What is a fixed-term employment contract and when is it considered valid?

The Supreme Court had

occasion to tackle these questions in the case of Cherry J. Price, et al. versus INNODATA Phils. Inc., et
al., (G.R. No. 178505), promulgated on September 30, 2008.
Cherry, Stephanie and Lolita were employed as formatters by INNODATA a domestic corporation engaged
in the data encoding and data conversion business. The parties executed an employment contract
denominated as a Contract of Employment for a Fixed Period, stipulating that the contract shall be for a
period of one year.
The days passed by and soon Cherry and her companions found themselves separated from work due to the
end of their contract. Cherry and her companions decided to contest the validity of said contract by filing a
case for illegal dismissal. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court.
In the course of deciding the case the Court cited Art. 280 of the Labor Code which states, The provisions
of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties,
an employment shall be deemed regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which
are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer According the Court:
The employment status of a person is defined and prescribed by law and not by what the parties say it
should be. Equally important to consider is that a contract of employment is impressed with public interest
such that labor contracts must yield to the common good. Thus, provisions of applicable statutes are
deemed written into the contract, and 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.
It went on to say that, Under Article 280 of the Labor Code the applicable test to determine whether an
employment should be considered regular or non-regular is the reasonable connection between the
particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer.
However, the High Court also pointed out that employment which requires performance of usual and
desirable functions, and does not exceed one year, does not always result in regular employment. This is
where the concept of fixed-term employment comes in:
Under the Civil Code, fixed-term employment contracts are not limited, as they are under the present
Labor Code, to those by nature seasonal or for specific projects with predetermined dates of completion;
they also include those to which the parties by free choice have assigned a specific date of
termination.The decisive determinant in term employment is the day certain agreed upon by the parties
for the commencement and termination of their employment relationship, a day certain being understood
to be that which much necessarily come, although it may not be known when.
Does this mean that fixed-term employment contracts are always valid, provided they are entered into
knowingly and voluntarily? No. In the case under consideration the Supreme Court emphasized that fixed-
term employment contracts are the exception rather than the general rule, and are valid only under certain
circumstances. Citing its earlier decision in Brent School v. Zamora (G.R. No. 48494, 5 February 1990, 181
SCRA 702) the Court identified several circumstances wherein a fixed-term is anessential and natural
appurtenance:
Some familiar examples may be cited of employment contracts which may be neither for seasonal work nor
for specific projects, but to which a fixed term is an essential and natural appurtenance: overseas
employment contracts, for one, to which, whatever the nature of the engagement, the concept of regular
employment with all that it implies does not appear ever to have been applied, Article 280 of the Labor
Code notwithstanding; also appointments to the positions of dean, assistant dean, college secretary,
principal, and other administrative offices in educational institutions, which are by practice or tradition
rotated among the faculty members, and where fixed terms are a necessity without which no reasonable
rotation would be possible. Similarly, despite the provisions of Article 280, Policy Instructions No. 8 of the
Minister of Labor implicitly recognize that certain company officials may be elected for what would amount
to fixed periods, at the expiration of which they would have to stand down, in providing that these officials,
x x may lose their jobs as president, executive vice-president or vice president, etc. because the
stockholders or the board of directors for one reason or another did not reelect them.
The Court also mentioned the fact that in the same Brent case, it issued a stern admonition that where,
from the circumstances, it is apparent that the period was imposed to preclude the acquisition of tenurial
security by the employee, then it should be struck down as being contrary to law, morals, good customs,
public order and public policy.
To end the long story: Cherry and her companions were considered by the Court as regular employees; and
as far as their fixed-term employment contract was concerned, the Court had this to say:
After considering petitioners contracts in their entirety, as well as the circumstances surrounding
petitioners employment at INNODATA, the Court is convinced that the terms fixed therein were meant
only to circumvent petitioners right to security of tenure and are, therefore, invalid.

DEMARCATING THE BOUNDARIES:
A Treatise on Fixed-Term Employment and an Antidote for its
Indistinctness and Insecurities
By LESTER JAY ALAN E. FLORES II[1] and LAMBERTO L. SANTOS III[2]

Those who have less in life, should have more in law.
- Ramon Magsaysay[3]

I. INTRODUCTION

The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines provides that The State shall protect the rights of the
workers and promote their welfare.[4] It shall afford full protection to labor and promote full
employment.[5] It shall also guarantee the right of the workers to security of tenure[6] thereby mandating
the regularity of employment of a worker as a general rule.[7] But, when the economy is down or unstable,
employers sometimes resort to different schemes just to survive. One scheme commonly availed by
employers, whether of small and/or growing companies or large companies, is called fixed-term
employment. Its validity has been recognized by the Supreme Court of the Philippines in the leading case
ofBrent School Inc. v. Zamora[8]. The Court in the said case consistently held that it is the exception to the
general rule of regularity of employment.
However, due to absence of well-defined rules on fixed-term employment, deceitful employers try to take
advantage of its legal loopholes to the prejudice of the employees rights. Some workers are employed for
the same kind and amount of work as regular employees, whose work are essential to the business of the
employer, but are denied the status and attendant benefits of a regular employee. Employers primarily
resort to fixed-term employment just to enhance the income of an already profitable enterprise. Moreover,
most companies prefer fixed-term employment to save labor costs, because if they hire regular employees,
they cannot terminate expediently their employment without valid and legal cause and the payment of
separation pay and other benefits.[9]
Former Labor Undersecretary Susan Ople has expressed that with lack of job opportunities and the increase
of unemployment and underemployment rates, a lot of Filipinos are forced to choose this type of
employment. The companies they work for flourish while the workers are left with meager salary and lack
of security of tenure.[10] These problematic areas of fixed-term employment must be corrected in order to
protect the rights of the workers and promote their welfare[11] consistent with the social justice principle
which insures that no sector of society will become so strong and so rich as to be able to obliterate the weak
and the poor, and that no sector of the society will be rendered so poor and so weak as to be totally helpless
against the incursions of the rich and the powerful.[12]
II. FIXED-TERM EMPLOYMENT IN THE PHILIPPINES:
REVISITING BRENT SCHOOL v. ZAMORA

