G.R. NO. 168052 - POSEIDON FISHING/TERRY DE JESUS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND JIMMY S. ESTOQUIA. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the decision is modified as follows: The amount equivalent to six (6) months salary is to be deducted from the total award of backwages; The respondent is ordered to pay complainant separation pay equivalent to one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service counted from 1998; x x x The respondent is ordered to pay complainants unpaid wages in the amount of P1,794.00; and Respondent is ordered to pay attorneys fees in a sum equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the awarded claims. [10] Petitioners moved for the reconsideration of the NLRC decision, but were denied in a Resolution dated 29 August 2003. Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, imputing grave abuse of discretion, but the Court of Appeals found none. The following is the fallo of the decision: WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. [11] In a last attempt at vindication, petitioners filed the present petition for review with the following assignment of errors: I. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS A REGULAR EMPLOYEE WHEN IN TRUTH HE WAS A CONTRACTUAL/PROJECT/SEASONAL EMPLOYEE. II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED FROM EMPLOYMENT. III. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE RESPONDENT A SEASONAL EMPLOYEE AND APPLYING THE RULING IN RJL MARTINEZ FISHING CORPORATION vs. NLRC THAT THE ACTIVITY OF FISHING IS A CONTINUOUS PROCESS AND COULD HARDLY BE CONSIDERED AS SEASONAL IN NATURE. IV. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO BACKWAGES, SEPARATION PAY, ATTORNEYS FEES AND OTHER MONETARY BENEFITS. V. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT RESOLVING THE PRAYER FOR THE ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND/OR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. [12] The fundamental issue entails the determination of the nature of the contractual relationship between petitioners and private respondent, i.e ., was private respondent a regular employee at the time his employment was terminated on 04 July 2000? Asserting their right to terminate the contract with private respondent per the Kasunduan with him, petitioners pointed to the provision thereof stating that he was being employed only on a por viaje basis and that his employment would be terminated at the end of the trip for which he was being hired, to wit: NA, kami ay sumasang-ayon na MAGLINGKOD at GUMAWA ng mga gawaing magmula sa pag-alis ng lantsa sa pondohan sa Navotas patungo sa palakayahan; pabalik sa pondohan ng lantsa sa Navotas hanggang sa paghango ng mga kargang isda. [13] Petitioners lament that fixed-term employment contracts are recognized as valid under the law notwithstanding the provision of Article 280 of the Labor Code. Petitioners theorize that the Civil Code has always recognized the validity of contracts with a fixed and definite period, and imposes no restraints on the freedom of