Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 72 views

    Jamias v. NLRC - Project Employee

    Uploaded by

    Gemma F. Tiama
    The petitioners were hired as project employees by Innodata Philippines, Inc. for fixed terms according to their contracts. Upon expiration of their contracts, the petitioners claimed they were illegally dismissed and should be considered regular employees. Both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC dismissed the complaint and affirmed that the petitioners were hired for fixed terms per their voluntary agreements. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting that desirability of work does not change fixed-term status, and the petitioners did not prove they signed under duress.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Jamias v. NLRC - Project Employee

    Uploaded by

    Gemma F. Tiama
    72 views1 page
    The petitioners were hired as project employees by Innodata Philippines, Inc. for fixed terms according to their contracts. Upon expiration of their contracts, the petitioners claimed they were illegally dismissed and should be considered regular employees. Both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC dismissed the complaint and affirmed that the petitioners were hired for fixed terms per their voluntary agreements. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting that desirability of work does not change fixed-term status, and the petitioners did not prove they signed under duress.

    Original Description:

    Labor case digest, decision penned by Justice Bersamin.

    Original Title

    Jamias v. NLRC_Project Employee

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioners were hired as project employees by Innodata Philippines, Inc. for fixed terms according to their contracts. Upon expiration of their contracts, the petitioners claimed they were illegally dismissed and should be considered regular employees. Both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC dismissed the complaint and affirmed that the petitioners were hired for fixed terms per their voluntary agreements. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting that desirability of work does not change fixed-term status, and the petitioners did not prove they signed under duress.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    72 views1 page

    Jamias v. NLRC - Project Employee

    Uploaded by

    Gemma F. Tiama
    The petitioners were hired as project employees by Innodata Philippines, Inc. for fixed terms according to their contracts. Upon expiration of their contracts, the petitioners claimed they were illegally dismissed and should be considered regular employees. Both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC dismissed the complaint and affirmed that the petitioners were hired for fixed terms per their voluntary agreements. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting that desirability of work does not change fixed-term status, and the petitioners did not prove they signed under duress.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    ALUMAMAY O. JAMIAS, ET AL. v.

    NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION


    G.R. No. 159350, 09 March 2016, Bersamin J.

    FACTS: Respondent Innodata Philippines, Inc. (Innodata) hired the three (3)
    petitioners together with nine (9) others as project employees with functions
    desirable and necessary to it. The positions and durations of engagements were
    clearly stated and explained in the respective contracts they signed. Upon
    expiration of their contract, the petitioners filed a complaint before the Labor
    Arbiter for illegal dismissal claiming Innodata made it appear that they had been
    hired as project employees to prevent their regularization. The Labor Arbiter
    dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, to which the NLRC affirmed and opined
    that Article 280 of the Labor Code does not prohibit employment contract with
    fixed period provided it had been voluntary entered into by the parties. On
    appeal, CA upheld the NLRC and observed that the desirability and necessity of
    the functions discharged by the petitioners did not make them regular
    employees.

    ISSUE: Were the petitioners regular or project employees after the expiration of
    their contracts with fixed terms and given the functions desirable and necessary
    to the company?

    RULING: The petitioners were project employees.

    A fixed term agreement, to be valid, must strictly conform with the requirements
    and conditions provided in Article 280 of the Labor Code. The fixed period of
    employment must be 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 must
    satisfactorily appear that the employer and employee dealt with each other on
    more or less equal terms with no moral dominance exercised by either party.

    The contracts of the petitioners indicated the duration of their engagement as


    well as their respective project assignments. There is no indication that they were
    made to sign the contracts against their will neither did they refute Innodatas
    assertion that it did not employ force or fraudulently manipulate petitioners into
    signing the contracts. Hence, petitioners knowingly agreed to the terms and
    voluntarily signed the same.

    Further, the necessity and desirability of work performed by the employees are
    not determinants in term employment, but rather the day certain voluntarily
    agreed upon by the parties.

    You might also like