GR 121071; (December, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 121071 December 11, 1998
PHIL. FEDERATION OF CREDIT COOPERATIVES, INC. (PFCCI) and FR. BENEDICTO JAYOMA, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (First Division) and VICTORIA APRIL, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Victoria Abril was employed by petitioner PFCCI in various capacities starting in 1982. In November 1989, after a leave of absence, she accepted a position as Regional Field Officer under a contract stipulating a six-month probationary period. After this period elapsed, she continued working. On January 2, 1991, PFCCI presented her with a new one-year employment contract, after which her employment was terminated. Abril filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the decision, ordering Abril’s reinstatement with full backwages. The NLRC ruled she had attained regular employment status. PFCCI appealed to the Supreme Court, contending Abril was merely a contractual or project employee whose term had expired.
ISSUE
Whether Victoria Abril was illegally dismissed, hinging on the determination of her correct employment status after the probationary period.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the NLRC decision. The Court held that Abril became a regular employee entitled to security of tenure. Article 281 of the Labor Code provides that a probationary employee who is allowed to work after the probationary period shall be considered a regular employee. Here, Abril completed her six-month probation and continued working; thus, she attained regular status regardless of any subsequent fixed-term contract.
The Court rejected PFCCI’s claim that Abril was a project or contractual employee. The contract’s ambiguous terms, describing her as both “contractual” and linked to a specific project, were construed strictly against PFCCI as the drafter and in favor of the laborer, pursuant to Article 1702 of the Civil Code. Regular status attaches when an employee performs activities necessary or desirable in the employer’s usual business, which Abril did. As a regular employee, she could only be dismissed for just or authorized causes under Articles 282, 283, and 284 of the Labor Code. Termination based solely on contract expiration was illegal. Consequently, she was entitled to reinstatement and backwages.