ALUMAMAY O. JAMIAS, ET AL. v.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

G.R. No. 159350, 09 March 2016, Bersamin J.

FACTS: Respondent Innodata Philippines, Inc. (Innodata) hired the three (3)
petitioners together with nine (9) others as project employees with functions
desirable and necessary to it. The positions and durations of engagements were
clearly stated and explained in the respective contracts they signed. Upon
expiration of their contract, the petitioners filed a complaint before the Labor
Arbiter for illegal dismissal claiming Innodata made it appear that they had been
hired as project employees to prevent their regularization. The Labor Arbiter
dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, to which the NLRC affirmed and opined
that Article 280 of the Labor Code does not prohibit employment contract with
fixed period provided it had been voluntary entered into by the parties. On
appeal, CA upheld the NLRC and observed that the desirability and necessity of
the functions discharged by the petitioners did not make them regular
employees.

ISSUE: Were the petitioners regular or project employees after the expiration of
their contracts with fixed terms and given the functions desirable and necessary
to the company?

RULING: The petitioners were project employees.

A fixed term agreement, to be valid, must strictly conform with the requirements
and conditions provided in Article 280 of the Labor Code. The 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 exercised by either party.

The contracts of the petitioners indicated the duration of their engagement as

well as their respective project assignments. There is no indication that they were
made to sign the contracts against their will neither did they refute Innodatas
assertion that it did not employ force or fraudulently manipulate petitioners into
signing the contracts. Hence, petitioners knowingly agreed to the terms and
voluntarily signed the same.

Further, the necessity and desirability of work performed by the employees are
not determinants in term employment, but rather the day certain voluntarily
agreed upon by the parties.