOODS CORPORATION v.

NLRC GR: 122653

I.
Facts
906 employees were hired by Purefoods to work for a fixed period of five
months at its tuna cannery plant.
After the expiration of their respective contract of employments, their
services were terminated.
They forthwith executed a release and quitclaim stating that they had no
claim whatsoever against the petitioner.
II.
Case Progression
The employees filed before the NLRC a complaint for illegal dismissal against
Purefoods.
Labor arbiter handed down a decision dismissing the complaint on the ground
that the private respondents were mere contractual workers and not regular
employees hence they could not avail the law on security of tenure. Also, LA
further reasoned that by executing a release and quitclaim, the private
respondents had waived and relinquished whatever right they might have
against the petitioner.
The dismissed employees appealed the decision to the NLRC but it affirmed
the LAs decision. However on the employees motion for reconsideration,
NLRC vacated and set aside its decision and held that the employees were
regular.
Purefoods filed a motion for reconsideration and was denied thus this petition
in the SC.
III.

Doctrines and Application of Law

Notes: Purefoods submit that the dismissed employees are now estopped from
questioning their dismissal in view of their express conformity with the 5 month
duration of their employment. They further cited that they fell within the exception
provided in Article 280 of the Labor code: except where the employment has been
fixed for a specific project or undertaking, the completion or termination of which
has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee. In addition
to this, they further argued that their employees only served for 5 months and the
provision states that it takes 1 year of service regardless of continuous or broken to
be a regular employee.
In contrary, the OSG argued that the private respondents were employees since
they performed activities necessary and desirable in the business or trade of the
petitioner. Furthermore, the period of employment stipulated in the contracts was
null and void for being contrary to public policy as its purpose was to circumvent the
law on security of tenure. It also consider private respondents quitclaim as
ineffective to bar the enforcement for the full measure of their legal rights.
The dismissed employees argue that contracts with specified period of employment
may be given legal effect provided that they are not intended to circumvent the
constitutional guarantee of on security of tenure. THEY SUBMIT THAT THE PRACTICE
OF PUREFOODS IN HIRING WORKERS TO WORK FOR A FIXED DURATION OF 5
MONTHS ONLY TO REPLACE THEM WITH OTHER WORKERS OF THE SAME

PUREFOODS CORPORATION v. NLRC GR: 122653

EMPLOYMENT DURATION WAS APPARENTLY TO PREVENT THE REGULARIZATION OF
THESE SO CALLED CASUALS WHICH IS A CLEAR CIRCUMVENTION OF THE SECURITY
OF TENURE.
Art. 280: Regular and Casual Employment. The provisions of written
agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral argument of
the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has
engages to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for
a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been
determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work
services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the
duration of the season.
An employment shall be deemed casual if it is not covered by the preceding
paragraph; provided, that any employee who has rendered at least one year of
service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular
employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed ad his employment
shall continue while such activity exists.
Note: In this virtue then, there are two kinds of regular employees. 1) Those who
are engaged to perform activities which are necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer; and 2) those casual employees who have
rendered at least 1 year of service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to
the activity in which they are employed.
In the present case, the dismissed employees activities involved work necessary
and desirable to the business. In contrary to Purefoods submission the dismissed
employees cannot be regarded as hired for a specific project or undertaking
because the work of these types of employment contemplates an activity which is
not commonly or habitually performed or work not done on a daily basis. The fact
that the petitioner repeatedly and continuous hired workers to do the same kind of
work as that performed by the dismissed employees of this case, negates the claim
that these workers were hired for a specific project or undertaking only.
Cases Applied:
1. Brent School v. Zamora
With regard, to the validity of the dismissed employees 5 month contract, the case
of Brent School v. Zamora was cited. The court has upheld the legality of a fixed
term employment it ruled that to determine if it is a fixed term employment is NOT
the activities the employee is called upon to perform BUT the day certain agreed
upon by the parties for the start and end of the employment relationship. But the
court went on to say that where from the circumstances it is apparent that the
periods have been imposed to preclude acquisition of tenurial security by the
employee, they should be struck down and disregarded as contrary to public policy
and morals.

PUREFOODS CORPORATION v. NLRC GR: 122653

Criteria wherein term employment cant be said to be in circumvention of
the law on security of tenure:
1. The fixed period of employment was 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.
2. It is satisfactorily appears that the employer and the employee dealt with
each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance exercised
by the former or the latter.
*None of the criteria had been met in the present case.
According to the SC