A. FIXED-TERM EMPLOYMENT, DEFINED

Article 280[13] of the Labor Code identifies only four (4) kinds of employees. These are (1) regular
employees or employees who have been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer; (2) project employees or employees whose
employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, the completion or termination of which
has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee; (3) seasonal employees or where the
work or service to be performed by the employee is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the
duration of the season; and (4)casual employees or employees who are neither regular nor project
employees.[14]
Article 280 of the Labor Code does not mention fixed-term employment. It is not expressly provided for
under the Labor Code.[15] However, the Court in the Brent School case recognized the validity of fixed-term
employment. The Court defined fixed-term employment as a contract of employment for a definite period
which terminates by its own terms or the end of such period.[16] The decisive determinant in fixed-term
employment should not be the activites that the employee is called upon to perform, but the day certain
agreed upon by the parties for the commencement and termination of their employment relation.[17]

B. GENESIS OF FIXED-TERM EMPLOYMENT

As stated, fixed-term employment is not identified by the Labor Code.[18] Its inception, was fully
recognized and validated by the Court in the Brent School case. The case is about an athletic director who
was hired by Brent School for a period of five (5) years but was not rehired upon the expiration of said
period. The athletic director questioned his termination, alleging that he was a regular employee and could
not be dismissed without valid cause. The Court ruled that he was not a regular employee but an employee
under a fixed-term contract. In determining the status of fixed-term employment, the Court discussed the
early beginnings of fixed-term employment and its validity as evinced by the following:
Before the effectivity of the Civil Code of the Philippines[19] and the Termination Pay Law,[20] as amended
by R.A. 1787,[21] it was the Code of Commerce that governed employment without a fixed period,
and implicitly acknowledged the propriety of employment with a fixed period. Article 302 of the aforesaid
law provides that in cases in which the contract of employment does not have a fixed period, any of the
parties may terminate it, notifying the other thereof one month in advance. x x x[22]

Upon the effectivity of the Civil Code on August 30, 1950, the Code of Commerce was repealed. The
Civil Code then dealt with those obligations with a period; and with contracts of labor and for a piece of
work. No prohibition against term-or fixed-period employment is contained in any of its articles or is
otherwise deducible therefrom.[23]

Later, on June 12, 1954, the Termination Pay Law, as amended by R.A. 1787,[24] took effect . Said
law impliedly but nonetheless clearly recognized fixed-term employment. Basically, the statute provided
that
In cases of employment, without a definite period, the employer or the employee may terminate at any time
the employment with just cause; or without just cause in the case of an employee by serving written notice
on the employer at least one month in advance, or in the case of an employer, by serving such notice to the
employee at least one month in advance or one-half month for every year of service of the employee,
whichever is longer, a fraction of at least six months being considered as one whole year.
The employer, upon whom no such notice was served in case of termination of employment without just
cause, may hold the employee liable for damages.
The employee, upon whom no such notice was served in case of termination of employment without just
cause, shall be entitled to compensation from the date of termination of his employment in an amount
equivalent to his salaries or wages corresponding to the required period of notice.[25]
There was, to repeat, clear (albeit merely implied) recognition of the licitness of term employment. R.A.
1787 also enumerated what it considered to be just causes for terminating an employment without a definite
period, either by the employer or by the employee without incurring any liability therefor.[26]
Also, on March 31, 1977, stipulations involving a term were explicitly recognized for the first time by the
Court in the case of Biboso v. Victorias Milling Co., Inc.[27] It was also later on recognized by the Court in
the case of J. Walter Thompson Co. (Phil.) v. NLRC.[28] The Thompson case involved an executive who
had been engaged for a fixed period of three (3) years while Biboso involved teachers in a private school.
Thus, the case of Brent School made the the following pronouncement:
What is decisive is that the (teachers) were well aware during the time that their tenure was for a limited
duration. Upon its termination, both parties to the employment relationship were free to renew it or to let
it lapse.[29]
It was on the advent of the Labor Code, on November 1, 1974, where it explicitly recognized fixed-term
employment. To wit:
Article 320. Probationary and Fixed-Period Employment - the termination of employment of probationary
employees and those employed WITH A FIXED PERIOD shall be subject to such regulations as the
Secretary of Labor may prescribe x x x
The asserted objective was to prevent the circumvention of the right to security of tenure of the workers
and to be secured in their employment. Article 321 prescribed the just causes for which an employer could
terminate an employment without a definite period. While Article 319 defined employment without a fixed
period as:
An employment shall be deemed to be without a definite period where the employee has been engaged to
perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employee
x x x[30]
However, upon effectivity of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 850 on December 16, 1975, Articles 319 and 320
of the Labor Code were amended. The amendment eliminated the explicit reference to fixed-term
employment. Article 320, dealing with probationary and fixed period employment, was altered
by eliminating the reference to persons employed with a fixed period, and was renumbered (becoming
Article 271).[31] Article 319 (entitled Employment with a fixed period) (a) deleted mention of employment
with a fixed or definite period, (b) added a general exclusion clause declaring irrelevant written or oral
agreements to the contrary, and (c) made the provision treat exclusively of regular and casual
employment.[32]
But Article 272 of the Labor Code as amended by P.D. 850 still impliedly acknowledged the propriety of
term employment: it listed the just causes for which an employer may terminate employment without a
definite period, thus giving rise to the inference that if the employment be with a definite period, there
need be no just cause for termination thereof if the ground be precisely the expiration of the term agreed
upon by the parties for the duration of such employment.[33]
It was only on August 21, 1981, the date of effectivity of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Bilang 130 that Article
272 of the Labor Code was amended, eliminating reference to employment without a definite period. Said
article was renumbered to Article 283 and now pertinently reads: An employer may terminate an
employment for any of the following just causes: x x x. B.P. 130 thus completed the elimination of every
reference in the Labor Code, express or implied, to employment with a fixed or definite period or term.[34]

C. VALIDITY OF FIXED-TERM EMPLOYMENT

1. REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF ART. 280 AND RECOGNITION OF FREEDOM TO
CONTRACT

The Labor Code gradually and progressively eliminated references to fixed-term employment. It is
evident from Article 280 of the Labor Code which provides:
Regular and Casual Employment. The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding
and regardless of the oral agreement of the partiesx x x

