INTERNATIONAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

(PETITIONER)
VS.
NLRC AND DR. VIRGINIA CAMACHO QUINTIA(RESPONDENTS)
GR NO. 106331 MARCH 9, 1998
MENDOZA, J.

SV: worker was intended to be hired as a project employee but the project never pushed through and instead was given other tasks
to do for the company. she was dismissed and was immediately replaced. Court held that she was illegally dismissed since her
position was not project-based but was in fact a regular position (there was a ready replacement). She was not required to work for a
fixed period each day, but since she was a managerial employee, she is exempted from this requirement.

1. Petition for certiorari to set aside the decision of NLRC which affirmed the LA decision.
2. International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (IPI) is a corporation engaged in the manufacture, production and sale of
pharmaceutical products.
3. They hired Quintia as a Medical Director of its Research and Development department, replacing one Diana
Villaraza.
4. In 1983 the government encouraged the development of herbal medicine and offered incentives to interested
parties. One of the government requirements was the hiring of pharmacologists. IPI decided to venture into said
project and knew that it was experimental. To meet the aforesaid requirement, they hired Quintia as a project
employee. While with IPI she was allowed to continue teaching at the Cebu Doctor’s Hospital
5. Quintia claimed that when the contract was about to expire, she was invited to be the Chairperson of the
Pharmacology dept of Xavier in CDO but she refused after Pio Castillo, the president and gen. man. Of IPI that if
she stayed she will be assured of security of tenure
6. Because of this she declined Xavier and continued to be an employee of IPI even after the contract expired.
7. Quintia alleged that the reason for her termination was when he sided with the rank and file employees by
pointing out the unfairness of the deal given to them by their own Savings and Loan assoc. (inequality in the
imposition of interest rate to the low salaried employees. This act of her was resented by the officers and was
summoned to Castillo’s office where she was berated and humiliated
8. She was replaced as head of the research and devt dept. by Paz Wong and 2 days later she was informed that she
has already been terminated
9. Quintia filed a complaint charging IPI with illegal dismissal and praying that she be reinstated
10. In the position paper filed by IPI it claimed that her employment was coterminous with the duration of the
project re: herbal medicine and that she was terminated upon abandonment of the project. They also argued
that the original contract already expired and that the by implied extensions of said contracted she was able to
stay with the company for 2 more years.
11. LA found her to have been ILLEGALLY DISMISSED. Reinstatement, backwages and damages
12. NLRC AFFIRMED

ISSUE:Was Quintia illegally dismissed?

1. YES
- First ground: regular employee
 Art. 280 of the labor code provides that any employee who has rendered at least 1 year of
service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee.
 Applying Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora wherein it was held that” a contract for a fixed period may
be made so long as it is entered into freely, voluntarily and knowingly”, NLRC held that the
written contract was valid between IPI and Quintia, but after deciding to retain her services, she
became a regular employee (art. 280 applied). It completely changed the complexion of the
relationship between them.She did work which was necessary and desirable in relation to the
business of IPI.
 Petitioner alleged that:
1. NLRC reliance on Art. 280 is clearly contrary to the court’s decisions
 a. Petitioner invoked Singer Sewing Machine v. Drilon: Art. 280 is not the yardstick
for determining the existence of an employment relationship between the
parties. It merely distinguishes between regular and casual employees
b. They can hire employees without them being regular no matter how necessary
for the business of IPI.
c. SC: IPI misapplied the ruling in Singer. The real test is whether her work was
necessary and desirable to the main business of the employer.
2. That private respondent’s tasks are really not necessary and desirable to the usual
business of IPI
a. Petitioner argued that the designation of Quintia was coterminous with that of
the project and when they decided to drop the project,her employment was
temporary.
b. SC: this is contrary to the factual findings. In addition to being the director of the
research and development dept, she performed the function of company
physician and other various civic activities for IPI. She wasn’t working merely as
a consultant but as a regular employee albeit a managerial one.
c. The position she was offered, already existed at the time she was brought in,
and after she was terminated her position was quickly filled in.
d. The work she performed was manifestly necessary and desirable to the usual
business of petitioner. The petitioner even admits that research and
development are part of its business.
e. The fact that she was not required to report at a fixed hour or to keep fixed
hours of work does not detract from her status as a regular employee, she was
a managerial employee, therefore she is not covered by the Labor Code when
it comes to the provisions on hours of work
f. If she has been performing the job for at least a year, even if the performance is
not continuous or merely intermittent, the law deems it as sufficient evidence of
the necessity if not indispensability of that activity to the business.
g. Even if she was working at a school, she can still be considered a regular
employee, her status is not determined by the number of hours of work but the
nature of the work
3. That there is clearly no legal or factual basis to support NLRC’s reliance on the absence
of a written contract that made her a regular employee
a. Again IPI cites Brent School: in the absence of a written contract, the parties
impliedly agreed to extend their written contract
b. SC: NO. to sustain this would allow employers to circumvent Art. 280 to just
extend the contract every time the previous term expires and prevent said
employee from becoming a regular one. And if it is true that there were implied
renewals, she should have been terminated not on July of 1986 but on March,
the same month as when the contract was execute 3 yrs prior.
- Second ground: position in the company was not coterminous with the project
 Petitioner was not able to prove that it had actually undertaken the project. Quintia’s
employment was one for a definite period but not for a project as IPI would want to argue.
 Quintia then is a regular employee and could only be terminated for just or authorized cause
(and not when the non-existent project ends)
 It may be that an employer is allowed wider discretion in terminating employment in respect
of managerial personnel compared to rank-and-file employees, and that such managerial
employees can be separated from the service for loss of confidence, however a mere
allegation of such ground is not sufficient.
 Western Shipping Agency, Inc. v. NLRC: even managerial employees enjoy security of tenure and
can only be dismissed after cause is shown in an appropriate proceeding. The burden of proof is
on the employer to show grounds justifying the loss of confidence. IPI failed to discharge this
burden.
  IPI failed to accord due process. Aurora Land Projects corp. v. NLRC: 2 notices required. First, as a
notice which informs the employee the acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought and
second, subsequent notice which informs him that he’s dismissed. This is mandatory, failure to
comply would amount to illegal dismissal
- Third ground: Reinstatement is untenable but not because the position has been abolished but because
of the antagonism engendered as a result of the case
 Position not really abolished, her vacancy was filled up just 2 days after her illegal dismissal.
 But because of the antagonism generated and Quintia’s own preference for separation pay,
reinstatement no longer feasible.
 Separation pay in lieu of reinstatement

Held:Petition DISMISSEd. judgment appealed from is MODIFIED. Separation pay equivalent to one month salary for every
year of service. in all other aspects, AFFIRMED.