Published — July 13, 2022
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of your own lawyer to address your legal concerns, if any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
Security of tenure is a constitutionally guaranteed right.
-SME Bank, Inc. v. De Guzman, et. al. (G.R. No. 184517, October 08, 2013)
After reading “What is the right to security of tenure?”, read also “Types of employment, and how it affects security of tenure”
-
Employees shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage.
-
In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by the Labor Code.
-
The right to security of tenure guarantees the right of employees to continue in their employment absent a just or authorized cause for termination.
-
All efforts must be exerted to protect a worker from unjust deprivation of his/her job.
Security of tenure is the right of an employee, as mandated by the 1987 Philippine Constitution that protects him/her against unjust termination from employer by the employer. This is in line with the declaration of state policy under the Constitution to protect labor and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.
The law says:
Article XIII, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution provides that:
Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.
The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns to investments, and to expansion and growth. (Emphasis supplied.)
Article 294 of the Labor Code of the Philippines provides that:
Article 279. Security of tenure. In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. (Emphasis supplied.)
Jurisprudence says:
“Our labor laws and the Constitution afford security of tenure to employees that one may have a reasonable expectation that they are secured in their work and that management prerogative, although unilaterally wielded, will not harm them. Employees are guaranteed that they can only be terminated from service for a just and valid cause and when supported by substantial evidence after due process.” (Telus International Philippines v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 202676, December 04, 2019)
“The right to security of tenure guarantees the right of employees to continue in their employment absent a just or authorized cause for termination.” (SME Bank, Inc. v. De Guzman, et. al., G.R. No. 184517, October 08, 2013)
“The State guarantees security of tenure to workers; thus, all efforts must be exerted to protect a worker from unjust deprivation of his/her job.” (Nippon Express Philippines Corporation v. Daguiso, G.R. No. 217970, June 17, 2020)
Can a fixed-term employment be considered as a circumvention of the security of tenure of employees?
In the case of Tuppil, Jr. v. LBP Service Corporation (G.R. No. 228407, June 10, 2020), the Supreme Court ruled that:
“Contracts of employment for a fixed term are not unlawful unless it is apparent from the circumstances that the periods have been imposed to circumvent the laws on security of tenure. The case of Pure Foods Corporation v. NLRC (347 Phil. 434, 1997) laid down the criteria of a valid fixed-term employment, to wit:
- The fixed period of employment was 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 satisfactorily appears that the employer and the employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance exercised by the former or the latter.”
In the case of Basan et. al. v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines (G.R. No. 174365-66, February 04, 2015), the Supreme Court ruled that:
“Accordingly, and since the entire purpose behind the development of legislation culminating in the present Article [294] 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.”
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.
[email-subscribers-form id=”4″]