G.R. No. 199683. February 10, 2016.

* entered into by the parties who must have dealt with each other on equal terms
  not one exercising moral dominance over the other.
ARLENE T. SAMONTE, VLADIMIR P. SAMONTE, MA. AUREA S. Same; Same; Fixed-Term Contracts; Words and Phrases; A fixed-term
ELEPAÑO, petitioners, vs.  LA SALLE GREENHILLS, INC., and BRO. contract is an employment contract, the repeated renewals of which make for a
BERNARD S. OCA, respondents. regular employment.—A fixed-term contract is an employment contract, the
repeated renewals of which make for a regular employment. In Fuji Television
Labor Law; Regular Employees; Regular employees are of two (2) kinds, Network, Inc. v. Espiritu, 744 SCRA 31 (2014), we noted that Fuji’s argument
namely: (1) those “engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or that Espiritu was an independent contractor under a fixed-term contract is
desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer”; and (2) casual contradictory where employees under fixed-term contracts cannot be
employees who have “rendered at least one (1) year of service, whether such independent contractors because in fixed-term contracts, an employer-employee
service is continuous or broken.”—Article 280 of the Labor Code classifies relationship exists. Significantly, we ruled therein that Espiritu’s contract
employees into regular, project, seasonal, and casual: Art. 280. Regular and indicating a fixed term did not automatically mean that she could never be a
casual employment.—The provisions of written agreement to the contrary regular employee which is precisely what Article 280 of the Labor Code sought
notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an to avoid. The repeated renewal of Espiritu’s contract coupled with the nature of
employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged work performed pointed to the regular nature of her employment despite contrary
to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual claims of Fuji and the nomenclature of the contract. Citing Dumpit-Murillo v.
business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed Court of Appeals, 524 SCRA 290 (2007) and Philips Semiconductors (Phils.),
for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has Inc. v. Fadriquela,  427 SCRA 408 (2004), we declared in Fuji that the repeated
been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the engagement under contract of hire is indicative of the necessity and desirability
work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for of the [employee’s] work in respondent’s business and where employee’s
the duration of the season. An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is contract has been continuously extended or renewed to the same position, with
not covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, That the
_______________  
 
*  THIRD DIVISION. 659
  VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 659
  Samonte vs. La Salle Greenhills, Inc.
658 same duties and remained in the employ without any interruption, then
658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED such employee is a regular employee.
Samonte vs. La Salle Greenhills, Inc. Same; Control Test; Time and again, we have held that the power of
any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such control refers to the existence of the power and not necessarily to the actual
service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with exercise thereof, nor is it essential for the employer to actually supervise the
respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall performance of duties of the employee.—Time and again, we have held that the
continue while such activity exists. The provision classifies regular employees power of control refers to the existence of the power and not necessarily to the
into two kinds (1) those “engaged to perform activities which are usually actual exercise thereof, nor is it essential for the employer to actually supervise
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer”; and (2) the performance of duties of the employee. It is enough that the employer has the
casual employees who have “rendered at least one year of service, whether such right to wield that power.
service is continuous or broken.” PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.
Same; Fixed-Term Employment; A fixed-term employment is allowable The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
under the Labor Code only if the term was voluntarily and knowingly entered   Chenaide P. Aceret for petitioners.
into by the parties who must have dealt with each other on equal terms not one   Laguesma, Magsalin, Consulta & Gastardo for respondents.
exercising moral dominance over the other.—A fixed-term employment is
allowable under the Labor Code only if the term was voluntarily and knowingly PEREZ, J.:
  School [physician] from June 1, [x x x] to March 31, [x x x]
As each and all of the various and varied classes of employees in the gamut Rate ________________
of the labor force, from nonprofessionals to professionals, are afforded full Conditions:
protection of law and security of tenure as enshrined in the Constitution, the 1. This retainer is only temporary in character and, as above specified, shall
entitlement is determined on the basis of the nature of the work, qualifications of be solely and exclusively limited to the project/undertaking and/or to the job/task
the employee, and other relevant circumstances. assigned to the retainer within the said project/undertaking;
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari is the Decision1 of the Court
of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 110391 affirming the Decision of the National _______________
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC CA No. 044835-052 finding that
_______________ 3  Id., at pp. 244-258.
 
1  Penned by Associate Justice Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente, with Associate  
Justices Romeo F. Barza and Edward D. Sorongon, concurring, Rollo, pp. 57-69. 661
2  Id., at pp. 104-109.
VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 661
  Samonte vs. La Salle Greenhills, Inc.
