Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
II.
The nature of the employment, which is on a per trip basis, as discussed in
the respondent’s Position Paper, has been expressly admitted by the complainant
both in his original and amended complaint. He is not a regular, nor a permanent
1
Position Paper, Issues I, P. 4
-2-
employee. In fact even in his Position Paper he does not claim to be a regular
employee. The supposed length of his service by just mentioning in his position
paper as to when he allegedly started working does not in any way mean that he
has been regularly employed by the respondents. By the very nature of his
employment as has been fully understood by him the first day he requested the
respondents for a trip or two and fully paid therefor, the decision to continue or
to stop asking for further trips, all depend on him. This kind of relation is similar
to that of an employment with fixed period or project employment, the
termination thereof is provided in the agreement or made known to the
employee right at the time of the engagement of the service, freely agreed upon
by the parties.
The narrow and literal interpretation of Art. 280 of the Labor Code that it
outlaws employment with fixed period or agreement on the nature of
employment has been set aside in the early case of Brent School, Inc. vs.
Zamora, et al., G. R. No. 48494, Feb. 5, 1990, where it was held:
per day or as to how long he want to avail of the work or to request for
trip, all depend on him. This was never meant to circumvent the provision
of Art. 280 on regularization of an employee, but simply an exercise of the
parties right or freedom to contract which is constitutionally guaranteed
and protected.
III.
Contrary to the complainants’ insinuation, that he was illegally
dismissed, there is no dismissal to speak of in case at bar. Neither was his
right to due process been violated. The relationship between the
complainant and the respondents , is NOT that of a regular employment,
but merely contractual, that is, on “per call” or “per trip” basis, guaged
from the following:
The situation in the cases at bar, falls under the exception provided
under Art. 280 of the labor Code which reads as follows:
Naga City, Camarines Sur, and even thereafter, when he just stopped
making and asking any further trip to any respondent client, there is no
doubt he does not anymore want to continue his “ per trip” services to the
respondent what is unfortunate for the herein respondent is that before
complainant severed his “per trip” employment, he did not even bother to
return the sum of P3,500.00 intended as payment for the local helpers in
Naga City Warehouse, and instead misappropriated the same, as shown by
the documents or writings attached to the respondents’ position paper.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
RENATO DALORE,
(complainant)