Scribd
Upload
287 views2 pages

Sorreda V Cambridge

The petitioner was hired for a 5-month contract but had his arm amputated in an accident at the job. He claimed the company then offered him regular permanent employment. However, when he recovered, the company instead had him resign. He filed a wrongful termination case. The labor arbiter may only rule on claims from an employer-employee relationship. While the initial 5-month contract created this, the alleged permanent contract did not. Even if the labor arbiter had jurisdiction, a contract for perpetual employment is against public policy since it removes the employer's right to hire and fire. The court found no jurisdiction and no valid perpetual employment contract.

Uploaded by

Jephthah Castillo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
287 views2 pages

Sorreda V Cambridge

The petitioner was hired for a 5-month contract but had his arm amputated in an accident at the job. He claimed the company then offered him regular permanent employment. However, when he recovered, the company instead had him resign. He filed a wrongful termination case. The labor arbiter may only rule on claims from an employer-employee relationship. While the initial 5-month contract created this, the alleged permanent contract did not. Even if the labor arbiter had jurisdiction, a contract for perpetual employment is against public policy since it removes the employer's right to hire and fire. The court found no jurisdiction and no valid perpetual employment contract.

Uploaded by

Jephthah Castillo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Sorreda v.

Cambridge Electronics Corporation

Facts:

On May 8, 1999, petitioner was hired by respondent as a technician for a period of 5


months. However, petitioner met an accident in which his left arm was crushed by a
machine and had to be amputated. Petitioner claimed that, shortly after his release from
the hospital, officers of respondent company called him to a meeting with his common-
law wife, father and cousin. There he was assured a place in the company as a regular
employee for as long as the company existed and as soon as he fully recovered from his
injury.

After he recovered from his injury, petitioner reported for work. However, Instead of giving
him employment, they made him sign a memorandum of resignation to formalize his
separation from the company in the light of the expiration of his five-month contract.

Hence, he file a case for illegal dismissal. Respondent denied that it extended regular
employment to petitioner. Only words of encouragement were offered but not perpetual
employment. Moreover, it assailed the labor arbiter’s jurisdiction over the case, claiming
a lack of causal connection between the alleged breach of contract and their employer-
employee relationship.

Issue: Does the LA has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case?

Held: No.

The labor arbiter may only take cognizance of a case and award damages where
the claim for such damages arises out of an employer-employee relationship. In this
instance, petitioner, 5 month period, was clearly a per-project employee of private
respondent, resulting in an employer-employee relationship. Consequently, questions or
disputes arising out of this relationship fell under the jurisdiction of the labor arbiter.

However, based on petitioner’s allegations in his position paper, his cause of action
was based on an alleged second contract of employment separate and distinct from the
per- project employment contract. Note that jurisdiction over the subject matter is
determined by the allegation in the complaint.

Even assuming arguendo that the labor arbiter had the jurisdiction to decide the
case, the Court cannot countenance petitioner’s claim that a contract of perpetual
employment was ever constituted. While the Constitution recognizes the primacy of labor,
it also recognizes the critical role of private enterprise in nation-building and the
prerogatives of management. A contract of perpetual employment deprives management
of its prerogative to decide whom to hire, fire and promote, and renders inutile the basic
precepts of labor relations. While management may validly waive it prerogatives, such
waiver should not be contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs.
An absolute and unqualified employment for life in the mold of petitioner’s concept of
perpetual employment is contrary to public policy and good customs, as it unjustly forbids
the employer from terminating the services of an employee despite the existence of a just
or valid cause.

You might also like