  2. This retainer shall, without need of any notice to the retainer,
660 automatically cease on the aforespecified expiration date/s of the said
660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED project/undertaking and/or the said job/task; provided, that this retainer shall
Samonte vs. La Salle Greenhills, Inc. likewise be deemed terminated if the said project/undertaking and/or job/task
petitioners Arlene T. Samonte, Vladimir P. Samonte and Ma. Aurea S. shall be completed on a date/s prior to their aforespecified expiration date/s;
Elepaño were fixed-term employees of respondent La Salle Greenhills, Inc. 3. The foregoing notwithstanding, at any time prior to said expiration or
(LSGI). The NLRC (First Division) ruling is a modification of the ruling of the completion date/s, La Salle Greenhills, Inc. may upon prior written notice to the
Labor Arbiter that petitioners were independent contractors of respondent LSGI.3 retainer, terminate this contract should the retainer fail in any way to perform his
The facts are not in dispute. assigned job/task to the satisfaction of La Salle Greenhills, Inc. or for any other
From 1989, and for fifteen (15) years thereafter, LSGI contracted the services just cause.
of medical professionals, specifically pediatricians, dentists and a physician, to  
comprise its Health Service Team (HST). HERMAN G. ROCHESTER     ______________________
Petitioners, along with other members of the HST signed uniform one-page Head Administrator                                   Retainer
Contracts of Retainer for the period of a specific academic calendar beginning in BELEN T. MASILUNGAN     ______________________
June of a certain year (1989 and the succeeding 15 years) and terminating in Personnel Officer                                    Date Signed
March of the following year when the school year ends. The Contracts of  
Retainer succinctly read, to wit: Signed in the Presence of:
C O N T R A C T O F R E T A I N E R  
  DANTE M. FERRER                          BRO. BERNARD S. OCA
Name of Retainer _________________________ FRD Head Administrator                              President4
Address __________________________________  
Community Tax Cert. No.__________________ After fifteen consecutive years of renewal each academic year, where the last
Issued at ______________ on ______________________ Contract of Retainer was for the school year of 2003-2004 i.e., June 1, 2003 to
Taxpayer Identification No. (TIN) ___________ March 31, 2004, LSGI Head Administrator, Herman Rochester, on that last day
Department Assigned to _____ HRD-CENTRO Operation ____ of the school year, informed the Medical Service Team, including herein
Project/Undertaking (Description and Duration) petitioners, that their contracts will no longer be renewed for the following
________________ Health Services ______________ school year by reason of LSGI’s decision to hire two (2) full-time doctors and
Job Task (Description and Duration)
dentists. One of the physicians from the same Health Service Team was hired by a) To attend staff meetings and to participate in the
LSGI as a full-time doctor. formulation/adoption of policies and programs designed to enhance the
When petitioners’, along with their medical colleagues’, requests for School services to its constituents and to upgrade the School’s standards.