Said article, under a narrow and literal interpretation, not only failed to exhaust the gamut of
employment contracts to which the lack of a fixed period would be an anomaly, but would also appear to
restrict, without reasonable distinctions, the right of an employee to freely stipulate with his employer the
duration of his engagement.[35] It follows that such a literal interpretation should be avoided. The law must
be given a reasonable interpretation, to preclude absurdity in its application. [36] Article 280 of the Labor
Code should be construed to refer to the substantive evil that the Labor Code itself has singled out:
agreements entered into precisely to circumvent security of tenure.
Furthermore, despite the gradual elimination of any reference to fixed-term employment, there is still the
Civil Code which has always recognized and continues to recognize the validity and propriety of
contracts and obligations with a fixed or definite period, and imposes no restraints on the freedom of the
parties to fix the duration of a contract, whatever its object, be it specie, goods or services, except the
general admonition against stipulations contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public
policy.[37]

2. DURATION OF EMPLOYMENT NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH THE NATURE OF EMPLOYEES DUTIES

The decisive determinant in term employment should not be the activities that the employee is
called upon to perform, but the day certain agreed upon by the parties for the commencement and
termination of their employment relationship; a day certain being understood to be that which must
necessarily come, although it may not be known when.[38]
The term period has a definite and settled signification. It means length of existence or duration; which is a
point of time marking a termination as of a cause or an activity; an end, a limit, a bound; conclusion;
termination. It is a series of years, months or days in which something is completed. It is a time of definite
length, the period from one fixed date to another fixed date. It connotes a space of time which has an
influence on an obligation as a result of a juridical act, and either suspends its demandability or produces
its extinguishment. It should be apparent that this settled and familiar notion of a period, in the context of
a contract of employment, takes no account at all of the nature of the duties of the employee; it has
absolutely no relevance to the character of his duties as being usually necessary or desirable to the usual
business of the employer, or not.[39]

III. SURVEY OF FIXED-TERM EMPLOYMENT IN FOREIGN JURISDICTIONS

A. AS TO NATURE OF EMPLOYMENT

An article titled Fixed-Term Employment (and New-Hire Probation) Worldwide published in
January 2011 by White & Case said that while there are countries that restrict employers power to employ
staff at-will by imposing firing restrictions and vested rights obligations, still there are employers in the
United States who have found ways to build in some flexibility, if not to circumvent the law. This is done
by hiring employees on repeated fixed-term basis if not daily or weekly, then monthly or annually. This
way, no one will be fired; the employer can merely stop renewing someones contract. A similar strategy is
to put newly hired staff on long probation periods, keeping workers employed at-will for the first year or
so.[40]
Said article furthers that, in the real world, these strategies may not be so effective. Any legal system that
imposes firing restrictions and vested rights obligations has obvious policy reasons to prevent employers
from sidestepping its rules. Accordingly, many countries cap serial rollovers of fixed-term employment
contractsafter an employee reaches the cap, employment becomes indefinite-term (in some countries
called permanent), and any further purported daily/weekly/monthly/annual fixed-term provision
becomes void. Some jurisdictions such as Mexico, Venezuela and South Africa, belonging to developing
countries[41]and Poland and New Zealand, belonging to second-world countries[42] flatly prohibit fixed-
term employment arrangements except where a job is inherently temporary. Spain also adheres to fixed-
term agreements so long as it pertains to temporary contract for a specific task, a seasonal work, a one-off
project or substituting for someone out on leave. Russia validates fixed-term employment where the job is
inherently temporary, where the employer is a small business, or where employee works on high level
positions such as manager, director and chief-accountant.[43]
B. AS TO TERMINATION PROCEDURE

Countries also regulate early termination of fixed-term employment, often requiring employers to
pay wages until the end of the term unless the employee mitigates damages by working another job. In
Mexico, employees can claim unfair dismissal and win reinstatement or damages where fixed-term contract
is terminated earlier without cause. Russia does not also allow early termination unless it is for cause.
Netherlands, on the other hand, allows early termination of fixed-term contract with the permission of the
court or UWV Werbedrijf agency and where the parties agreed on an early termination contingency.
Vietnam entitles an employee for severance pay unless terminated for cause. [44]
C. AS TO STIPULATIONS OF CONTRACT IN FIXED-TERM EMPLOYMENT

Developing countries such as Angola[45], Indonesia and Peru require employers to file or register
fixed-term employment contractsbut not indefinite-term contractswith a government agency.
Collective bargaining agreements can add yet other restrictions to fixed-term employment. In the
Netherlands, fixed-term employment is allowed. However, there are some restrictions provided by their
laws to ensure that this practice does not prejudice the employees security of tenure. This is called in their
jurisdiction as the anti-abuse rule introduced in 1999. The law involves limits on the maximum duration
and the maximum number of renewals of successive fixed-term contracts known as chain regulations (art.
7:668a CC). According to these regulations a fixed-term contract concluded between the same parties is
automatically conferred into an open-ended contract (regular employment in the Philippine Jurisdiction),
once: (1) two or more contracts have succeeded each other without interruptions of more than three
months, for over a total period of more than three years (including these interruptions), or (2) more than
three fixed-term contracts have successively been concluded without interruptions of more than three
months between the contracts. To summarize, in case of successive fixed-term contracts the provision
allows for a total maximum duration of three years and/or a maximum of three consecutive contracts. Once
either one of these limits is exceeded the contract is one of an indefinite period. Noteworthy, the
regulations on successive fixed-term contracts concluded between the same parties do not require the
worker to perform the same job. Their law also deals with successive fixed-term contracts concluded by
different parties:
The second paragraph of article 7:668a CC extends the scope of the term successive contracts of the first
paragraph, and thereby the scope of the chain regulations, from contracts concluded between the same
parties, to subsequent contracts concluded between the employee and more than one employer, if the
employers must be considered each others successor with respect to the work performed by the
employee. This implies that the worker stays at the same post, however the employer is replaced for
another. This provision codified to a certain extent already established case law. Confronted with cases of
avoidance of the (former) rules on fixed-term contracts by a user company and a temporary work agency,
which, by turn, employ a worker on the same job by the user company itself and by the agency posting the
worker to the user company, the Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) held this to be unlawful in view of the
Dutch legal dismissal protection system. Except for this case that requires the involvement of a temporary
work agency, the Supreme Court more recently decided that also the company that acquires another
company after its bankruptcy, and chooses to employ a worker formerly employed by the latter for a fixed-
term in the same job, can be affected by the chain regulations. (Emphasis supplied)[46]
IV. INDISTINCTNESS AND INSECURITIES OF FIXED-TERM EMPLOYMENT IN THE PHILIPPINES

