[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
130 views2 pages

Medenilla vs. Phil Veterans Bank

The Supreme Court ruled that Ricardo Medenilla and other employees of the Philippine Veterans Bank were hired under a fixed-period employment contract after the bank underwent liquidation. When their employment was terminated after five years, they claimed the dismissal was illegal. However, the Supreme Court found the fixed-period contract was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the employees without force or pressure. The terms of the contract stated the employment was temporary and non-permanent to assist with the bank's liquidation. Therefore, the dismissal did not violate the employees' security of tenure.

Uploaded by

Balaod Maricor
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
130 views2 pages

Medenilla vs. Phil Veterans Bank

The Supreme Court ruled that Ricardo Medenilla and other employees of the Philippine Veterans Bank were hired under a fixed-period employment contract after the bank underwent liquidation. When their employment was terminated after five years, they claimed the dismissal was illegal. However, the Supreme Court found the fixed-period contract was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the employees without force or pressure. The terms of the contract stated the employment was temporary and non-permanent to assist with the bank's liquidation. Therefore, the dismissal did not violate the employees' security of tenure.

Uploaded by

Balaod Maricor
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

71

Ricardo S. Medenilla
versus
Philippine Veterans Bank, Renan V. Santos, Pacifico U. Cervantes, Lois Olarte
G.R. NO. 127673. March 13, 2000

FACTS:

Ricardo S. Medenilla and others were employees of Philippine Veterans Bank


(PVB) but their services were terminated as a result of the liquidation of PVB pursuant to
the order of the Monetary Board of the Central Bank.

On the same day of their termination, they were hired through PVB’s validator
and were required to sign employment contract which provided that:

"xxxxxxxxx
(1) The employment shall be strictly on a temporary basis and only for the
duration of the particular undertaking for which a particular employee is hired;
xxxxxxxxx
(2) Such temporary employment will not entitle an employee to any
benefits except those granted by law;
xxxxxxxxx
(3) The Liquidator reserves the right to terminate the services of the
employee at any time during the period of such employment if the employee is
found not qualified, competent or, efficient in the performance of his job, or have
violated any rules and regulations, or such circumstances and conditions
recognized by law.
xxxxxxxxx"
Five years after, they received a uniform notice of dismissal containing the
following reasons:
"(a) To reduce costs and expenses in the liquidation of closed banks in order to
protect the interests of the depositors, creditors and stockholders of the Philippine
Veterans Bank.
(b) The employment were on strictly temporary basis."

ISSUE:
Whether or not Medenilla and others were under a fixed-period employment
contract.

LABOR ARBITER:
The LA declared that the dismissal was illegal.

NLRC:
The NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor Arbiter and dismissed the
Complaints for lack of merit. Motion for Reconsideration was also denied.

SUPREME COURT:

Medenilla and others were under a fixed-period employment contract. There is


tenability that the employment of Mendenilla was really for a fixed-period.
72

There are two guidelines by which fixed contracts of employment can be said
NOT to circumvent security of tenure, are either:

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."

The employment contract entered into by the parties appears to have observed the
said guidelines.

You might also like