FUJI v.

ESPIRITU
 Fixed Term is 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. Hence, there are lesser protection and a
limitation as regard to both parties (Brent Doctrine)
FACTS:
Arlene S. Espiritu (Arlene) was engaged by Fuji Television Network, Inc. (Fuji) as a news
correspondent/producer tasked to report Philippine news to Fuji through its Manila Bureau
field office. The employment contract was initially for one year, but was successively renewed
on a yearly basis with salary adjustments upon every renewal.

In January 2009, Arlene was diagnosed with lung cancer. She informed Fuji about her condition,
and the Chief of News Agency of Fuji, Yoshiki Aoki, informed the former that the company had
a problem with renewing her contract considering her condition. Arlene insisted she was still fit
to work as certified by her attending physician.

After a series of verbal and written communications, Arlene and Fuji signed a non-renewal
contract. In consideration thereof, Arlene acknowledged the receipt of the total amount of her
salary from March-May 2009, year-end bonus, mid-year bonus and separation pay. However,
Arlene executed the non-renewal contract under protest.

Arlene filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NCR Arbitration Branch of the NLRC,
alleging that she was forced to sign the non-renewal contract after Fuji came to know of her
illness. She also alleged that Fuji withheld her salaries and other benefits when she refused to
sign, and that she was left with no other recourse but to sign the non-renewal contract to get her
salaries.

ISSUES:

1. Was Arlene an independent contractor?

RULING:

1. Arlene was not an independent contractor but a regular employee.

The Case of Sonza cannot be applied in the case. There is however an EER and the four-fold test
be applied. Following the elements of the latter. Hence, Arlene was hired by Fuji as a news
producer, but there was no evidence that she was hired for her unique skills that would
distinguish her from ordinary employees. Her monthly salary appeared to be a substantial sum.
Fuji had the power to dismiss Arlene, as provided for in her employment contract. The contract
also indicated that Fuji had control over her work as she was required to report for 8 hours from
Monday to Friday. Fuji gave her instructions on what to report and even her mode of
transportation in carrying out her functions was controlled.
In determining whether an employment should be considered regular or non-regular, the
applicable test is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the
employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer. The standard, supplied by
the law itself, is whether the work undertaken is necessary or desirable in the usual business or
trade of the employer, a fact that can be assessed by looking into the nature of the services
rendered and its relation to the general scheme under which the business or trade is pursued in
the usual course.

In the case of her dismissal, she was illegally dismissed, hence her back pay wages should be
paid to her, these includes the leaves and 13 th month pay. In the case at bar, when Fuji knows
her lung cancer, they immiediately concluded that she cannot perform her duties. Moreover,
Fuji didn’t give her the chance to present medical certificate. Therefore, she was not accorded in
due process.