payment of their separation pay were denied, they Complainants’ involvement in Staff Meetings of the Health Services Unit
_______________ of respondent school was a regular activity associated with personnel who
are regular employees of an institution;
4  CA Rollo,  pp. 234-240. b) To participate in various gatherings and activities sponsored by
the respondent school such as the Kabihasnan (the biannual school fair),
  symposiums, seminars, orientation programs, workshops, lectures, etc.,
  including purely political activities such as the NAMFREL quick count,
662 of which the respondent school is a staunch supporter;
662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED c) Participation of the complainants in Medical/Dental Missions in
Samonte vs. La Salle Greenhills, Inc. the name of respondent school;
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for separation pay, d) Formulation of the Health Services Unit Manual;
damages and attorney’s fees before the NLRC. They included the President of e) Participation in the collation of evaluation of services rendered by
LSGI, Bro. Bernard S. Oca, as respondent. the Health Services Unit, as required for the continuing PAASCU
In their Position Paper, petitioners alleged that they were regular employees (Philippine Association of Accredited Schools Colleges & Universities)
who could only be dismissed for just and authorized causes, who, up to the time accreditation of the School;
of their termination, regularly received the following amounts: f) Participation in the yearly evaluation of complainants, which is a
1. Monthly salary for the ten-month period of a given school year: function of regular employees in the HRD-CENTRO Operations, of the
2. Annual 13th Month Pay equivalent to their one-month salary; HRD-CENTRO Head Administrator;
3. Automatic yearly increase to their monthly salary, the rate of which is  
discretionary to LSGI’s Executive Administrator based on a comparative rate to  
the across the board increase of the regular school employees which increase was 664
subsequently reflected in their [HST’S] monthly salaries for the following school 664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
year; Samonte vs. La Salle Greenhills, Inc.
4. Since 1996, as a result of the HST’s request for a performance bonus, the g) Designation of certain complainants, particularly Dr. Jennifer A.
team was likewise evaluated for a year-end performance rating by HRD-- Ramirez, as member of panel of investigation to inquire into an alleged
CENTRO Head Administrator, the Assistant Principal, the Health Services Team misdemeanor of a regular employee of respondent school; and
Leader and the designated Physician’s Coordinator, complainant Jennifer h) Regular inspection of the canteen concessionaire and the toilet
Ramirez. facilities of the school premises to insure its high standards of sanitation.
  Complainants were likewise included among so-called members of
  the “LA SALLIAN FAMILY: Builder of a Culture of Peace,” under the
663 heading “Health Services Team” of the La Salle Green Hills High School
VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 663 Student Handbook 2003-2004. Such public presentation of the
Samonte vs. La Salle Greenhills, Inc. complainants as members of the “LA SALLIAN FAMILY” leaves no
To further bolster their claim of regular employment, complainants pointed doubt about the intent of respondent school to project complainants as
out the following in their Position Paper: part of its professional staff.5
In the course of their employment, each of the complainants served an  
average of nine hours a week. But beyond their duty hours, they were on On the other hand, in their Position Paper, 6 LSGI denied that complainants
call for any medical exigencies of the La Sallian community. were regular employees, asserting that complainants were independent
Furthermore, over the years, additional tasks were assigned to the contractors who were retained by LSGI by reason of their medical skills and
complainants and were required to suffer the following services/activities: expertise to provide ancillary medical and dental services to both its students and
faculty, consistent with the following circumstances:
 1. Complainants were professional physicians and dentists on retainer 1. The professional services provided by complainants, including herein
basis, paid on monthly retainer fees, not regular salaries; petitioners, cannot be considered as necessary to LSGI’s business of providing
2. LSGI had no power to impose disciplinary measures upon complainants primary and secondary education to its students.
including dismissal from employment; 2. The payslips of complainants are not salaries but professional fees less
3. LSGI had no power of control over how complainants actually taxes withheld for the medical services they provided;
performed their professional services. 3. Issuance of identification cards to, and the requirement to log the time-in
In the main, LSGI invoked the case of Sonza v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting and time-out of, complainants are not indi-
Corporation7 to justify its stance that complain-  
_______________  
666
5  Id., at pp. 195-209. 666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
6  Id., at pp. 210-229.
Samonte vs. La Salle Greenhills, Inc.
7  G.R. No. 138051, June 10, 2004, 431 SCRA 583.
cia of LSGI’s power of control over them but were only imposed for security
  reasons and in compliance with the agreed clinic schedules of complainants at
  LSGI premises.
665 4. In contrast to regular employees of LSGI, complainants: (a) were not
VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 665 required to attend or participate in school-sponsored activities and (b) did not
enjoy benefits such as educational subsidy for their dependents.
