Samonte vs. La Salle Greenhills, Inc.

G.R. No. 199683. February 10, 2016. * any employee who has rendered at least one year of service,
  whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a
regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed
ARLENE T. SAMONTE, VLADIMIR P. SAMONTE, MA.
and his employment shall continue while such activity exists. The
AUREA S. ELEPAÑO, petitioners, vs. LA SALLE provision classifies regular employees into two kinds (1) those
GREENHILLS, INC., and BRO. BERNARD S. OCA, “engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable
respondents. in the usual business or trade of the employer”; and (2) casual
Labor Law; Regular Employees; Regular employees are of two employees who have “rendered at least one year of service, whether
(2) kinds, namely: (1) those “engaged to perform activities which are such service is continuous or broken.”
usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the Same; Fixed-Term Employment; A fixed-term employment is
employer”; and (2) casual employees who have “rendered at least one allowable under the Labor Code only if the term was voluntarily and
(1) year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken.”— knowingly entered into by the parties who must have dealt with each
Article 280 of the Labor Code classifies employees into regular, other on equal terms not one exercising moral dominance over the
project, seasonal, and casual: Art. 280. Regular and casual other.—A fixed-term employment is allowable under the Labor Code
employment.—The provisions of written agreement to the contrary only if the term was voluntarily and knowingly entered into by the
notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an parties who must have dealt with each other on equal terms not one
employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has exercising moral dominance over the other.
been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or Same; Same; Fixed-Term Contracts; Words and Phrases; A
desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where fixed-term contract is an employment contract, the repeated renewals
the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking of which make for a regular employment.—A fixed-term contract is an
the completion or termination of which has been determined at the employment contract, the repeated renewals of which make for a
time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or service regular employment. In Fuji Television Network, Inc. v. Espiritu, 744
to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the SCRA 31 (2014), we noted that Fuji’s argument that Espiritu was an
duration of the season. An employment shall be deemed to be casual if independent contractor under a fixed-term contract is contradictory
it is not covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, That where employees under fixed-term contracts cannot be independent
_______________ contractors because in fixed-term contracts, an employer-employee
relationship exists. Significantly, we ruled therein that Espiritu’s
*  THIRD DIVISION.
contract indicating a fixed term did not automatically mean that she
  could never be a regular employee which is precisely what Article 280
  of the Labor Code sought to avoid. The repeated renewal of Espiritu’s
658 contract coupled with the nature of work performed pointed to the
658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED regular nature of her employment despite contrary claims of Fuji and
Page 1 of 14
the nomenclature of the contract. Citing Dumpit-Murillo v. Court of As each and all of the various and varied classes of
Appeals, 524 SCRA 290 (2007)  and Philips Semiconductors (Phils.), employees in the gamut of the labor force, from
Inc. v. Fadriquela, 427 SCRA 408 (2004), we declared in Fuji that the
nonprofessionals to professionals, are afforded full
repeated engagement under contract of hire is indicative of the
necessity and desirability of the [employee’s] work in respondent’s protection of law and security of tenure as enshrined in the
business and where employee’s contract has been continuously Constitution, the entitlement is determined on the basis of
extended or renewed to the same position, with the the nature of the work, qualifications of the employee, and
  other relevant circumstances.
  Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari is the
659 Decision  of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No.
1

VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 659 110391 affirming the Decision of the National Labor
Samonte vs. La Salle Greenhills, Inc. Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC CA No. 044835-
same duties and remained in the employ without any interruption,
then such employee is a regular employee.
05  finding that
2

_______________
Same; Control Test; Time and again, we have held that the power
of control refers to the existence of the power and not necessarily to 1  Penned by Associate Justice Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente, with Associate
the actual exercise thereof, nor is it essential for the employer to Justices Romeo F. Barza and Edward D. Sorongon, concurring, Rollo, pp. 57-69.
actually supervise the performance of duties of the employee.—Time 2  Id., at pp. 104-109.
and again, we have held that the power of control refers to the  
existence of the power and not necessarily to the actual exercise  
thereof, nor is it essential for the employer to actually supervise the 660
performance of duties of the employee. It is enough that the employer 660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
has the right to wield that power. Samonte vs. La Salle Greenhills, Inc.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the petitioners Arlene T. Samonte, Vladimir P. Samonte and
Court of Appeals. Ma. Aurea S. Elepaño were fixed-term employees of
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. respondent La Salle Greenhills, Inc. (LSGI). The NLRC
  Chenaide P. Aceret for petitioners. (First Division) ruling is a modification of the ruling of the
  Laguesma, Magsalin, Consulta & Gastardo for Labor Arbiter that petitioners were independent contractors
respondents. of respondent LSGI. 3

PEREZ, J.: The facts are not in dispute.

