A gentle reminder,

Employment is Constitutionally protected right. As referred to in the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article 2
Section 5 speaks of labor in terms of personal property of each citizen which the state is to protect; in
connection thereof, under the Bill of Rights Article 3 of the Constitution, section 2: no person shall be
deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the laws; Section 9 of Article 2 speaks of ensuring prosperity and removing property by
promoting full employment among others; again under the same article section 18 refers to labor as primary
socio economic force and the protection of the same; a vast majority of Article 13 speaks of the promotion and
protection of any kind of labor; under the New Civil Code article 1700 speaks of the relations between capital
and labor as not merely contractual but so impressed with public interest that labor contracts must yield to the
common good; and finally the entirety of the labor code speaks of the policies governing and protecting labor.
To sum it all up, the state has invested so much in the protection and promotion of labor as it treats it with so
much importance as a primary driving force of the economy. Aside from the utilitarian aspect, the state protects
labor as it is an inherent part of the promotion of human rights and dignity.
To work and toil is a human right. According to Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to
protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an
existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Such enumerated rights provide for the international recognition of the rights of workers to their valid employment.

Even more, according to the Catholic Church in Rerum Novarum: the Church looks at the indispensability of
the working class’ toil and such must be regarded utmost protection and dignity (#34); that the Church works
practically to better the situation of the working class in collaboration with law and state (#16). The Church
looks at work as a fulfilment of man’s dignity when in Laborem Exercens #9 it said: Work remains a good
thing, not only because it is useful and enjoyable, but also because it expresses and increases the worker’s
dignity.” And again in Octogesima Adveniens #14 the Church affirmed the universal right to work: All people
have the right to work, to a chance to develop their qualities and their personalities in the exercise of their
professions, to equitable remuneration which will enable them and their families “to lead a worthy life on the
material, social, cultural and spiritual level” and to assistance in case of need arising from sickness or age. In
many other encyclicals the Church has time and time again affirmed the importance and special mature of work
and thus must be afforded ample protection and promotion. If the entirety of the Catholic Church itself affirms
the special nature of work no less than the Catholic Church itself should protect labor and employment and
refrain from any practices inimical to its values as well as against the prevailing laws of the state and principles
endorsed by the International Community.
Security of tenure under Article 279 of the old counting and 294 of the new counting of the Labor Code
refers to the protection of an employee’s regular employment which shall not be terminated by the employer
except for a just cause as authorized. An illegally dismissed employee is legally vested with the following
rights: reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of
allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation
was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.
Under Article 280/296 of the Labor Code provides:
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.
Again, under the Labor Code there is valid termination when:
Art. 282. Termination by employer. An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following
causes:
a. Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his
employer or representative in connection with his work;
b. Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
c. Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly
authorized representative;
d. Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any
immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representatives; and
e. Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
In the termination of an employee on the grounds mentioned above, the case of Tan V. NLRC G.R. No.
128290. November 24, 1998 might be of help:
“In dismissing an employee, an employer has the burden of proving that the former worker has been served
two notices: (1) one to apprise him of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought and
(2) the other to inform him of his employers decision to dismiss him.”
Other valid grounds for the termination of employment as provided for by the Labor Code are:
Art. 283. Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. The employer may also terminate the
employment of any employee due to the installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to
prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the
closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the
workers and the Ministry of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date
thereof.
Art. 284. Disease as ground for termination. An employer may terminate the services of an employee
who has been found to be suffering from any disease and whose continued employment is prohibited by
law or is prejudicial to his health as well as to the health of his co-employees.
None of the following makes mention of the change of management, as an analogous circumstance to the fact of
changing the parish priest as a valid cause for termination. Even more so, the oral termination of employment
effective after 2 weeks or a month without stating a valid cause and hearing the side of the employee might
constitute illegal dismissal.
Another aspect to be settled in your reasoning that the change of parish priest means the termination of a valid
employment is where does the employer-employee relationship reside? Is it between the parish priest and office
staff or between the corporate or juridical personality of the parish and the office staff? Employer-employee
relations are not merely contractual obligations created between the parties rather it is vested with public
interest. Given the impermanent status of a priest’s tenure in an assigned parish, to say that the employment of a
parish staff is reliant on the assignment of a parish priest is inimical to public policy as it defeats the purpose of
security of tenure as protected by pertinent laws of the land.
Analogously the situation would be that of an area manager who is assigned in the administration of a certain
company branch and under him are employees duly employed in that certain area, the removal of the branch
manager in that area does not affect the employment of the employees under his administration but are rather
retained.
The four-fold test provides: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the
power of dismissal; and (d) the employer’s power to control the employee with respect to the means and
methods by which the work is to be accomplished (WPP Marketing v. Galera, GR 169207, 25 March 2010).
While the powers of employment, payment of wages, dismissal and control resides in the parish priest his
powers are only relative to the fact that such powers are extended to him as an administrator of a certain parish
vested upon him by the archdiocese. He is but an administrator subjected to the whims of a greater power.
Moreover, under the economic test the proper standard of economic dependence is whether the worker is
dependent on the alleged employer for his continued employment in that line of business (Francisco v. NLRC,
GR 170087, 31 Aug 2006). Thus, to subject simple employees whose subsistence relies on the fact of their
employment with the parish might mean subjecting them to practices contrary to public policy, security of
tenure, as well as to the very principles of work the Church herself dearly holds and promotes.
While this is not a legal paper, it only enumerates the pertinent provisions of law that maybe infringed upon by
the termination of employment on such grounds as the change of a parish priest. Such ground is rather new and
contrary to established tradition, even unheard of, as parish office employees enjoy the benefit of security of
tenure even as the parish priest leaves the place. If such is the case this shall mean that previously employed
parish office workers will be arbitrarily terminated and their source of work will be taken from them without
due consideration of their plight as part of the working class. This is in direct contravention to the values held
by the Church in relation to labor as expressed in numerous encyclicals, most of which are not mentioned here.
It is even contrary to established human experience wherein parish employees who are left behind help guide
around the unfamiliar parish the new parish priest, who is yet in shock and awe of his new responsibilities, to
whom they will start working under.
Have a good day and God bless.