Samonte vs. La Salle Greenhills, Inc. 5. On this score alone, complainants’ respective clinic schedule at LSGI for
ants were independent contractors and not regular employees citing, thus: two (2) to three (3) days a week for three (3) hours a day, for a maximum of nine
  (9) hours a week, was not commensurate to the required number of hours work
SONZA contends that ABS-CBN exercised control over the means rendered by a regular employee in a given week of at least 40 hours a week or 8
and methods of his work. hours a day for five (5) days. In addition, the appointed clinic schedule was
SONZA’s argument is misplaced. ABS-CBN engaged SONZA’s based on the preference of complainants.
services specifically to cohost the “Mel & Jay” programs. ABS-CBN did Curiously, despite the finding that complainants were independent
not assign any other work to SONZA. To perform his work, SONZA only contractors and not regular employees, the Labor Arbiter, on the ground of
needed his skills and talent. How SONZA delivered his lines, appeared on compassionate social justice, awarded complainants separation pay at the rate of
television, and sounded on radio were outside ABS-CBN’s control. one-half month salary for every year of service.
SONZA did not have to render 8 hours of work per day. The Agreement Separately, both parties, complainants, including herein petitioners, and
required SONZA to attend only rehearsals and tapings of the shows, as respondents appealed to the NLRC.
well as pre- and post-production staff meetings. ABS-CBN could not At the outset, the NLRC disagreed with the Labor Arbiter’s ruling that
dictate the contents of SONZA’s script. However, the Agreement complainants were independent contractors based on the latter’s opinion that the
prohibited SONZA from criticising in his shows ABS-CBN or its services rendered by complainants are not considered necessary to LSGI’s
interests. The clear implication is that SONZA had a free hand on what to operation as an educational institution. The NLRC noted that Presidential Decree
say or discuss in his shows provided he did not attack ABS-CBN or its No. 856, otherwise known as the Sanitation Code of the Philippines, requires that
interests. private educational institutions comply with the sanitary laws. Nonetheless, the
  NLRC found that complainants were fixed-period employees whose terms of
As previously adverted, the Labor Arbiter dismissed petitioners’ (and their employment were subject to agreement for a specific duration. In all, the NLRC
colleagues’) complaint and ruled that complainants, as propounded by LSGI, ruled that the Contracts of Retainer between complainants and LSGI are valid
were independent contractors under retainership contracts and never became fixed-term employment contracts where complainants as medical profes-
regular employees of LSGI. The Labor Arbiter based its overall finding of the  
absence of control by LSGI over complainants on the following points:  
667
 VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 667 Hence, this petition for review on certiorari raising the following issues for
resolution of the Court:
Samonte vs. La Salle Greenhills, Inc.
 
sionals understood the terms thereof when they agreed to such continuously
I. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
for more than ten (10) years. Consequently, the valid termination of their
RULING THAT PETITIONERS WERE FIXED-PERIOD EMPLOYEES
retainership contracts at the end of the period stated therein, did not entitle
AND NOT REGULAR EMPLOYEES OF LSGI.
complainants to reinstatement, nor, to payment of separation pay.
II. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
At this point, only herein petitioners, filed a petition for certiorari under
NOT HAVING RULED THAT PETITIONERS WERE ILLEGALLY
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals alleging that grave
DISMISSED FROM WORK.
abuse of discretion attended the ruling of the NLRC that they were not regular
III. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
employees and thus not entitled to the twin remedies of reinstatement to work
NOT HAVING RULED THAT PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO
with payment of full backwages or separation pay with backwages.
REINSTATEMENT, BACKWAGES AND OTHER MONETARY
In dismissing the petition for certiorari, the appellate court ruled that the
BENEFITS PROVIDED BY LAW, MORAL AND EXEMPLARY
NLRC did not commit an error of jurisdiction which is correctible by a writ
DAMAGES, AS WELL AS ATTORNEY’S FEES.
of certiorari. The Court of Appeals found that the NLRC’s ruling was based on
IV. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
the Contracts of Retainer signed by petitioners who, as professionals, supposedly
NOT HAVING RULED THAT RESPONDENTS ARE SOLIDARILY
ought to have known the import of the contracts they voluntarily signed, i.e.,  (a)
LIABLE AS THEY ACTED IN BAD FAITH AND WITH MALICE IN
temporary in character; (b) automatically ceasing on the specified expiration
DEALING WITH THE PETITIONERS.9
date; or (c) likewise deemed terminated if job/task shall be completed on a date
prior to specified expiration date.