A. OVERLAPPING OF BOUNDARIES

1. REGULAR EMPLOYMENT vis-a-vis FIXED-TERM EMPLOYMENT

a. Reasonable Connection[47] Rule under regular employment

Article 280 of the Labor Code provides that x x x an employment shall be deemed to be regular
where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the
usual business or trade of the employer x x x. In determining regular employment, the Court in the case
of De Leon v. NLRC[48]held that:
The primary standard, is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the
employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer. x x x The connection can be
determined by considering the nature of the work performed and its relation to the scheme of the
particular business or trade in its entirety.[49]

b. Non-application of the reasonable connection rule in fixed-term employment

The Court held in Brent School that:

It should be apparent that this settled and familiar notion of a period, in the context of a contract of
employment, takes no account at all of the nature of the duties of the employee; it has absolutely no
relevance to the character of his duties as being usually necessary or desirable to the usual business of the
employer, or not.[50]
In fixed-term employment, factors such as the nature of work, whether usually necessary or desirable
in the usual trade or business of the employer are notdecisive indicators of regularity of employment. It
does not impair the validity of the term employment contract.[51] The decisive determinant is theday
certain[52]agreed upon by the parties for the commencement and termination of their employment
relationship.[53]
It does not also necessarily follow that where the duties of the employee consist of activities usually
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, the parties are forbidden from
agreeing on a period of time for the performance of such activities. There is nothing essentially
contradictory between a definite period of employment and the nature of employees duties.[54]

c. Conflict between regularization and fixed-term employment as to the nature of work of the
employee

The doubt between regular employment and fixed-term employment that needs to be addressed is the
determination of the reckoning point which will invalidate fixed-term employment due to circumvention of
the right to security of tenure of the employee engaged in activities which are reasonably connected to the
usual business of the employer. The following cases manifests the overlapping of principles and boundaries
of fixed-term employment in relation to the nature of work of the employee:
i. Valid fixed-term employment in relation to nature of work

The Court in Brent School, through then Chief Justice Andres Narvasa, cited several examples of fixed-term
employment as an essential and natural appurtenance to the work of employees though usually necessary
or desirable in the business of the employer. These are the following:
1. Overseas employment contracts, whatever the nature of the engagement, the concept of regular
employment does not appear ever to have been applied, Article 280 of the Labor Code notwithstanding.[55]
2. Appointments to the positions of dean, assistant dean, college secretary, principal, and other
administrative offices in educational institutions, which are by practice or tradition rotated among the
faculty members and where fixed terms are a necessity, without which no reasonable rotation would be
possible.[56]
3. Despite the provisions of Article 280, Policy, Instructions No. 8 of the Minister of Labor implicitly
recognize that certain company officials may be elected for fixed periods, at the expiration of which they
would have to stand down, because the stockholders or the board of directors for one reason or another did
not re-elect them.[57]
ii. Invalid fixed-term employment in relation to nature of work

Cases subsequently decided by the Court declared fixed-term employment as invalid because the work
performed by the employees are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business of the employer and
thus a violation of the security of tenure of the workers. These cases are the following:
1. In the case of Purefoods Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.,[58]the workers were
hired for a fixed period of five months at Purefoods tuna cannery plant in General Santos City, Philippines.
These workers were engaged in activities such as receiving, skinning, loining, packing and casing-up of tuna
which were subsequently exported by Purefoods. Indisputably, they were performing activities which were
necessary and desirable in Purefoods business or trade. After the expiration of their contracts of
employment, their services were terminated. Said workers questioned their termination, claiming that they
are regular employees.[59]
The Court pronounced that the scheme of the employer in hiring workers on a uniformly fixed contract
basis of five months and replacing them upon the expiration of their contracts with other workers with the
same employment status was designed to prevent the casual employees from attaining the status of
regular employment. It was a clear circumvention of the employees right to security of tenure and to other
benefits like minimum wage, cost-of-living allowane, sick leave, holiday pay, and 13th month pay.[60]
2. In the case of Price, et al v. Innodata, Phils., Inc., et al,[61]Cherry, Stephanie and Lolita were employed as
formatters by INNODATA whose primary business was data encoding. Their contracts of employment
provided, among others, that their employment was for a period of one (1) year and that these may be pre-
terminated by either party with or without cause, by giving them fifteen (15) days notice to that effect. The
Court ruled that their employment was not for a fixed-term. They were employed in activities usually
necessary or desirable in the usual business of the employer. The term was obviously fixed to circumvent
their right to security of tenure.[62]
3. Similar to the above-cited cases are the following fixed-term employment schemes which has not yet
been questioned by the concerned working force or even invalidated by the Courts in the Philippines:
a. Workers employed as trainees in Shopping Centers[63] for a period of three (3) months to five months
and upon the expiration of which are subsequently replaced by new trainees. These affected workers are
usually engaged in activities which are necessary and desirable to the business of the employer. Examples of
these workers in shopping centers are sales ladies, sales associates, cashiers, baggers, checker and gift
wrappers.[64]
b. Workers in export processing zones such as in garments factories have to undergo 3 stages of non-regular
working status such as trainees, floater, piece-raters before they become regular employees.[65]

