Tuppil v. Land Bank of the Philippines Service Corporation
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: LBP Service Corporation (LBPSC) entered into a manpower services agreement with Land Bank of the Philippines (Land Bank) and deployed janitors, messengers, and utility persons to Land Bank's branches. These workers included Julian Tuppil, Jr., et al. (Tuppil, et al.) and Larry Borja, et al. (Borja, et al.). In 2014, the contract between LBPSC and Land Bank expired, leading to the recall of affected employees. Upon receiving notices of recall, Tuppil, et al. resigned. Subsequently, Tuppil, et al. and Borja, et al. filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against LBPSC, alleging they were regular employees performing services necessary and desirable to LBPSC's business. LBPSC countered that the recalled workers were to be reassigned, but Tuppil, et al. opted to resign. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding that the workers were fixed-term contractual employees and that there was no evidence of termination, as the notice of recall did not amount to dismissal. Borja, et al. were ordered to report for work as their engagement merely lapsed, while Tuppil, et al. were declared to have voluntarily resigned. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter's findings, reiterating that the workers were contractual employees, failed to prove dismissal, and that Tuppil, et al.'s resignation letters were voluntarily executed. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC's ruling, holding that no dismissal took place, the contractual employments merely lapsed due to the non-renewal of the contract between LBPSC and Land Bank, and that Tuppil, et al.'s severance was due to their voluntary resignation. The CA noted that the employment contracts expressly stipulated fixed durations and that non-renewal or termination of the contract with the client company was a cause for recall or termination. The Petition: Petitioners (Tuppil, et al. and Borja, et al.) sought reconsideration but were denied. They filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, alleging that the CA committed serious error in the appreciation of evidence and that its decision lacked factual and legal bases. They maintained they were regular employees and were illegally dismissed.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed serious error in the appreciation of evidence and if its decision has no factual and legal bases. Whether petitioners are regular employees who were illegally dismissed.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated July 1, 2016 in CA-G.R. SP No. 142370 is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of appreciation of evidence and factual/legal bases: The Supreme Court held that the question regarding the CA and labor tribunals' appreciation of evidence is a question of fact, which is beyond the ambit of its jurisdiction in a petition for review on certiorari. It is not the Court's task to re-evaluate evidence when the CA, NLRC, and Labor Arbiter are unanimous in their findings and conclusions. The Court found no exceptions to this rule in the instant case. The Court agreed with the CA and labor tribunals that the petitioners are fixed-term contractual employees. On the issue of whether petitioners are regular employees and were illegally dismissed: The Court affirmed the findings that the petitioners are fixed-term contractual employees. It reiterated the criteria for a valid fixed-term employment as laid down in Pure Foods Corporation v. NLRC: (1) the fixed period was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon without force, duress, or improper pressure, and absent vitiated consent; or (2) the parties dealt on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance exercised by either party. The Court found that the petitioners were informed of the fixed period of their engagement, and their employment contracts expressly stipulated the duration and causes for recall or termination, including the non-renewal of the contract with the client company. There was no evidence of pressure or dominance by LBPSC. The Court also clarified that the fact that an employee performs necessary and desirable activities does not prohibit fixing employment for a definite period, citing Caparoso v. Court of Appeals and St. Theresa's School of Novaliches Foundation v. NLRC. Consequently, the termination of services upon the expiration of the contract between LBPSC and Land Bank did not constitute illegal dismissal. Furthermore, the Court found that Tuppil, et al. voluntarily resigned, as evidenced by their resignation letters expressing gratitude and personal/professional reasons for leaving. Their refusal to be reassigned to other clients and the nature of their complaint, which did not include a prayer for reinstatement, further supported the voluntariness of their resignation. The Court concluded that the CA and labor tribunals did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
Contracts of employment for a fixed term are valid unless the period is imposed to circumvent the laws on security of tenure, and the fixed period was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties without vitiated consent. The expiration of a manpower services agreement between a principal and a contractor does not constitute illegal dismissal for the deployed employees if their contracts stipulated that non-renewal or termination of the principal's contract is a cause for recall or termination of their employment.