The Court of Appeals ruled against petitioners’ claim of regular employment,
thus: The pivotal issue for resolution is whether the Court of Appeals correctly
  ruled that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in ruling that
Moreover, this Court is not persuaded by petitioners’ averments that petitioners were not regular employees who may only be dismissed for just and
they are regular employees simply because they received benefits such as authorized causes.
overtime pay, allowances, Christmas bonuses and the like; or because _______________
they were subjected to administrative rules such as those that regulate
their time and hours of work, or subjected to LSGI’s disciplinary rules 8  Rollo, p. 66.
and regulations; or simply because they were treated as part of LSGI’s 9  Id., at p. 21.
professional staff. It must be emphasized that LSGI, being the employer,  
has the inherent right to regulate all aspects of employment of every  
employee whether regular, probationary, contractual or fixed-term. 669
Besides, petitioners
VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 669
 
  Samonte vs. La Salle Greenhills, Inc.
668 Our inquiry and disposition will delve into the kind of employment
668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED relationship between the parties, such employment relationship having been as
much as admitted by LSGI and then ruled upon categorically by the NLRC and
Samonte vs. La Salle Greenhills, Inc. the appellate court which both held that petitioners were fixed-term employees
were hired for specific tasks and under fixed terms and conditions and it is and not independent contractors.
LSGI’s prerogative to monitor their performance to see if they are doing their Article 280 of the Labor Code classifies employees into regular, project,
tasks according to the terms and conditions of their contract and to give them seasonal, and casual:
incentives for good performance.8  
  Art. 280. Regular and casual employment.—The provisions of
written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the
 oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be and half page ratiocination of the NLRC was there reference to the standard that
regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which “it [should] satisfactorily appear that the employer and employee dealt with each
are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance whatever being
employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific exercised by the former on the latter.”
project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been _______________
determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the
work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment 10  Orozco v. Fifth Division of the Court of Appeals, 584 Phil. 35; 562
is for the duration of the season. SCRA 36 (2008); Semblante v. Court of  Appeals, 19th Division, 671 Phil. 213;
An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by 655 SCRA 444 (2011); Bernarte v. Philippine Basketball Association, 673 Phil.
the preceding paragraph: Provided, That any employee who has rendered 384; 657 SCRA 745 (2011); Sonza v. Court of Appeals, supra  note 7.
at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, 11  260 Phil. 747; 181 SCRA 702 (1990).
shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in
which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such  
activity exists.  
  671
The provision classifies regular employees into two kinds (1) those “engaged VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 671
to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual Samonte vs. La Salle Greenhills, Inc.
business or trade of the employer”; and (2) casual employees who have From Brent,  which remains as the exception rather than the rule in the
“rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or determination of the nature of employment, we are schooled that there are
broken.” employment contracts where a “fixed term is an essential and natural
  appurtenance” such as overseas employment contracts and officers in
  educational institutions. We learned thus:
670  
670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED [T]he decisive determinant in the term employment contract should
Samonte vs. La Salle Greenhills, Inc. not be the activities that the employee is called upon to perform, but the
The NLRC correctly identified the existence of an employer-employee day certain agreed upon by the parties for the commencement and
relationship between petitioners and LSGI and not a bilateral independent termination of their employment relationship, a day certain being
contractor relationship. On more than one occasion, we recognized certain understood to be that which must necessarily come, although it may not
workers to be independent contractors: individuals with unique skills and talents be known when.
