Risonar v. Cor Jesu College
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Atty. Marcos D. Risonar, Jr. was appointed Dean of the Law School of Cor Jesu College (CJC) effective August 1, 2003, with his appointment renewed for a three-year term from June 1, 2004, to May 31, 2007. The appointment letter stipulated that if CJC did not intend to renew/extend the appointment, petitioner would be informed in writing 30 days before the term ended. Petitioner did not receive such notice after his term expired on May 31, 2007, and continued to perform his duties. Edgardo S. Escuril assumed office as CJC President in June 2007. On July 12, 2007, petitioner received a letter from Escuril terminating his services as Law School Dean, with the new Dean to report the next day. Petitioner protested the termination, citing the breach of the 30-day written notice requirement in his appointment letter. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and damages with the NLRC, arguing that the failure to provide the required written notice resulted in the automatic renewal of his appointment for another three years. Respondents claimed it was a fixed-term employment that expired on May 31, 2007, and that petitioner was orally informed of the non-renewal. The Labor Arbiter found the dismissal valid but awarded nominal, moral, and exemplary damages. The NLRC reversed this, declaring the dismissal illegal, ordering reinstatement and backwages, and affirming moral and exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC, holding the dismissal valid as it was a fixed-term employment, but awarded nominal damages for the lack of notice. The CA ruled that the failure to send the notice did not result in automatic renewal. The Petition: Petitioner sought review, arguing that the NLRC correctly ruled he was illegally dismissed, that the respondents' failure to send the written notice resulted in automatic renewal, and that he should be considered a regular employee. Respondents maintained the dismissal was valid due to the expiration of the fixed-term contract.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner was illegally dismissed from his employment. Whether the petitioner's fixed-term employment was automatically renewed due to the respondents' failure to provide the required written notice of termination. Whether the petitioner should be considered a regular employee.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and set aside. Cor Jesu College is declared guilty of illegal dismissal and ordered to pay petitioner separation pay, full backwages, and attorney's fees.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the petitioner was illegally dismissed: The Court ruled that the petitioner was illegally dismissed. The failure of Cor Jesu College (CJC) to provide the petitioner with the required written notice of termination at least 30 days prior to the expiration of his fixed-term appointment as Law School Dean resulted in the implied renewal of his contract. Since no just or authorized cause for dismissal was provided, the termination was illegal. The Court emphasized that even fixed-term employees are entitled to security of tenure within the duration of their contract and cannot be dismissed except for just or authorized causes. On whether the petitioner's fixed-term employment was automatically renewed: The Court held that the petitioner's fixed-term employment was impliedly renewed. The appointment letter explicitly stated that if CJC did not intend to renew the appointment, the petitioner would be informed in writing 30 days prior to the term's end. The failure to comply with this stipulation, coupled with the petitioner being allowed to continue performing his duties after the expiration of his term, logically and necessarily inferred CJC's intent to renew the appointment under the same terms and conditions. This interpretation prevents the employer from rendering the notice requirement inutile and avoids allowing the employer to benefit from its own negligence or mistake. On whether the petitioner should be considered a regular employee: The Court affirmed that the petitioner's employment was a fixed-term employment, not a regular one. The validity of fixed-term employment is recognized, provided it was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by parties on equal terms. Appointments to positions like Dean of a Law School inherently involve fixed terms. However, the Court clarified that even fixed-term employees possess security of tenure limited to the duration of their contract, meaning they cannot be dismissed before the term ends except for just or authorized causes and with due process. The implied renewal of the petitioner's fixed-term contract extended his security of tenure for another three years.
Main Doctrine
Failure of an employer to provide the required written notice of termination to a fixed-term employee at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the term, coupled with allowing the employee to continue performing duties, results in the implied renewal of the employment contract under the same terms and conditions.