Brent School V Zamora
Uploaded by
Mary Grace G. EscabelBrent School V Zamora
Uploaded by
Mary Grace G. EscabelBrent School v.
Zamora
NARVASA, J.
FACTS:
→ Doroteo R. Alegre was engaged as athletic director by Brent School, Inc. at a yearly compensation of P20,000.00. The contract
fixed a specific term for its existence, five (5) years.
→ Some three months before the expiration of the stipulated period, or more precisely on April 20,1976, Alegre was given a
copy of the report filed by Brent School with the Department of Labor advising of the termination of his services effective on
July 16, 1976. The stated ground for the termination was "completion of contract, expiration of the definite period of
employment." And a month or so later, on May 26, 1976, Alegre accepted the amount of P3,177.71, and signed a receipt
therefor containing the phrase, "in full payment of services for the period May 16, to July 17, 1976 as full payment of
contract."
→ However, at the investigation conducted by a Labor Conciliator of said report of termination of his services, Alegre protested
the announced termination of his employment. He argued that although his contract did stipulate that the same would
terminate on July 17, 1976, since his services were necessary and desirable in the usual business of his employer, and his
employment had lasted for five years, he had acquired the status of a regular employee and could not be removed except for
valid cause.
→ The Regional Director considered Brent School's report as an application for clearance to terminate employment (not a report
of termination), and accepting the recommendation of the Labor Conciliator, refused to give such clearance and instead
required the reinstatement of Alegre, as a "permanent employee," to his former position without loss of seniority rights and
with full back wages. The Director pronounced "the ground relied upon by the respondent (Brent) in terminating the services
of the complainant (Alegre) . . . (as) not sanctioned by P.D. 442," and, quite oddly, as prohibited by Circular No. 8, series of
1969, of the Bureau of Private Schools. 7
→ Brent School filed a motion for reconsideration. The Regional Director denied the motion and forwarded the case to the
Secretary of Labor for review.
→ The Secretary of Labor affirmed the decision of the Regional Director.
o Office of the President affirmed the Labor Secretary's decision, ruling that Alegre was a permanent employee who
could not be dismissed except for just cause, and expiration of the employment contract was not one of the just
causes provided in the Labor Code for termination of services.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Alegre was a regular employee or fixed term employee. FIXED TERM EMPLOYEE
HELD:
→ It was perfectly legitimate for them to include in it a stipulation fixing the duration thereof Stipulations for a
term were explicitly recognized as valid by this Court.
→ Under American law the principle is the same. "Where a contract specifies the period of its duration, it terminates on
the expiration of such period." "A contract of employment for a definite period terminates by its own terms at the
end of such period."
→ There is the gradual and progressive elimination of references to term or fixed-period employment in the Labor Code,
and the specific statement of the rule 25 that
o Regular and Casual Employment.— The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding
and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where
the employee has been engaged 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 or service to be employed is seasonal in nature and the
employment is for the duration of the season.
o An employment shall be deemed to be 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 and his
employment shall continue while such actually exists.
→ There is, on the other hand, the Civil Code, which has always recognized, and continues to recognize, the validity and
propriety of contracts and obligations with a fixed or definite period, and imposes no restraints on the freedom of the
parties to fix the duration of a contract, whatever its object, be it specie, goods or services, except the general admonition
against stipulations contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.
→ Under the Civil Code, therefore, and as a general proposition, fixed-term employment contracts are not limited,
as they are under the present Labor Code, to those by nature seasonal or for specific projects with pre-
determined dates of completion; they also include those to which the parties by free choice have assigned a
specific date of termination.
→ 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.