 
Page 2 of 14
 From 1989, and for fifteen (15) years thereafter, LSGI the project/undertaking and/or to the job/task assigned to the
contracted the services of medical professionals, specifically retainer within the said project/undertaking;
pediatricians, dentists and a physician, to comprise its Health _______________

Service Team (HST). 3  Id., at pp. 244-258.

Petitioners, along with other members of the HST signed  
uniform one-page Contracts of Retainer for the period of a  
specific academic calendar beginning in June of a certain 661

year (1989 and the succeeding 15 years) and terminating in VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 661
March of the following year when the school year ends. The Samonte vs. La Salle Greenhills, Inc.
Contracts of Retainer succinctly read, to wit: 2. This retainer shall, without need of any notice to the
C O N T R A C T O F R E T A I N E R retainer, automatically cease on the aforespecified expiration
  date/s of the said project/undertaking and/or the said
Name of Retainer _________________________ job/task; provided, that this retainer shall likewise be
Address __________________________________ deemed terminated if the said project/undertaking and/or
Community Tax Cert. No.__________________ job/task shall be completed on a date/s prior to their
Issued at ______________ on ______________________ aforespecified expiration date/s;
Taxpayer Identification No. (TIN) ___________ 3. The foregoing notwithstanding, at any time prior to
Department Assigned to _____ HRD-CENTRO said expiration or completion date/s, La Salle Greenhills,
Operation ____ Inc. may upon prior written notice to the retainer, terminate
Project/Undertaking (Description and Duration) this contract should the retainer fail in any way to perform
________________ Health Services ______________ his assigned job/task to the satisfaction of La Salle
Job Task (Description and Duration) Greenhills, Inc. or for any other just cause.
School [physician] from June 1, [x x x] to March 31,  
[x x x] HERMAN G. ROCHESTER    
Rate ________________ ______________________
Conditions: Head Administrator                                   Retainer
1. This retainer is only temporary in character and, as BELEN T. MASILUNGAN    
above specified, shall be solely and exclusively limited to ______________________

Page 3 of 14
 Personnel Officer                                    Date Signed filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for
  separation pay, damages and attorney’s fees before the
Signed in the Presence of: NLRC. They included the President of LSGI, Bro. Bernard
  S. Oca, as respondent.
DANTE M. FERRER                          BRO. BERNARD In their Position Paper, petitioners alleged that they were
S. OCA regular employees who could only be dismissed for just and
FRD Head Administrator                              President
4
authorized causes, who, up to the time of their termination,
  regularly received the following amounts:
After fifteen consecutive years of renewal each academic 1. Monthly salary for the ten-month period of a given
year, where the last Contract of Retainer was for the school school year:
year of 2003-2004 i.e., June 1, 2003 to March 31, 2004, 2. Annual 13th Month Pay equivalent to their one-
LSGI Head Administrator, Herman Rochester, on that last month salary;
day of the school year, informed the Medical Service Team, 3. Automatic yearly increase to their monthly salary, the
including herein petitioners, that their contracts will no rate of which is discretionary to LSGI’s Executive
longer be renewed for the following school year by reason of Administrator based on a comparative rate to the across the
LSGI’s decision to hire two (2) full-time doctors and board increase of the regular school employees which
dentists. One of the physicians from the same Health Service increase was subsequently reflected in their [HST’S]
Team was hired by LSGI as a full-time doctor. monthly salaries for the following school year;
When petitioners’, along with their medical colleagues’, 4. Since 1996, as a result of the HST’s request for a
requests for payment of their separation pay were denied, performance bonus, the team was likewise evaluated for a
they year-end performance rating by HRD-CENTRO Head
_______________ Administrator, the Assistant Principal, the Health Services
4  CA Rollo, pp. 234-240. Team Leader and the designated Physician’s Coordinator,
  complainant Jennifer Ramirez.
   