3. PROJECT EMPLOYMENT vis-a-vis FIXED-TERM EMPLOYMENT

a. Termination under project employment

Under project employment, no prior notice of termination is required if the termination is brought
about by completion of the project or phase thereof for which the worker has been engaged. This is
because completion of the work or project automatically terminates the employment.[66]
Accordingly, instead of requiring the giving of a notice of termination to the affected project employees
upon the completion of the project or any phase thereof, the law merely requires that the employer should
render a report to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) on the termination of their
employment.[67] Policy Instructions No. 20 required the employer to report to the nearest Public
Employment Office (PEO) of the DOLE the fact of termination of project employees as a result of the
completion of the project or any phase thereof in which one is employed. Department Order No.
19[68] which superseded said Policy Instructions, did not eradicate the notice requirement. Instead, it was
enshrined as one of theindicators that a worker is a project employee.[69] The failure of the employer to file
termination reports after every completion of a project or any phase thereof with the nearest PEO-DOLE is
an indication that the employees are not project employees but regular employees.[70]

b. Termination under fixed-term employment

In a fixed-period employment, lack of notice of termination is of no consequence because when the
contract specifies the period of its duration, it terminates on the expiration of such period. An employment
contract for a definite period terminates by its own term at the end of the mutually agreed period fixed by
the parties.[71]
c. Conflict between project employment and fixed-term employment

The case of Brent School, which institutionalized fixed-term employment as a kind of employment,
recognized the relation between project employment and fixed-term employment. The Court held that:
Seasonal employment, and employment for a particular project are merely instances of employment in
which a period, where not expressly set down, necessarily implied.[72]

x x x

Under the Civil Code, therefore, and as a general proposition, fixed-term employment contracts are
not limited, as they are under the present Labor Code, to those by nature seasonal or for specific projects
with pre-determined dates of completion x x x.[73]


Although project employment is related to fixed-term employment, the latter did not require a report to the
DOLE by the employer in case an employee under a fixed-term employment is terminated upon the
expiration of the period.

B. UNSTABLE CRITERIA FOR VALIDITY OF FIXED-TERM EMPLOYMENT
In the case of Philippine National Oil Company-Energy Development Corporation v. NLRC,[74] the
Court laid down two (2) criteria under which fixed contracts of employment cannot be said to be in
circumvention of tenure, to wit:
1. The fixed period of employment was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon 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
2. 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 on the latter.
Although, the Court provided criteria for fixed-term employment, it did not provide for its detailed
coverage. As a result, these guidelines present a very unstable foundation subject to broad interpretation.
The following are instances of broad appreciation of the criteria.
1. FIRST CRITERIA

a. Economic situation as a vice of consent

A negotiation for a fixed-term employment is rarely achieved in the ideal conditions, where there is
no force, duress or improper pressure exerted on the employee, and the parties knowingly and voluntarily
agree. Sometimes, it is not the employer himself who should exert duress upon the employee but it is also
the prevailing economic situation which provides the greatest source of duress.[75]
The Philippine economy is unique in Southeast Asia for having a large service sector and private
consumption comprising around three quarters of the economy. The manufacturing sector is comparatively
small and public while private investment is very low. Unemployment and underemployment continue to
remain high. The prospect of securing a well-paying job is beyond the reach of many, especially young
adults under the age of 25 that comprise about half of the unemployed.[76]
The prevailing economic situation of the Philippines, where there is greater demand for work than the
supply of available workers, forces an individual to enter into an employment contract whether or not the
provisions of the said contract are already prepared. These kinds of contracts are commonly called
Contracts of Adhesion, and they are contrary to public policy.[77] In Rowell Industrial Corp. v. CA,[78] the
Court declared the employment contract signed by the respondent is one of adhesion. It is an agreement
wherein the parties bargaining are not on equal footing, the weaker partys participation being reduced to
the alternative to take it or leave it. In said case, respondent employee, in need of a job, was compelled to
agree to a contract that contained a five-month period of employment as a condition precedent for hiring.
Hence, it cannot be argued that respondent employee signed the employment contract with a fixed-term of
five months willingly and with full knowledge of the impact thereof.[79]
2. SECOND CRITERIA

a. Unequal Footing

The Court in Purefoods[80] case held that:
[I]t could not be supposed that private respondents and all other so-called casual workers of [the
petitioner] KNOWINGLY and VOLUNTARILY agreed to the 5-month employment contract. Cannery
workers are never on equal terms with their employers. Almost always, they agree to any terms of an
employment contract just to get employed considering that it is difficult to find work given their ordinary
qualifications. Their freedom to contract is empty and hollow because theirs is the freedom to starve if they
refuse to work as casual or contractual workers. Indeed, to the unemployed, security of tenure has no value.
It could not then be said that petitioner and private respondents dealt with each other on more or less
equal terms with no moral dominance whatever being exercised by the former over the latter.
As ruled by the Court, casual workers such as, but not limited to, cannery workers, sales ladies, janitors and
other lowly blue-collar workers cannot be said to be in equal footing with their employers because of their
ordinary qualifications and, worst, their lack of qualifications. Hence, any fixed-term employment contract
entered by them is invalid. But what if said worker has a good educational attainment? What are its
implications? These are the questions that will be answered by the subsequent paragraphs.
In a study entitled, The OFW Economic Engine, Philippine Reality and Required Reform Arising from the
Global Financial Crisis, Of the one million college graduates annually, only five to ten percent are
employed in jobs consistent to their course, only thirty to forty percent will find any employment. The vast
majority of graduates will remain unemployed.[81] There is therefore a great probability that a college
graduate would contract a job different from his course out of necessity.
The countrys education system continues to turn out college graduates whose training and skills are not
attuned to the needs of the labor market both at home and abroad. This is the lament of human resources
and labor recruitment officials who decry the continuing popularity of glamorous and white-collar courses
that produce diplomas but not well-paying jobs. The issue gains added urgency in view of the governments
inability to provide jobs and its continued dependence on the overseas job market. The problem is,
Philippine education is not well suited to the requirements of the global economy as well.[82]
As can be gleaned, it does not mean that if a person has a good educational attainment, he or she can enter
into agreements with an employer on equal terms especially if the unemployment and underemployment
rate in the Philippines is unsatisfactory.
3. Who are these employers?

The criteria for a valid fixed-term employment does not provide for the exact definition of an
employer. In fixed-term employment, employers may pertain to those who want to survive or to those who
want to increase profits; hence a list of covered employers should be provided. According to Rep. Emmeline
Y. Aglipay of the Democratic Independent Workers Association (DIWA) Party-list in her proposed
law,[83] fixed-term employment is allowed, but only during a period of substantial losses in the industry as
a whole, brought about by an inability to price goods competitively in the market despite resort to all
reasonable measures. This does not only provide the law with enough flexibility to adjust to the needs of
business but also provides safeguards so that fixed-term employment is not used to increase the profits of
an already profitable enterprise.[84]
4. Who are these employees?

