Scribd Logo
Hochladen

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Innodata Philippines, Inc. v. Quejada (1) Lopez G.R. No. 162839 (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Alia Arnz-Dragon
    101 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the alleged fixed-term employment contracts between Innodata Philippines, Inc. and two employees, Estrella G. Natividad and Jocelyn L. Quejada, were invalid. The Court found that Innodata's contract of employment failed to comply with standards set by law and was an attempt to circumvent the employees' right to security of tenure. While Innodata claimed the nature of its business required fixed-term contracts due to availability of client work, the Court held that labor laws cannot be avoided through private contracting and ruled in favor of the employees.

    Original Description:

    labor law case

    Original Title

    Innodata Philippines, Inc. v. Quejada[1]Lopez G.R. No. 162839 (2006)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court ruled that the alleged fixed-term employment contracts between Innodata Philippines, Inc. and two employees, Estrella G. Natividad and Jocelyn L. Quejada, were invalid. The Court found that Innodata's contract of employment failed to comply with standards set by law and was an attempt to circumvent the employees' right to security of tenure. While Innodata claimed the nature of its business required fixed-term contracts due to availability of client work, the Court held that labor laws cannot be avoided through private contracting and ruled in favor of the employees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    101 views2 pages

    Innodata Philippines, Inc. v. Quejada (1) Lopez G.R. No. 162839 (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Alia Arnz-Dragon
    The Supreme Court ruled that the alleged fixed-term employment contracts between Innodata Philippines, Inc. and two employees, Estrella G. Natividad and Jocelyn L. Quejada, were invalid. The Court found that Innodata's contract of employment failed to comply with standards set by law and was an attempt to circumvent the employees' right to security of tenure. While Innodata claimed the nature of its business required fixed-term contracts due to availability of client work, the Court held that labor laws cannot be avoided through private contracting and ruled in favor of the employees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Innodata Philippines, Inc. v.

    Quejada[1]Lopez
    G.R. No. 162839 (2006)

    FACTS:

    Innodata Philippines, Inc., is engaged in the encoding/data conversion business. It


    employs encoders, indexers, formatters, programmers, quality/quantity staff, and others, to
    maintain its business and do the job orders of its clients.

    Estrella G. Natividad and Jocelyn L. Quejada were employed as formatters by Innodata


    Philippines, Inc. They [worked] from March 4, 1997, until their separation on March 3, 1998.
    They believed that their job was necessary and desirable to the usual business of the company
    which is data processing/conversion and that their employment is regular pursuant to Article
    280 of the Labor Code,they filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and for damages as well as for
    attorney’s fees against Innodata Phils., Incorporated.

    Innodata contended that their employment contracts expired, having a fixed period of
    one (1) year. Since the period expired, their employment was likewise terminated applying the
    ruling in the Brent School case.

    Labor Arbiter Donato G. Quinto rendered a judgment in favor of complainants holding


    complainants Estella G. Natividad and Jocelyn Quejada to have been illegally dismissed by
    Innodata Philippines Incorporated and Innodata Processing Corporation and ordering
    reinstatement to their former position without loss of seniority rights, or to a substantially
    equivalent position, and to pay them jointly and severally, backwages computed from the time
    they were illegally dismissed on March 3, 1998 up to the date of this decision in the amount of
    P112,535.28 EACH, or in the total amount of P225,070.56 for the two of them; and further
    ordered to pay them attorney’s fees in the amount equivalent to 10% of their respective
    awards.

    Innodata appealed to NLRC which reversed and set aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision
    declaring that the contract was for a fixed term and therefore, the dismissal at the end of their
    one-year term agreed upon was valid. An MR was filed but was denied.

    The CA ruled that respondents were regular employees in accordance with Section 280
    of the Labor Code. It said that the fixed-term contract prepared by petitioner was a crude
    attempt to circumvent respondents’ right to security of tenure.

    Innodata claims that it was constrained by the nature of its business to enter into fixed-
    term employment contracts with employees assigned to job orders. It relies on the availability
    of job orders or undertakings from its clients. Thus, the continuity of work cannot be
    ascertained. Hence, this petition.
    ISSUE:

    Whether the alleged fixed-term employment contracts are valid.

    RULING:

    The Petition has no merit

    Innodata’s contract of employment failed to comply with the standards set by law and
    by this Court. “A contract of employment is impressed with public interest. For this reason,
    provisions of applicable statutes are deemed written into the contract. Hence, the “parties are
    not at liberty to insulate themselves and their relationships from the impact of labor laws and
    regulations by simply contracting with each other.” Moreover, in case of doubt, the terms of a
    contract should be construed in favor of labor.”

    Petition is DENIED, and the assailed Decision and Resolution are AFFIRMED. Costs against
    petitioner.

    You might also like