that set them apart from ordinary employees. 10 We found them to be independent x x x
contractors because of these unique skills and talents and the lack of control over Accordingly, and since the entire purpose behind the development of
the means and methods in the performance of their work. In some instances, legislation culminating in the present Article 280 of the Labor Code
doctors and other medical professional may fall into this independent contractor clearly appears to have been, as already observed, to prevent
category, legitimately providing medical professional services. However, as has circumvention of the employee’s right to be secure in his tenure, the
been declared by the NLRC and the appellate court, petitioners herein are not clause in said article indiscriminately and completely ruling out all
independent contractors. written or oral agreements conflicting with the concept of regular
We need to examine next the ruling of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals employment as defined therein should be construed to refer to the
that petitioners were fixed-term employees. substantive evil that the Code itself has singled out: agreements entered
To factually support such conclusion, the NLRC solely relied on the case into precisely to circumvent security of tenure. It should have no
of Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora11  and perfunctorily noted that petitioners, application to instances where a fixed period of employment was agreed
professional doctors and dentists, continuously signed the contracts for more upon knowingly and voluntarily by the parties, without any force, duress
than ten (10) years. Such was heedless of our prescription that the ruling or improper pressure being brought to bear upon the employee and absent
in Brent be strictly construed, applying only to cases where it appears that the any other circumstances vitiating his consent, or where it satisfactorily
employer and employee are on equal footing. Observably, nowhere in the two 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. 673
  VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 673
Tersely put, a fixed-term employment is allowable under the Labor Code
Samonte vs. La Salle Greenhills, Inc.
only if the term was voluntarily and knowingly entered into by the parties who
and where employee’s contract has been continuously extended or renewed
must have dealt with
to the same position, with the same duties and remained in the employ without
 
any interruption, then such employee is a regular employee.
 
In the case at bar, the Court of Appeals disregarded the repeated renewals of
672
the Contracts of Retainer of petitioners spanning a decade and a half. The Court
672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED of Appeals ruled that petitioners never became regular employees:
Samonte vs. La Salle Greenhills, Inc.  
each other on equal terms not one exercising moral dominance over the [T]his Court is not persuaded by petitioners’ averments that they are
other. regular employees simply because they received benefits such as overtime
Indeed, Price, et al. v. Innodata Corp., teaches us, from the wording of pay, allowances, Christmas bonuses and the like; or because they were
Article 280 of the Labor Code, that the nomenclature of contracts, especially subjected to administrative rules such as those that regulate their time and
employment contracts, does not define the employment status of a person: Such hours of work, or subjected to LSGI’s disciplinary rules and regulations;
is defined and prescribed by law find not by what the parties say it should be. or simply because they were treated as part of LSGI’s professional staff.
Equally important to consider is that a contract of employment is impressed with It must be emphasized that LSGI, as the employer, has the inherent right
public interest such that labor contracts must yield to the common good. Thus, to regulate all aspects of employment of every employee whether regular,
provisions of applicable statutes are deemed written into the contract, and the probationary, contractual or fixed-term. Besides, petitioners were hired
parties are not at liberty to insulate themselves and their relationships from the for specific tasks and under fixed terms and conditions and it is LSGI’s
impact of labor laws and regulations by simply contracting with each other. prerogative to monitor their performance to see if they are doing their
Further, a fixed-term contract is an employment contract, the repeated tasks according to the terms and conditions of their contract and to give
renewals of which make for a regular employment. In Fuji Television Network, them incentives for good performance.15
Inc. v. Espiritu,12 we noted that Fuji’s argument that Espiritu was an independent  
contractor under a fixed-term contract is contradictory where employees under We completely disagree with the Court of Appeals.