662  
662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 663
Samonte vs. La Salle Greenhills, Inc. VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 663

Page 4 of 14
 Samonte vs. La Salle Greenhills, Inc. c) Participation of the complainants in
To further bolster their claim of regular employment, Medical/Dental Missions in the name of respondent
complainants pointed out the following in their Position school;
Paper: d) Formulation of the Health Services Unit
In the course of their employment, each of the Manual;
complainants served an average of nine hours a week. e) Participation in the collation of evaluation of
But beyond their duty hours, they were on call for any services rendered by the Health Services Unit, as
medical exigencies of the La Sallian community. required for the continuing PAASCU (Philippine
Furthermore, over the years, additional tasks were Association of Accredited Schools Colleges &
assigned to the complainants and were required to Universities) accreditation of the School;
suffer the following services/activities: f) Participation in the yearly evaluation of
a) To attend staff meetings and to participate in the complainants, which is a function of regular employees
formulation/adoption of policies and programs in the HRD-CENTRO Operations, of the HRD-
designed to enhance the School services to its CENTRO Head Administrator;
constituents and to upgrade the School’s standards.  
Complainants’ involvement in Staff Meetings of the  
Health Services Unit of respondent school was a 664

regular activity associated with personnel who are 664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
regular employees of an institution; Samonte vs. La Salle Greenhills, Inc.
b) To participate in various gatherings and g) Designation of certain complainants,
activities sponsored by the respondent school such as particularly Dr. Jennifer A. Ramirez, as member of
the Kabihasnan (the biannual school fair), symposiums, panel of investigation to inquire into an alleged
seminars, orientation programs, workshops, misdemeanor of a regular employee of respondent
lectures, etc., including purely political activities such school; and
as the NAMFREL quick count, of which the h) Regular inspection of the canteen
respondent school is a staunch supporter; concessionaire and the toilet 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:
Page 5 of 14
 Builder of a Culture of Peace,” under the heading  
“Health Services Team” of the La Salle Green Hills  
High School Student Handbook 2003-2004. Such 665

public presentation of the complainants as members of VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 665
the “LA SALLIAN FAMILY” leaves no doubt about Samonte vs. La Salle Greenhills, Inc.
ants were independent contractors and not regular
the intent of respondent school to project complainants
employees citing, thus:
as part of its professional staff. 5

 
 
SONZA contends that ABS-CBN exercised control
On the other hand, in their Position Paper,  LSGI denied
6

over the means and methods of his work.

that complainants were regular employees, asserting that
SONZA’s argument is misplaced. ABS-CBN
complainants were independent contractors who were
engaged SONZA’s services specifically to cohost the
retained by LSGI by reason of their medical skills and
“Mel & Jay” programs. ABS-CBN did not assign any
expertise to provide ancillary medical and dental services to
other work to SONZA. To perform his work, SONZA
both its students and faculty, consistent with the following
only needed his skills and talent. How SONZA
circumstances:
delivered his lines, appeared on television, and sounded
1. Complainants were professional physicians and
on radio were outside ABS-CBN’s control. SONZA
dentists on retainer basis, paid on monthly retainer fees, not
did not have to render 8 hours of work per day. The
regular salaries;
Agreement required SONZA to attend only rehearsals
2. LSGI had no power to impose disciplinary measures
and tapings of the shows, as well as pre- and post-
upon complainants including dismissal from employment;
production staff meetings. ABS-CBN could not dictate
3. LSGI had no power of control over how
the contents of SONZA’s script. However, the
complainants actually performed their professional services.
Agreement prohibited SONZA from criticising in his
In the main, LSGI invoked the case of Sonza v. ABS-CBN
shows ABS-CBN or its interests. The clear implication
Broadcasting Corporation  to justify its stance that
7

is that SONZA had a free hand on what to say or

complain-
_______________ discuss in his shows provided he did not attack ABS-
CBN or its interests.
5  Id., at pp. 195-209.
6  Id., at pp. 210-229.
 
