Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 27 views

    176 - Salafranca v. Philamlife (Pamplona)

    Uploaded by

    Janice Kimayong
    This case involves Enrique Salafranca who worked for the private respondent from 1981 to 1983 under renewable contracts, and continued working without a renewed contract after 1983. In 1987, the private respondent amended its by-laws to state that the administrative officer position is held at the pleasure of the Board of Directors. They informed Salafranca that his term was coterminous with the Board. Salafranca continued working until 1992 when he was terminated. The court ruled that the dismissal was illegal, as the amendment cannot impair Salafranca's existing rights as a regular employee with security of tenure, and was an attempt to circumvent his employment rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    176 - Salafranca v. Philamlife (Pamplona)

    Uploaded by

    Janice Kimayong
    27 views1 page
    This case involves Enrique Salafranca who worked for the private respondent from 1981 to 1983 under renewable contracts, and continued working without a renewed contract after 1983. In 1987, the private respondent amended its by-laws to state that the administrative officer position is held at the pleasure of the Board of Directors. They informed Salafranca that his term was coterminous with the Board. Salafranca continued working until 1992 when he was terminated. The court ruled that the dismissal was illegal, as the amendment cannot impair Salafranca's existing rights as a regular employee with security of tenure, and was an attempt to circumvent his employment rights.

    Original Description:

    Corpo Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves Enrique Salafranca who worked for the private respondent from 1981 to 1983 under renewable contracts, and continued working without a renewed contract after 1983. In 1987, the private respondent amended its by-laws to state that the administrative officer position is held at the pleasure of the Board of Directors. They informed Salafranca that his term was coterminous with the Board. Salafranca continued working until 1992 when he was terminated. The court ruled that the dismissal was illegal, as the amendment cannot impair Salafranca's existing rights as a regular employee with security of tenure, and was an attempt to circumvent his employment rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    27 views1 page

    176 - Salafranca v. Philamlife (Pamplona)

    Uploaded by

    Janice Kimayong
    This case involves Enrique Salafranca who worked for the private respondent from 1981 to 1983 under renewable contracts, and continued working without a renewed contract after 1983. In 1987, the private respondent amended its by-laws to state that the administrative officer position is held at the pleasure of the Board of Directors. They informed Salafranca that his term was coterminous with the Board. Salafranca continued working until 1992 when he was terminated. The court ruled that the dismissal was illegal, as the amendment cannot impair Salafranca's existing rights as a regular employee with security of tenure, and was an attempt to circumvent his employment rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    ENRIQUE SALAFRANCA vs.

    PHILAMLIFE (PAMPLONA) VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS


    ASSOCIATION, INC.
    G.R. No. 121791 December 23, 1998

    DOCTRINE:

    Admittedly, the right to amend the by-laws lies solely in the discretion of the employer, this
    being in the exercise of management prerogative or business judgment. However, this right,
    extensive as it may be, cannot impair the obligation of existing contracts or rights.

    STATEMENT OF FACTS:

    1. Petitioner Enrique Salafranca started working with the private respondent on May 1,
    1981 as administrative officer. From this date until December 31, 1983, petitioner was
    reappointed to his position three more times. After petitioner's term of employment
    expired on December 31, 1983, he still continued to work in the same capacity, albeit,
    without the benefit of a renewed contract.
    2. Sometime in 1987, private respondent decided to amend its by-laws. Included therein
    was a provision regarding officers, specifically, the position of administrative officer
    under which said officer shall hold office at the pleasure of the Board of Directors. In
    view of this development, private respondent, on July 3, 1987, informed the petitioner
    that his term of office shall be coterminus with the Board of Directors which appointed
    him to his position.
    3. Furthermore, until he submits a medical certificate showing his state of health, his
    employment shall be on a month-to-month basis. Oddly, notwithstanding the failure of
    herein petitioner to submit his medical certificate, he continued working until his
    termination in December 1992. 

    STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE:

    Whether the dismissal is legal since it was in accordance with the provision of the by-laws of
    the Association that the petitioner’s position is coterminus with that of the Village's Board of
    Directors.

    DECISION: NO.

    If private respondent wanted to make the petitioner's position coterminus with that of the
    Board of Directors, then the amendment must be effective after petitioner's stay with the
    private respondent, not during his term. Obviously, the measure taken by the private
    respondent in amending its by-laws is nothing but a devious, but crude, attempt to circumvent
    petitioner's right to security of tenure as a regular employee guaranteed under the Labor
    Code. 

    Private respondent's insistence that it can legally dismiss petitioner on the ground that his
    tenure has expired is untenable. To reiterate, petitioner, being a regular employee, is entitled
    to security of tenure, hence, his services may only be terminated for causes provided by law.
    A contrary interpretation would not find justification in the laws or the Constitution. If we were
    to rule otherwise, it would enable an employer to remove any employee from his employment
    by the simple expediency of amending its by-laws and providing that his/her position shall
    cease to exist upon the occurrence of a specified event.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy