Hence where there is no illegal terminationt here is

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: ent
 School
 with
 the
 Labor
 Department.
The
Regional
Director
considered
the
report
 as
 an
 application
 for
 clearance
 to
 terminate
 employment
 (not
a
report
of
termination)
and
refused
to
give
clearance
 and
required
Alegre’s
reinstatement
 o The
 contract
 of
 employment
 was
 lawfully
 terminated
 and
 that
 therefore
 Alegre
 was
 not
 entitled
 to
 reinstatement.
 Since
 the
 entire
 purpose
 behind
 the
 development
 of
 legislation
 culminating
 in
 the
 present
 Article
 280
 of
 the
 Labor
 Code
 is
 to
 prevent
 circumvention
 of
 the
 employee’s
 right
 to
 be
 secure
 in
 his
 tenure,
 the
 clause
 in
 said
 article
 indiscriminately
 and
 completely
 ruling
 out
 all
 written
 or
 33
 • • • oral
 agreements
 conflicting
 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
entered
into
precisely
to
circumvent
security
of
 tenure.
 It
 should
 have
 no
 application
 to
 instances
 where
 a
 fixed
period
of
employment
was
agreed
upon
knowingly
and
 voluntarily
 by
 the
 parties,
 without
 any
 force,
 duress
 or
 improper
pressure
being
brought
to
bear
upon
the
employee
 and
absent
any
other
circumstances
vitiating
his
consent,
or
 where
 it
 satisfactorily
 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.
 Brent
Doctrine
summarized
 o Article
 280
 of
 the
 Labor
 Code
 does
 not
 proscribe
 or
 prohibit
 an
 employment
 contract
 with
 a
 fixed
 period,
 provided
 the
 same
 is
 entered
 into
 by
 the
 parties
 without
 any
 force,
 duress
 or
 improper
 pressure
 being
 brought
 to
 bear
 upon
 the
 employee
 and
 absent
 any
 other
 circumstance
vitiating
consent.

 o It
does
not
necessarily
follow
that
where
the
duties
of
the
 employee
 consist
 of
 activities
 usually
 necessary
 or
 desirable
in
the
usual
business
of
the
employer,
the
parties
 are
 forbidden
 from
 agreeing
 on
 a
 period
 of
 time
 for
 the
 performance
 of
 such
 activities.
 There
 is
 thus
 nothing
 essentially
 contradictory
 between
 a
 definite
 period
 of
 employment
and
the
nature
of
the
employee’s
duties.
 Pretermination
of
fixed­period
employment,
liability
of
employer
 o A
fixed‐period
employee
is
not
regular
because
his
job
will
 exist
only
for
a
...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 03/11/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online