7  G.R. No. 138051, June 10, 2004, 431 SCRA 583.
Page 6 of 14
 As previously adverted, the Labor Arbiter dismissed 5. On this score alone, complainants’ respective clinic
petitioners’ (and their colleagues’) complaint and ruled that schedule at LSGI for two (2) to three (3) days a week for
complainants, as propounded by LSGI, were independent three (3) hours a day, for a maximum of nine (9) hours a
contractors under retainership contracts and never became week, was not commensurate to the required number of
regular employees of LSGI. The Labor Arbiter based its hours work rendered by a regular employee in a given week
overall finding of the absence of control by LSGI over of at least 40 hours a week or 8 hours a day for five (5) days.
complainants on the following points: In addition, the appointed clinic schedule was based on the
1. The professional services provided by complainants, preference of complainants.
including herein petitioners, cannot be considered as Curiously, despite the finding that complainants were
necessary to LSGI’s business of providing primary and independent contractors and not regular employees, the
secondary education to its students. Labor Arbiter, on the ground of compassionate social
2. The payslips of complainants are not salaries but justice, awarded complainants separation pay at the rate of
professional fees less taxes withheld for the medical services one-half month salary for every year of service.
they provided; Separately, both parties, complainants, including herein
3. Issuance of identification cards to, and the petitioners, and respondents appealed to the NLRC.
requirement to log the time-in and time-out of, complainants At the outset, the NLRC disagreed with the Labor
are not indi- Arbiter’s ruling that complainants were independent
  contractors based on the latter’s opinion that the services
  rendered by complainants are not considered necessary to
666 LSGI’s operation as an educational institution. The NLRC
666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED noted that Presidential Decree No. 856, otherwise known as
Samonte vs. La Salle Greenhills, Inc. the Sanitation Code of the Philippines, requires that private
cia of LSGI’s power of control over them but were only
educational institutions comply with the sanitary laws.
imposed for security reasons and in compliance with the
Nonetheless, the NLRC found that complainants were fixed-
agreed clinic schedules of complainants at LSGI premises.
period employees whose terms of employment were subject
4. In contrast to regular employees of LSGI,
to agreement for a specific duration. In all, the NLRC ruled
complainants: (a) were not required to attend or participate
that the Contracts of Retainer between complainants and
in school-sponsored activities and (b) did not enjoy benefits
such as educational subsidy for their dependents.
Page 7 of 14
LSGI are valid fixed-term employment contracts where shall be completed on a date prior to specified expiration
complainants as medical profes- date.
  The Court of Appeals ruled against petitioners’ claim of
  regular employment, thus:
667  
VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 667 Moreover, this Court is not persuaded by
Samonte vs. La Salle Greenhills, Inc. petitioners’ averments that they are regular employees
sionals understood the terms thereof when they agreed to
simply because they received benefits such as overtime
such continuously for more than ten (10) years.
pay, allowances, Christmas bonuses and the like; or
Consequently, the valid termination of their retainership
because they were subjected to administrative rules
contracts at the end of the period stated therein, did not
such as those that regulate their time and hours of
entitle complainants to reinstatement, nor, to payment of
work, or subjected to LSGI’s disciplinary rules and
separation pay.
regulations; or simply because they were treated as part
At this point, only herein petitioners, filed a petition
of LSGI’s professional staff. It must be emphasized
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the
that LSGI, being the employer, has the inherent right to
Court of Appeals alleging that grave abuse of discretion
regulate all aspects of employment of every employee
attended the ruling of the NLRC that they were not regular
whether regular, probationary, contractual or fixed-
employees and thus not entitled to the twin remedies of
term. Besides, petitioners
reinstatement to work with payment of full backwages or
 
separation pay with backwages.
 