fixed-term contracts cannot be independent contractors because in fixed-term The uniform one-page Contracts of Retainer signed by petitioners were
contracts, an employer-employee relationship exists. Significantly, we ruled prepared by LSGI alone. Petitioners, medical professionals as they were, were
therein that Espiritu’s contract indicating a fixed term did not automatically still not on equal footing with LSGI as they obviously did not want to lose their
mean that she could never be a regular employee which is precisely what Article jobs that they had stayed in for fifteen (15) years. There is no specificity in the
280 of the Labor Code sought to avoid. The repeated renewal of Espiritu’s contracts regarding terms and conditions of employment that would indicate that
contract coupled with the nature of work performed pointed to the regular nature petitioners and LSGI were on equal footing in negotiating it. Notably, without
of her employment despite contrary claims of Fuji and the nomenclature of the specifying what are the tasks assigned to petitioners, LSGI
contract. Citing Dumpit-Murillo v. Court of Appeals13  and  Philips _______________
Semiconductors (Phils.), Inc. v. Fadriquela,14 we declared in Fuji that the
repeated engagement under contract of hire is indicative of the necessity and 15  Rollo, p. 66.
desirability of the [employee’s] work in respondent’s business
_______________  
 
12  G.R. Nos. 204944-45, December 3, 2014, 744 SCRA 31. 674
13  551 Phil. 725; 524 SCRA 290 (2007). 674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
14  471 Phil. 355; 427 SCRA 408 (2004). Samonte vs. La Salle Greenhills, Inc.
 
 “may upon prior written notice to the retainer, terminate [the] contract should 675
the retainer fail in any way to perform his assigned job/task to the satisfaction of VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 675
La Salle Greenhills, Inc. or for any other just cause.”16
Samonte vs. La Salle Greenhills, Inc.
While vague in its sparseness, the Contract of Retainer very clearly spelled
Not being trier of facts, we remand this case to the NLRC for the
out that LSGI had the power of control over petitioners.
determination of separation pay and full backwages from the time petitioners
Time and again, we have held that the power of control refers to the
were precluded from returning to work the school year 2004 and compensation
existence of the power and not necessarily to the actual exercise thereof, nor is it
for work performed in that period.
essential for the employer to actually supervise the performance of duties of the
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of
employee.17 It is enough that the employer has the right to wield that power.
Appeals in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 110391 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
In all, given the following: (1) repeated renewal of petitioners’ contract for
Decisions of the NLRC in NLRC CA No. 044835-05 and NLRC Case No. 00-
fifteen years, interrupted only by the close of the school year; (2) the necessity of
0607081-04 are ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE. The Complaint of petitioners
the work performed by petitioners as school physicians and dentists; and (3) the
Arlene T. Samonte, Vladimir P. Samonte, and Ma. Carmen Aurea S. Elepaño
existence of LSGI’s power of control over the means and method pursued by
against La Salle Greenhills, Inc. for illegal dismissal is GRANTED.
petitioners in the performance of their job, we rule that petitioners attained
We REMAND this case to the NLRC for the computation of the three (3)
regular employment, entitled to security of tenure who could only be dismissed
petitioners’ separation pay and full backwages.
for just and authorized causes. Consequently, petitioners were illegally dismissed
No pronouncement as to costs.
and are entitled to the twin remedies of payment of separation pay and full
SO ORDERED.
backwages. We order separation pay in lieu of reinstatement given the time that
Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Peralta, Reyes  and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
has lapsed, twelve years, in the litigation of this case.
We clarify, however, that our ruling herein is only confined to the three (3) Petition granted, judgment reversed and set aside.
petitioners who had filed this appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, and prior thereto, the petition for certiorari  under Rule 65 thereof before Notes.—Fixed-term employment contracts are not limited, as they are under
the Court of Appeals. The Decision of the NLRC covering other complainants in the present Labor Code, to those by nature seasonal or for specific projects with
NLRC CA No. 044835-05 has already become final and executory as to them. predetermined dates of completion; they also include those to which the parties
_______________ by free choice have assigned a specific date of termination. (Fonterra Brands
Phils., Inc. vs. Largado, 753 SCRA 649 [2015])
16  Id., at p. 65. An employee is said to be under a fixed-term employment when he is hired
17  Corporal, Sr. v. National Labor Relations Commission,  395 Phil. 980; under a contract which specifies that the employment will last only for a definite
341 SCRA 658 (2000). period. (OKS DesignTech, Inc. vs. Caccam, 765 SCRA 433 [2015])
 
   
  ——o0o——