International Pharmaceuticals Inc v.

NLRC and Quintia

J. Mendoza | March 9, 1998
FACTS: The government encouraged pharmaceutical companies to venture into
herbal medicine so petitioner did just that and hired private respondent Quintia as
its pharmacologist. Contract was for one year, extendible upon mutual consent, with
express permission for her to continue teaching at the Cebu Doctors Hospital as
full-time faculty. Upon expiration of her contract, Xavier University offered her a
teaching job which she refused at the urging of petitioners president and general
manager who assured her of security of tenure.
Quintia filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, alleging petitioner terminated her for
taking up the cudgels of the rank-and-file employees as they demanded for a full
disclosure of petitioners financial status, in light of the inequality in the imposition
of the interest rate to low-salaried employees in the distribution of dividends. She
was replaced and was terminated by reason of the expiration of her contract.
Petitioner claims Quintia was a consultant involved in the project for herbal
medicine and her employment was terminated upon abandonment of the project. It
also averred the extension of her employment was founded on an oral agreement.
LA Decision: In favor of Quintia
(a) Regular employee, and could not be dismissed without just/legal causes as
provided in the LC;
(b) Due process rights were not respected
NLRC: Affirmed; asked LA to determine whether reinstatement was feasible
(a) Applied LC Art. 280 and the case of Brent School v. Zamora where it held that
although work done under a contract may be necessary and desirable in
relation to the usual business of the employer, a contract for a fixed period
may be made as long as it is entered into freely, voluntarily, and knowingly
by the parties.
(b) Since petitioner decided to continue Quintias services, the latter acquired
security of tenure
(c) Quintia was asked to continue as medical director and was given the function
of company physician
(d) Employment lasted for more than three years
Intl Pharmaceuticals filed a petition for certiorari contending that
(a) The NLRCs reliance on Art. 280 is contrary to courts decisions;
(b) Quintias tasks are not necessary and desirable to the usual business of
petitioner
(c) Cited Singer Sewing Machine v. Drilon where the SC disregarded use of Art.
280 to determine whether there was regular employment as 280 only
discriminates between regular and casual employees for determining the
right of an employee to certain benefits
ISSUE: W/n Quintia was illegally dismissed (YES)
Art. 280. Regular and casual employment. The provisions of written agreement to
the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, 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 except where the 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 or where the work or service to be
performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the
season.
An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding
paragraph: Provided, That any employee who has rendered at least one year of
service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular
employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment
shall continue while such activity exists.
1. Court said the issue here is whether or not she was a regular employee given
the extension of her employment after the expiration of her original contract.
2. Quintia was engaged in tasks which were necessary and desirable to the
usual business of her employer. The NLRC took note of the following tasks:
a. Her designation as company physician;
b. She undertook several civic duties in behalf of petitioner;
c. She was hired to replace someone else and someone else was also
hired to replace her
3. There was no mention of a project or consultancy in her contract. She was
hired as Medical Director of Research and Development. Petitioner admitted
research and development was part of its business.
4. TOPICAL: The fact she was not required to report at fixed hours or to keep
fixed hours of work does not detract from her status as a regular employee.
She was a managerial employee not covered by the regular hours of work.
The number of hours worked is not a test to determine whether an employee
is a regular employee.
a. The court quoted: The primary standard, . . . of determining a regular
employment is the reasonable connection between the particular
activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or
trade of the employer. The test is whether the former is usually
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer.
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. Also, if the employee has been
performing the job for at least one year, even if the
performance is not continuous or merely intermittent, the law
deems the repeated and continuing need for its performance
as sufficient evidence of the necessity if not indispensability of
that activity to the business. Hence, the employment is also
considered regular, but only with respect to such activity and
while such activity exists.
5. Petitioner tried to make much of the fact there was no express consent to
extend the contract, but such an interpretation of LC 280 would allow
employers to circumvent Art. 280.

6. Granting the herbal medicine project really was a project, the contract has no
such indication of a project. What it provided was employment for a definite
term, which extended upon the agreement of the parties.