Fixed-term employment does not also provide for the specific kind of worker to be covered by the
contract. In spite of this, cases decided by the Court point to employees who vary from white-collared
workers such as professors, company presidents and instructors, to blue-collared workers such as factory
employees and sales personnel.[85] The problem in the cases decided by the Court is that they provide for a
different ruling as to the validity of the fixed-term contracts when it comes to white-collared workers,
compared to those involving blue-collared workers. As a result, inconsistencies and ambiguity will still
continue to abound.
C. LABOR CONTRACTS ARE NOT ORDINARY CONTRACTS

The Court in Brent School[86], affirming the validity of fixed-term employment said that:
Although the Labor Code has gradually and progressively eliminated fixed-term employment, there is still
the Civil Code which has always recognized, and continues to recognize, the validity and propriety of
contracts and obligations with a fixed or definite period, and imposes no restraints on the freedom of the
parties to fix the duration of a contract, whatever its object, be it specie, goods or services, exceptthe
general admonition against stipulations contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public
policy.
Although agreeing with the Court in saying that the Civil Code has always recognized the validity and
propriety of contracts, it still failed to relate other provisions of the Civil Code, particularly Article 1700,
which provides that:
The relation between capital and labor are not merely contractual. They are soimpressed with public
interest that labor contracts must yield to the common good. Therefore, such contracts are subject to the
special laws on labor unions, collective bargaining, strikes and lockouts, closed shop, wages, working
conditions, hours of labor and similar subjects.
This argument was correctly pointed out by Justice Abraham Sarmiento in his dissent in Brent. According
to him, employment contracts cannot be likened to ordinary civil contracts in which the relationship is
established by the stipulations agreed upon.[87] Likewise, provisions of applicable statutes are deemed
written into the employment contract, and 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.[88] Any
contract of employment entered by the employer and the employee which amounts to a disregard of our
labor laws and the Constitution must be outrightly declared as null and void.

Since labor contracts are vested with public interest and is not equal with ordinary contracts, it must
not be prone to waiver of rights. And assuming that fixed-term employment contract is equal with ordinary
contracts, the statutory rights of employees under the Labor Code and other social legislations cannot be
subject to waiver pursuant to Article 6 of the Civil Code which provides that:
Rights may be waived unless, the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good
customs or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.
Generally, the employer and the employee can agree any terms in the employment contract. However, they
cannot agree to a fixed-term contract which gives the employee fewer rights than his statutory rights. If
they have agreed to such an arrangement, the employer will not be able to enforce the contract. The
employee will still retain his statutory rights.[89]
Furthermore, labor laws are not violative of the due process clause or freedom to contract.[90] According to
the Court, the school of thought that resists the expansion of the social rights of employees and workers is
essentially capitalistic, conservative, reactionary and flesh. The invocation of the due process clause to
challenge the validity of social and labor legislation as violative of the freedom of contract and an undue
deprivation of property had long been discarded in America since the 1937 case of West Coast Hotel v.
Parrish[91] in affirming the validity of minimum wage laws.
D. CONTRACTS OF ADHESION ARE GENERALLY CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY

Employers not only resort to fixed-term employment to favor its business but also make use of
already prepared contracts known as contracts of adhesion to favor its terms. As defined by the Court,
contracts of adhesion are those by which one of the parties drafts the contract for the other party who will
decide on whether to accept or not. An example of such would be an insurance contract. The adherent has
no freedom of bargain because he cannot modify the ready-made covenant.[92]His freedom is only to
choose one of two options: either he takes or leaves it. If he takes it, he is giving consent, hence he is bound
thereby.[93] These are binding as ordinary contracts where the party adhering thereto is free to reject it in
its entirety.[94]
A contract of adhesion is contrary to public policy when it disregards the rights accorded to the workers
under the Labor Code and the Constitution. The Civil Code recognizes labor contracts as vested with public
interest.[95] Hence, a contract of adhesion must not be equated with an ordinary contract.[96] In the
employment of workers, contracts of adhesion admits of no exceptions as to its binding power. It is
outrightly contrary to public policy, the Labor Code and the 1987 Constitution as it leaves the weaker party
the employee in a take it or leave it situation. Certainly, the employer is being unjust to the employee
as there is no meaningful choice on his part while the terms are unreasonably favorable to the
employer.[97]
V. RECOMMENDATION

Fixed-term employment, as already discussed, is not provided by the Labor Code. Since it has no
exact reference in the Code, there is also no rule implementing it. However, the cases decided by the Court
regarding fixed-term employment in the Philippines do not demarcate its boundaries as compared to other
kinds of employment. As a result, ambiguity and conflict as to the extent and exact coverage of fixed-term
employment arises. Also, it does not exactly provide a reckoning point on when work which is usually
necessary or desirable in the conduct of business of the employer is interrelated to the duration of the
contract. It does not provide for the particular kind of employers and employees that are covered. Instances
on when fixed-term employment are really necessary are absent. Fixed-term employment does not
emphasize the principle that labor contracts are not the same with ordinary contracts. These grey areas in
the law are prone to abuse by unscrupulous employers who want to take advantage of it.[98] These
loopholes may be actually abused today by several business establishments in the Philippines, particularly
shopping centers[99], export industries[100], food[101] and beverage[102] industries. Hence, it is the writers
intention to come up with a fixed rule regarding fixed-term employment in order to resolve the situation in
accordance with existing Philippine bills, laws and jurisprudence and the concept of fixed-term
employment in foreign jurisdictions. It is thus humbly proposed by the writers that the following rules be
possibly made into a law by Congress or be promulgated as a rule by the DOLE. These proposals are not
only intended to protect the rights of the workers but also to protect the rights of the employers.
A. PROPOSED RULES AS TO NATURE OF WORK IN FIXED-TERM EMPLOYMENT

