8/11/2019 Fabeza V SMC

1/1

117. Fabela, et. al vs. San Miguel CorporationFACTS: Petitioners were hired by respondent San Miguel Corporation (SMC) as Relief Salesmen for the Greater ManilaArea (GMA) under separate but almost similarly worded Contrats of !mployment "ith #i$ed Period% After ha&ingentered into suessi&e ontrats of the same nature with SMC' the ser&ies of petitioners were terminated after SMC nolonger agreed to forge another ontrat with them% SMC laimed that the hiring of route salesmen' lie #abela and others'was not intended to be permanent%SMC was undergoing a gradual transition from route system to a new system of selling and deli&ering its produts the

Pre*Selling System in whih the salesmen under the earlier system would be replaed by Aounts Speialists whih

alled for upgraded +ualifiations%"hile some of the +ualified regular salesmen were readily upgraded to the position of Aounts Speialist' SMCargued that it still had to sell its beer produts using the on&entional routing system during the transition stage' thusgi&ing rise to the need for temporary employees% ,he route salesmen then e$isting were re+uired to undergo a training

program to determine whether they possessed or ould be trained as Aounts Speialists% -ene' it laimed that the hiringof petitioners and others for a fi$ed period was o*terminus with the ompletion of the transition period and ,rainingProgram for all prospeti&e Aounts Speialists%

Claiming that they were illegally dismissed' petitioners filed separate omplaints for illegal dismissal againstrespondents% ,he .abor Arbiter held that the omplainants' herein petitioners' were illegally dismissed% ,he /eision of the.abor Arbiter was affirmed on appeal by the 0.RC' by Resolution of April 12' 1333% Respondents4 Motion forReonsideration was denied' hene' they filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals before whih theyontended that herein petitioners were &alidly hired for a fi$ed period whih was not renewed' hene' the termination oftheir ser&ies was &alid% ,he Court of Appeals granted respondents4 petition and aordingly re&ersed the deision of the.abor Arbiter and of the 0.RC% ,he appellate ourt aordingly dismissed petitioners4 omplaints% ,heir motion forreonsideration ha&ing been denied by the Court of Appeals' petitioners filed the present petition%

ISSUE5 "as there a &alid fi$ed period employment6

Ruling: 0o% Although Artile 123 does not e$pressly reogni7e employment for a fi$ed period' whih is distint fromemployment whih has been fi$ed for a speifi pro8et or undertaing' it has been larified that employment for a fi$ed

period is not in itself illegal% !&en if the duties of an employee onsist of ati&ities usually neessary or desirable in theusual business of the employer' it does not neessarily follow that the parties are forbidden from agreeing on a period oftime for the performane of suh ati&ities through a ontrat of employment for a fi$ed term%

SMC4s ontention that there are fi$ed periods stated in the ontrats of employment does not lie% ,he ruling in 9rentinstruts that a ontrat of employment stipulating a fi$ed*term' e&en if lear as regards the e$istene of a period' isin&alid if it an be shown that the same was e$euted with the intention of irum&enting seurity of tenure' and shouldthus be ignored% :ndeed' substantial e&idene e$ists in the present ase showing that the sub8et ontrats were utili7ed todepri&e petitioners of their seurity of tenure% ,he ontrat of employment of petitioner #abela' for instane' states that thetransition period from the Route System to the Pre*Selling System would be twel&e (;1) months from April