Photo from Pexels | Rayhan Ahmed
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 a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is 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.
AT A GLANCE:
In BPI vs. BPI Employees Union-Davao Chapter Federation of Unions in BPI Union Bank, G.R. No. 164301, October 19, 2011, the Supreme Court laid down the meaning of security of tenure as follows:
“It is the policy of the state to assure the right of workers to security of tenure. The guarantee is an act of social justice. When no person has no property his job may possibly be his only possession or means of livelihood. Therefore, he should be protected against any arbitrary deprivation of his job. Article 280 of the Labor Code construed security of tenure as meaning that the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by the Code.
In E. Ganzon, Inc. vs. Ando, Jr., G.R. No. 214183, February 20, 2017 citing GMA Network, Inc. vs. Pabriga, et al., the Supreme Court discussed that fixed-term employment is one where the duration of the fixed-term employment is agreed upon by the parties. It may be any day certain, which is understood to be that which must necessarily come although it may not be known when. The decisive determinant in fixed-term employment is not the activity that the employee is called upon to perform but the day certain agreed upon by the parties for the commencement and termination of the employment relationship.
Under the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code, in cases of employment covered by contracting or subcontracting, no employee shall be dismissed prior to expiration of the contract between the principal and contractor or subcontractor, unless the dismissal is for just or authorized cause, or is brought about by the completion of the phase of the contract for which the employee was engaged, but in any case, subject to the requirements of due process or prior notice.
If the termination is brought about by the completion of a contract or phase, it shall be sufficient that a written notice is served to the employee within a reasonable time from the effective date of termination.
To summarize, a contractual employee can only be terminated for just or authorized cause, or for expiration of the employment contract. However, even if the contractual employee’s employment can be pre-terminated, such termination is still subject to the due process requirement or prior notice. Further, even if the cause of termination is the expiration of the employment contract, the employer is still required to serve the employee a written notice prior to the expiration of the contract. Hence, dismissal of a contractual employee without notice is illegal.
Related articles:
EMPLOYMENT AS A PROPERTY RIGHT
Burden of Proof in Illegal Dismissal Cases
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.