1. General Rule:

Employees performing work which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business of the employers
are not allowed.
This rule is based on the Courts ruling in Purefoods[103] case, where it can be inferred that work which are
usually necessary or desirable in the usual business of the employers are not allowed in fixed-term
employment contracts.
Once an individual in a fixed-term employment is engaged in activities which are usually necessary or
desirable in the usual conduct or business of the employer, he or she must be considered a regular
employee pursuant to Article 280 of the Labor Code. This rule is necessary to prevent the situation of
circumvention of the right to security of tenure of the employees as well as deprivation of the benefits to
which he or she is entitled. An employee under a fixed-term employment contract, who is deemed a regular
employee under the Labor Code, but is not entitled to same benefits with a regular employee, presents a
problematic situation tantamount to several violations, to wit: a) violation of the social justice principle; b)
violation of human rights; c) violation of the Labor Code and d) violation of the Constitution.
Exceptions to the General Rule:

a. Employee works on a high-level position which is usually necessary and desirable in the business of the
employer that requires traditional rotation

This rule is an offshot of Brent School case, wherein the latter cited instances of fixed-term contracts,
the duration of which is an essential and natural appurtenance to the job performed by the employee which
is usually necessary or desirable in the usual business of the employer. Furthermore, this rule is also similar
to that of Russia which allowed fixed-term employments where the employee works on high-level
positions.[104]
As to academic personnel, it is in academic institutions where appointments to positions of deans, assistant
dean, college secretary, principal and other administrative offices which are by practice rotated among
academic professionals. Fixed-term employment is a necessity without which no reasonable rotation would
be possible. Similarly, certain company officials may be elected for what would amount to fixed-periods, at
the expiration of which they have to step down. Company presidents, chief executive officers, or executive
vice-president, have tenure only insofar as the stockholders may have confidence in their abilities for a
single period. By removing fixed-term employment as a valid employment scheme, these individuals are left
without rules to govern their mode of employment. It would indeed be a scenario wherein the arbitrary
rules imposed by the employers would reign supreme, unfettered by any laws or regulations.[105]
b. During a period of substantial losses in the industry as a whole

This rule is based on the proposed law[106] of Rep. Emmeline Y. Aglipay of the DIWA Party-list
which provides that fixed-term employment will be allowed, but only during a period of substantial losses
in the industry as a whole, brought about by an inability to price goods competitively in the market despite
resort to all reasonable measures. This does not only provide the law with enough flexibility to adjust to the
needs of business, but at the same time, it provides safeguards so that fixed-term employment is not used to
increase the profits of an already profitable enterprise.[107]

c. Employees engaged in professional work

Professional work includes part-time contracts[108] such as, but not limited to, teaching, tutorials,
professional coaching for sports[109] teams and others. These are professionals who demand flexiblity with
regard to the length of time that they can offer their services. Fixed-term employment in this case works for
the professionals advantage, since they will be able to work when they are able to.[110]Moreover, once said
worker is no longer effective, he can no longer feign regularity of work. Otherwise, it would frustrate a
productive endeavor.

d. When there is temporary increase in product demand

This rule is similar to that of Spain wherein fixed-term employment is recognized due to special
market conditions.[111] This rule allows employees engaged in activities which are necessary to the business
of the employer in order to meet the expectations in case of unexpected increase of product
demand.[112]Otherwise, it would largely create losses on the business of the employer and likewise affect
the employment of the employees.
e. Substitution for an on-leave regular employee

This rule is also similar to the concept of fixed-term employment in Spain wherein it allows
substitution for an on-leave employee. Provided, that said employment is valid only for the duration of the
principals absence.[113] Provided, further, that absence is not due to strike or lock-out.[114] There is a
necessity to hire a substitute engaged in work which is necessary to the business of the employer inorder to
prevent serious disruption of the operations of the business establishment. Otherwise, the negative effects
on the business establishments will bounce back to the employees. Examples of on-leave employees are
those employees who are under sick leave, paternity leave, maternity leave and vacation leave.

2. General Rule:

Employees must perform jobs which are inherently temporary

This rule is similar to the coverage of fixed-term employment in foreign jurisdictions like Mexico,
Venezuela and South Africa which are also developing countries like the Philippines. It prohibits fixed-term
employment unless the job performed by the employees is inherently temporary. Provided, that the
contract must be for the entire duration of the temporary task.[115] Temporary workers are defined as
employees who are not permanently hired but are hired for limited periods of time.[116] By limiting fixed-
term employment to jobs which are inherently temporary, it avoids the curtailment of the right of a worker
to security of tenure. In Philippine Jurisdiction, these temporary workers include seasonal employees and
project employees. The Court held in Brent case that seasonal employment and project employment are
akin to fixed-term employment. To wit:
Seasonal employment, and employment for a particular project are merely instances of employment in
which a period, where not expressly set down, necessarily implied.

x x x

Under the Civil Code, therefore, and as a general proposition, fixed-term employment contracts are
not limited, as they are under the present Labor Code, to those by nature seasonal or for specific projects
with pre-determined dates of completion.
a. Seasonal Employment[117]
Seasonal workers, are those who are called to work from time to time according to the occurrence of
varying need during a season and are laid off after the completion of the required phase of work for the
season.[118] Their services are only for the duration of the season and their employment is for only one
season.[119]
b. Project employment[120]
In project employment, the principal test for determining whether a particular employee are properly
characterized as project employees as distinguished from regular employees is whether or not the
project employees were assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking, the duration and scope of
which were specified at the time the employees were engaged for that project.[121]


Exception to the General Rule:

Employees (whether or not they have a good educational attainment)performing casual work although not
usually necessary or desirable in the usual business of the employers are not allowed.