In dismissing the petition for certiorari, the appellate 668
court ruled that the NLRC did not commit an error of 668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
jurisdiction which is correctible by a writ of certiorari. The Samonte vs. La Salle Greenhills, Inc.
Court of Appeals found that the NLRC’s ruling was based were hired for specific tasks and under fixed terms and
on the Contracts of Retainer signed by petitioners who, as conditions and it is LSGI’s prerogative to monitor their
professionals, supposedly ought to have known the import of performance to see if they are doing their tasks according to
the contracts they voluntarily signed, i.e., (a) temporary in the terms and conditions of their contract and to give them
character; (b) automatically ceasing on the specified incentives for good performance. 8

expiration date; or (c) likewise deemed terminated if job/task  

Page 8 of 14
 Hence, this petition for review on certiorari raising the abuse of discretion in ruling that petitioners were not regular
following issues for resolution of the Court: employees who may only be dismissed for just and
  authorized causes.
I. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF _______________

APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT 8  Rollo, p. 66.

PETITIONERS WERE FIXED-PERIOD 9  Id., at p. 21.

EMPLOYEES AND NOT REGULAR EMPLOYEES  

OF LSGI.  
669
II. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF
VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 669
APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HAVING RULED THAT
Samonte vs. La Salle Greenhills, Inc.
PETITIONERS WERE ILLEGALLY DISMISSED Our inquiry and disposition will delve into the kind of
FROM WORK. employment relationship between the parties, such
III. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF employment relationship having been as much as admitted
APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HAVING RULED THAT by LSGI and then ruled upon categorically by the NLRC and
PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO the appellate court which both held that petitioners were
REINSTATEMENT, BACKWAGES AND OTHER fixed-term employees and not independent contractors.
MONETARY BENEFITS PROVIDED BY LAW, Article 280 of the Labor Code classifies employees into
MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, AS regular, project, seasonal, and casual:
WELL AS ATTORNEY’S FEES.  
IV. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF Art. 280. Regular and casual employment.—The
APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HAVING RULED THAT provisions of written agreement to the contrary
RESPONDENTS ARE SOLIDARILY LIABLE AS notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of
THEY ACTED IN BAD FAITH AND WITH the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be
MALICE IN DEALING WITH THE PETITIONERS. 9
regular where the employee has been engaged to
perform activities which are usually necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer,
The pivotal issue for resolution is whether the Court of
except where the employment has been fixed for a
Appeals correctly ruled that the NLRC did not commit grave
specific project or undertaking the completion or
Page 9 of 14
 termination of which has been determined at the time employees.  We found them to be independent contractors
10

of the engagement of the employee or where the work because of these unique skills and talents and the lack of
or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the control over the means and methods in the performance of
employment is for the duration of the season. their work. In some instances, doctors and other medical
An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is professional may fall into this independent contractor
not covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, category, legitimately providing medical professional
That any employee who has rendered at least one year services. However, as has been declared by the NLRC and
of service, whether such service is continuous or the appellate court, petitioners herein are not independent
broken, shall be considered a regular employee with contractors.
respect to the activity in which he is employed and his We need to examine next the ruling of the NLRC and the
employment shall continue while such activity exists. Court of Appeals that petitioners were fixed-term
  employees.
The provision classifies regular employees into two kinds To factually support such conclusion, the NLRC solely
(1) those “engaged to perform activities which are usually relied on the case of Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora  and 11

necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the perfunctorily noted that petitioners, professional doctors and
employer”; and (2) casual employees who have “rendered at dentists, continuously signed the contracts for more than ten
least one year of service, whether such service is continuous (10) years. Such was heedless of our prescription that the
or broken.” ruling in Brent be strictly construed, applying only to cases
  where it appears that the employer and employee are on
  equal footing. Observably, nowhere in the two and half page
670 ratiocination of the NLRC was there reference to the
670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED standard that “it [should] satisfactorily appear that the
Samonte vs. La Salle Greenhills, Inc. employer and employee dealt with each other on more or
The NLRC correctly identified the existence of an
less equal terms with no moral dominance whatever being
employer-employee relationship between petitioners and
exercised by the former on the latter.”
LSGI and not a bilateral independent contractor relationship. _______________
On more than one occasion, we recognized certain workers
10  Orozco v. Fifth Division of the Court of Appeals, 584 Phil. 35; 562 SCRA 36
to be independent contractors: individuals with unique skills (2008); Semblante v. Court of Appeals, 19th Division, 671 Phil. 213; 655 SCRA 444
and talents that set them apart from ordinary
Page 10 of 14
(2011); Bernarte v. Philippine Basketball Association, 673 Phil. 384; 657 SCRA 745 ruling out all written or oral agreements conflicting
(2011); Sonza v. Court of Appeals, supra note 7.
11  260 Phil. 747; 181 SCRA 702 (1990). with the concept of regular employment as defined
  therein should be construed to refer to the substantive
  evil that the Code itself has singled out: agreements
671 entered into precisely to circumvent security of tenure.
VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 671 It should have no application to instances where a fixed
Samonte vs. La Salle Greenhills, Inc. period of employment was agreed upon knowingly and
From Brent, which remains as the exception rather than voluntarily by the parties, without any force, duress or
the rule in the determination of the nature of employment, improper pressure being brought to bear upon the
we are schooled that there are employment contracts where a employee and absent any other circumstances vitiating
“fixed term is an essential and natural appurtenance” such as his consent, or where it satisfactorily appears that the
overseas employment contracts and officers in educational employer and employee dealt with each other on more
institutions. We learned thus: or less equal terms with no moral dominance whatever
  being exercised by the former over the latter.
[T]he decisive determinant in the term employment  
contract should not be the activities that the employee Tersely put, a fixed-term employment is allowable under
is called upon to perform, but the day certain agreed the Labor Code only if the term was voluntarily and
upon by the parties for the commencement and knowingly entered into by the parties who must have dealt
termination of their employment relationship, a day with
certain being understood to be that which must  
necessarily come, although it may not be known when.  
x x x 672
Accordingly, and since the entire purpose behind the 672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
development of legislation culminating in the present Samonte vs. La Salle Greenhills, Inc.
Article 280 of the Labor Code clearly appears to have each other on equal terms not one exercising moral
been, as already observed, to prevent circumvention of dominance over the other.
the employee’s right to be secure in his tenure, the Indeed, Price, et al. v. Innodata Corp., teaches us, from
clause in said article indiscriminately and completely the wording of Article 280 of the Labor Code, that the
nomenclature of contracts, especially employment contracts,
Page 11 of 14
does not define the employment status of a person: Such is necessity and desirability of the [employee’s] work in
defined and prescribed by law find not by what the parties respondent’s business
say it should be. Equally important to consider is that a _______________

contract of employment is impressed with public interest 12  G.R. Nos. 204944-45, December 3, 2014, 744 SCRA 31.
such that labor contracts must yield to the common good. 13  551 Phil. 725; 524 SCRA 290 (2007).
14  471 Phil. 355; 427 SCRA 408 (2004).
Thus, provisions of applicable statutes are deemed written
 
into the contract, and the parties are not at liberty to insulate
 
themselves and their relationships from the impact of labor 673
laws and regulations by simply contracting with each other. VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 673
Further, a fixed-term contract is an employment contract, Samonte vs. La Salle Greenhills, Inc.
the repeated renewals of which make for a regular and where employee’s contract has been continuously
employment. In Fuji Television Network, Inc. v. extended or renewed to the same position, with the same
Espiritu,  we noted that Fuji’s argument that Espiritu was an
12
duties and remained in the employ without any interruption,
independent contractor under a fixed-term contract is then such employee is a regular employee.
contradictory where employees under fixed-term contracts In the case at bar, the Court of Appeals disregarded the
cannot be independent contractors because in fixed-term repeated renewals of the Contracts of Retainer of petitioners
contracts, an employer-employee relationship exists. spanning a decade and a half. The Court of Appeals ruled
Significantly, we ruled therein that Espiritu’s contract that petitioners never became regular employees:
indicating a fixed term did not automatically mean that she  
could never be a regular employee which is precisely what [T]his Court is not persuaded by petitioners’
Article 280 of the Labor Code sought to avoid. The repeated averments that they are regular employees simply
renewal of Espiritu’s contract coupled with the nature of because they received benefits such as overtime pay,
work performed pointed to the regular nature of her allowances, Christmas bonuses and the like; or because
employment despite contrary claims of Fuji and the they were subjected to administrative rules such as
nomenclature of the contract. Citing Dumpit-Murillo v. those that regulate their time and hours of work, or
Court of Appeals  and Philips Semiconductors (Phils.), Inc.
13
subjected to LSGI’s disciplinary rules and regulations;
v. Fadriquela,  we declared in Fuji that the repeated
14
or simply because they were treated as part of LSGI’s
engagement under contract of hire is indicative of the professional staff. It must be emphasized that LSGI, as
Page 12 of 14
 the employer, has the inherent right to regulate all “may upon prior written notice to the retainer, terminate
aspects of employment of every employee whether [the] contract should the retainer fail in any way to perform
regular, probationary, contractual or fixed-term. his assigned job/task to the satisfaction of La Salle
Besides, petitioners were hired for specific tasks and Greenhills, Inc. or for any other just cause.”
16

