Pangilinan v. General Milling Corporation
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners were employed by respondent General Milling Corporation (GMC) as "emergency workers" under separate temporary/casual contracts for a period of five months, primarily as chicken dressers, packers, or helpers. Upon the expiration of their contracts, their services were terminated. Procedural History: Petitioners filed complaints for illegal dismissal and non-payment of benefits. The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in their favor, declaring them regular employees and ordering reinstatement with backwages and benefits. Respondent appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The respondent's appeal was filed on November 12, 1997, claiming receipt of the LA's decision on November 3. Petitioners argued the appeal was late, as the decision was received by a clerk on October 28, 1997. The NLRC reversed the LA's decision, deeming the appeal timely because service on the clerk was not valid service on counsel. The NLRC also ruled that petitioners were legally terminated upon contract expiration, citing Brent School, Inc. vs. Zamora. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC's decision with modification, limiting the award of benefits to the years of actual employment, and ruled that no grave abuse of discretion was committed by the NLRC in giving due course to the appeal, upholding the validity of fixed-term employment contracts. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari, arguing that the CA gravely erred in upholding the NLRC's decision, specifically concerning the timeliness of the appeal and the classification of their employment as fixed-term, which consequently meant they were not regular employees.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent's appeal from the Labor Arbiter's decision was filed within the reglementary period. Whether the petitioners were regular employees of the respondent GMC when their employment was terminated.
Ruling
The petition is bereft of merit. The Court affirms the decision of the Court of Appeals. The appeal was filed within the reglementary period, and the petitioners were contractual employees with fixed-term employment, not regular employees. Consequently, their termination upon the expiry of their contracts was valid.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the appeal: The Court held that the NLRC did not act with grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to the respondent's appeal. Decisions of the Labor Arbiter must be appealed within ten (10) calendar days from receipt. Service by registered mail is completed upon actual receipt by the addressee or five (5) days from receipt of the first notice from the postmaster. In this case, the LA's decision was addressed to the respondent's counsel but was received by Beth Cacal, a clerk not connected with the Legal Department. The Court reiterated its ruling in Cañete v. National Labor Relations Commission that service on a person who is neither a clerk nor in charge of the attorney's office is invalid. Therefore, the appeal filed within ten days from the date the decision was actually received by the respondent's counsel or their authorized representative was considered timely. On the classification of employees: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that the petitioners were employees with a fixed period and not regular employees. Article 280 of the Labor Code defines regular employees as those whose work is necessary or desirable to the usual business of the employer. However, the Court clarified, citing St. Theresa's School of Novaliches Foundation v. NLRC and Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora, that Article 280 does not prohibit fixed-period employment contracts. Such contracts are valid when knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties without force, duress, or improper pressure, and where the parties dealt on more or less equal terms. The petitioners' contracts explicitly stated a fixed period of employment, usually five or six months, and this was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon. Therefore, their employment was temporary, and their termination upon the expiry of their contracts did not constitute illegal dismissal. The lack of notice of termination was also deemed inconsequential as the contract terminated by its own terms.
Main Doctrine
Service of a decision on a mere clerk not connected with the Legal Department is not valid service on the counsel. Employment contracts with a fixed period are valid when knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon, even if the work is necessary and desirable to the employer's business, and termination upon expiry of the contract does not constitute illegal dismissal.