In Philippine jurisdiction, an employment is casual when it is irregular, unpredictable, sporadic and brief in
nature and outside the usual business of the employer.[122]Although casual employees perform work not in
the usual course of the employers trade or business[123], they cannot be said to have knowingly and
voluntarily agreed upon a fixed-period employment contract.[124] These casuals (e.g. cannery workers[125],
janitors and sales ladies[126]) are never on equal terms with their employer considering that it is difficult to
find work given their ordinary qualifications. Their freedom to contract is empty and hollow because theirs
is the freedom to starve if they refuse to work. To the unemployed, security of tenure has no value[127] And
since, the employee disregards his statutory rights under the Labor Code, it should not be
allowed.[128] Furthermore, even if the said employee possesses good educational qualifications there is still
unequal footing between him and the employer due to the high unemployment and underemployment rate
in the Philippines.[129]

B. PROPOSED RULES AS TO TERMINATION PROCEDURE IN FIXED-TERM EMPLOYMENT

1. Termination Report to DOLE

Fixed-term employment is akin to project employment. Since it is similar to the latter, once the fixed-term
employment has expired, it is the obligation of the employer to report to the nearest DOLE Office in the
region where the employee has worked. Failure to do so would make the employee a regular one. A report
is necessary in order to avoid the automatic dismissal of the employee, to prevent the latters subsequent
rehiring and in order for the DOLE to determine and indicate that the nature of work rendered by
employees in a fixed-term contract is not that of a regular employee.[130]
2. Rehiring of an employee whose fixed-term contract has already expired is not allowed

Once the employment contract has expired and is terminated, and properly reported to the nearest
DOLE Office where the employee has worked, the employer is now prohibited to rehire the same employee
for the same job on a fixed-term basis, otherwise said employee becomes regular. But the employer can
rehire the same employee under a regular employment. An employee rehired for the same job amounts to
regularity of work because the employees work is needed by the employer. Repeated rehiring and the
continuing need for the employees services are sufficient evidence of the necessity and indispensability of
his services to the employers business or trade.[131] Violation of this rule would amount to violation of the
Labor Code and the Constitution.
In Netherlands, it regulated successive fixed-term contracts concluded between the same parties. Provided
that the worker is not hired for the same job.[132]
3. Hiring of a new employee for the same job after the expiration of the fixed-term employment of old
employee is not allowed.

Once the fixed-term employment contract of an employee has expired and is terminated, and is
properly reported to the nearest DOLE office where the employee has worked, the employer is prohibited
from hiring a new employee on a fixed-term basis for the same job, otherwise the new employee is
considered a regular employee. However, the employer is not precluded from hiring another employee
under a regular employment for that same job.
It amounts to regularity of work because the nature of work to be performed by the new employee is the
same with the terminated employee. Hence, the work is necessary in the usual business of the employer
and deemed a regular employment under Article 280 of the Labor Code. This rule is similarly situated in the
immediately preceding item where the repeated rehiring and the continuing need for the employees
services are sufficient evidence of the necessity and indispensability of his services to the employers
business or trade.[133] This rule is necessary in order to protect the right of regular workers to security of
tenure under the Constitution and the Labor Code. It is also similar to the anti-abuse rule in Netherlands
which regulate successive-fixed term contracts concluded by different parties, provided, that employment is
not for the same job.[134]
C. PROPOSED RULES AS TO STIPULATIONS OF CONTRACT IN FIXED-TERM EMPLOYMENT

a. It must not cover Contracts of Adhesion or contracts on a take it or leave it basis
Contracts of adhesion are contrary to public policy.[135] They prevent an individual employee to
bargain with employers as to the terms and conditions of the employment contract. The employee is being
put in a much weaker position as compared to the employer because he or she is to accept the contract on
a take it or leave it basis. Hence, there is a violation of the right to bargain with the employer on equal
footing without any moral dominance. The rule is necessary in order to minimize and gradually eliminate
the rampant abuse on the part of the employers in the Philippines to hire employees on a take it or leave
it basis. The rule also serves as a statement that labor contracts are vested with public interest, and should
never be equated with ordinary contracts.
b. Express or implied waivers of the employee should not be allowed

Waivers, whether express or implied, on the part of the employees to enter into a fixed-term
employment contractwithout any compulsion against them by the employers, should not be allowed. It is
contrary to public policy when an individual in dire necessity of work completely disregards his or her basic
rights under the Labor Code and the Constitution. This practice is not only inimical to the business interest
of the employer but also prejudicial to the dignity of the employee. The rule is intended to remedy the
situation where the employee waives his rights upon entering into the contract but later on asserts his
rights as a regular employee.
c. The original copy of the fixed-term employment contract must be filed with the DOLE.

This rule is similar to the concept of fixed-term employment in foreign jurisdictions such as Angola,
Indonesia and Peru which are also developing countries like the Philippines. In said countries, they require
the employers to file or register fixed-term employment contracts with a government agency.[136] In the
Philippines, the employers must also file the original of the fixed-term employment contract with the
DOLE with the requisite obligation to furnish the employee with a copy of said contract. The purpose of
which is to preserve the original in the hands of the government and also to provide the employee for a
basis for said contract, which is an actionable document[137] under the Rules of Civil Procedure in the
Philippines.
VI. CONCLUSION

The State is bound under the Consitution to afford full protection to labor; and when conflicting
interests of labor and capital are to be weighed on the scales of social justice, the heavier influence of the
latter should be counterbalanced with the sympathy and compassion that the law accords the less
privileged workingman. It is only fair that the worker is to be given the opportunity and the right to assert
and defend his cause; not as a subordinate, but as part of the management, with which he can negotiate on
an even plane. Thus, labor is not a mere employee of capital, but its active and equal partner.[138]
However, the recent economic status in the Philippines does not embody the same ideals furthered by that
of the Court. More and more Filipinos are unemployed and underemployed. Others have jobs but their
rights have been abused by several employers due to loopholes in our labor law system. Also, the
government, as the prime maker and implementor of labor laws and policies has very little regard for our
workers. The welfare of the workers has been sacrificed by the Government in the name of progress. The
government has not been able to provide any help given its bias for capitalists, particularly foreign
companies.
One of the absurd components of our labor system that has been widely abused by employers in our
country today is the practice of fixed-term employment. This kind of employment has no rigid rules in our
labor law system. Even the Court rulings subsequent to Brent does not solidify the coverage of fixed-term
employment. As a result, more employers resort to this kind of employment in order to take advantage of
the loopholes and try to achieve matters more advantageous to their business agenda.
It is thus concluded that a hard-and-fast rule on fixed-term employment which demarcates its boundaries
from other kinds of employment would further eliminate the violation of the rights of the workers under
the Constitution and the Labor Code, and further strengthen the social justice principle. This is a necessity
because the right of the workers to be dignified in their jobs should not be compromised by the
Government in the name of progress. Economic progress in the Philippines is meaningless if it would
sacrifice the fundamental right of a worker to a dignified life.