under fixed terms and conditions and it is LSGI’s While vague in its sparseness, the Contract of Retainer
prerogative to monitor their performance to see if they very clearly spelled out that LSGI had the power of control
are doing their tasks according to the terms and over petitioners.
conditions of their contract and to give them incentives Time and again, we have held that the power of control
for good performance. 15
refers to the existence of the power and not necessarily to
  the actual exercise thereof, nor is it essential for the
We completely disagree with the Court of Appeals. employer to actually supervise the performance of duties of
The uniform one-page Contracts of Retainer signed by the employee.  It is enough that the employer has the right to
17

petitioners were prepared by LSGI alone. Petitioners, wield that power.

medical professionals as they were, were still not on equal In all, given the following: (1) repeated renewal of
footing with LSGI as they obviously did not want to lose petitioners’ contract for fifteen years, interrupted only by the
their jobs that they had stayed in for fifteen (15) years. There close of the school year; (2) the necessity of the work
is no specificity in the contracts regarding terms and performed by petitioners as school physicians and dentists;
conditions of employment that would indicate that and (3) the existence of LSGI’s power of control over the
petitioners and LSGI were on equal footing in negotiating it. means and method pursued by petitioners in the performance
Notably, without specifying what are the tasks assigned to of their job, we rule that petitioners attained regular
petitioners, LSGI employment, entitled to security of tenure who could only be
_______________ dismissed for just and authorized causes. Consequently,
15  Rollo, p. 66. petitioners were illegally dismissed and are entitled to the
  twin remedies of payment of separation pay and full
  backwages. We order separation pay in lieu of reinstatement
674 given the time that has lapsed, twelve years, in the litigation
674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED of this case.
Samonte vs. La Salle Greenhills, Inc.

Page 13 of 14
 We clarify, however, that our ruling herein is only We REMAND this case to the NLRC for the computation of
confined to the three (3) petitioners who had filed this appeal the three (3) petitioners’ separation pay and full backwages.
by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, and prior No pronouncement as to costs.
thereto, the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 thereof SO ORDERED.
before the Court of Appeals. The Decision of the NLRC Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Peralta,
covering other complainants in NLRC CA No. 044835-05 Reyes and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
has already become final and executory as to them. Petition granted, judgment reversed and set aside.
_______________ Notes.—Fixed-term employment contracts are not
16  Id., at p. 65. limited, as they are under the present Labor Code, to those
17  Corporal, Sr. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 395 Phil. 980; 341 by nature seasonal or for specific projects with
SCRA 658 (2000).
predetermined dates of completion; they also include those
 
to which the parties by free choice have assigned a specific
 
675
date of termination. (Fonterra Brands Phils., Inc. vs.
VOL. 783, FEBRUARY 10, 2016 675 Largado, 753 SCRA 649 [2015])
Samonte vs. La Salle Greenhills, Inc. An employee is said to be under a fixed-term employment
Not being trier of facts, we remand this case to the NLRC when he is hired under a contract which specifies that the
for the determination of separation pay and full backwages employment will last only for a definite period. (OKS
from the time petitioners were precluded from returning to DesignTech, Inc. vs. Caccam, 765 SCRA 433 [2015])
work the school year 2004 and compensation for work  
performed in that period.  
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The ——o0o——
Decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No.
110391 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decisions of
the NLRC in NLRC CA No. 044835-05 and NLRC Case
No. 00-0607081-04 are ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE.
The Complaint of petitioners Arlene T. Samonte, Vladimir
P. Samonte, and Ma. Carmen Aurea S. Elepaño against La
Salle Greenhills, Inc. for illegal dismissal is GRANTED.
Page 14 of 14