Paulit-ulit na pag-renew ng kontrata sa trabaho

ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta - @Magtanong Kay Attorney | June 07, 2023

Dear Chief Acosta,

Nagsimula akong maglingkod bilang waiter sa isang hotel sa aming bayan. Matapos ang ilang taon na pagtatrabaho, ako ay nalipat sa kusina bilang isang cook na naghahanda ng mga pastries. Ako ay may iskedyul na anim na araw sa isang linggo. Makalipas ang humigit-kumulang siyam na taon ng aking paglilingkod, nagulat na lamang ako nang binawasan na ang aking iskedyul. Mula anim na araw, naging dalawang araw na lamang kada linggo. Kahit sa haba ng aking paglilingkod sa hotel, hindi ako kinokonsiderang isang regular employee at paulit-ulit lamang na nire-renew ang aking kontrata taun-taon. Ako ay agarang nagtungo sa National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) upang magreklamo ng Constructive Dismissal. Ito ay itinatanggi ng pamunuan ng hotel at sinasabi nilang ako ay isa lamang fixed-term employee na maaaring tanggalin matapos ang aming kontrata. Tama po ba ito? -- Ramon

Dear Ramon,

Ang iyong katanungan ay sinagot ng Korte Suprema sa kasong Allan Regala v. Manila Hotel Corporation, G.R. No. 204684, October 5, 2020, Ponente: Honorable Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, kung saan sinabi ang mga pamantayan upang makonsidera ang isang empleyado bilang isang regular employee. Ayon sa Korte Suprema:

“The employment status of a person is defined and prescribed by law and not by what the parties say it should be. In this regard, Article 295 of the Labor Code "provides for two types of regular employees, namely: (a) those who are engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer (first category); and (b) those who have rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in which they are employed (second category).” While MHC insists that Regala was engaged under a fixed-term employment agreement, the circumstances and evidence on record, and provision of law, however, dictate that Regala is its regular employee.

First, Regala is performing activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the business or trade of MHC. This connection can be determined by considering the nature of the work performed by Regala and its relation to the nature of the particular business or trade of MHC in its entirety. Being part of the hotel and food industry, MHC, as a service-oriented business enterprise, depends largely on its manpower complement to carry out or perform services relating to food and beverage operations, event planning and hospitality. As such, it is essential, if at all necessary, that it retains in its employ waiting staff, such as Regala, specifically tasked to attend to its guests at its various dining establishments.

Second, the fact alone that Regala was allowed to work for MHC on several occasions for several years under various Service Agreements is indicative of the regularity and necessity of his functions to its business. Moreover, it bears to emphasize that MHC has admitted, albeit implicitly, that it renewed Regala’s Service Agreements on various occasions, i.e., during temporary spikes in the volume of its business since February 2000. Thus, the continuing need for his services for the past several years is also sufficient evidence of the indispensability of his duties as waiter to MHC’s business.”

Gaya sa iyong kaso, ang iyong ginagawa para sa kumpanya ay maaaring ikonsiderang usually necessary o indispensable sa negosyo ng nasabing hotel. Ang paulit-ulit na pagkuha sa iyo at pagre-renew ng iyong mga kontrata ay nagpapatunay din na ang iyong ginagawa ay kinakailangan ng nasabing hotel. Hinggil naman sa pagbabawas ng iyong iskedyul, ito ay maaaring ituring na Constructive Dismissal ayon sa Korte Suprema sa parehas na kaso:

“Patently, the reduction of Regala’s regular work days from five (5) days to two (2) days resulted to a diminution in pay. Regala’s change in his work schedule resulting to the diminution of his take home salary is, therefore, tantamount to constructive dismissal.

The fact that Regala may have continued reporting for work does not rule out constructive dismissal, nor does it operate as a waiver. Thus, in The Orchard Golf and Country Club v. Francisco, this Court held that:

Constructive dismissal occurs not when the employee ceases to report for work, but when the unwarranted acts of the employer are committed to the end that the employee’s continued employment shall become so intolerable. In these difficult times, an employee may be left with no choice but to continue with his employment despite abuses committed against him by the employer, and even during the pendency of a labor dispute between them.”

Sang-ayon sa nasabing desisyon, kahit na magpatuloy ang isang empleyado sa pagpasok, hindi nito pinapawalang-bisa o pinabubulaanan ang nangyaring constructive dismissal sapagkat ang constructive dismissal ay hindi lamang nangyayari kapag huminto na ang isang empleyado na magtrabaho. Bagkus, ito ay nangyayari magsimula nang gumawa ng mga hakbang ang isang employer upang gawing ‘intolerable’ ang kalagayan ng paglilingkod ng apektadong empleyado.

Sana ay nabigyan namin ng linaw ang iyong katanungan. Ang payong aming ibinigay ay base lamang sa mga impormasyon na iyong inilahad at maaaring magbago kung mababawasan o madaragdagan ang mga detalye ng iyong salaysay.

Maraming salamat sa inyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.