G.R. No.

211892

INNODATA KNOWLEDGE SERVICES, INC., Petitioner

vs.
SOCORRO D'MARIE T. INTING

FACTS

Petitioner Innodata Knowledge Services, Inc. (IKSI) is a company engaged in data processing, encoding,
indexing, abstracting, typesetting, imaging, and other processes in the capture, conversion, and storage
of data and information. At one time, Applied Computer Technologies (ACT), a company based in the
United States of America, hired IKSI to review various litigation documents and required IKSI to hire
lawyers, or at least, law graduates, to review various litigation documents, classify said documents into
the prescribed categories, and ensure that outputs are delivered on time. For this purpose, IKSI engaged
the services of respondents as senior and junior reviewers with a contract duration of five (5) years.

However, respondents received a Notice of Forced Leave from IKSI informing them that they shall be
placed on indefinite forced leave effective that same day due to changes in business conditions, client
requirements, and specifications. Hence, respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal,
reinstatement or payment of separation pay, backwages, and damages against IKSI.

The Labor Arbiter (LA), in the consolidated cases and declared that there was no illegal dismissal which
was affirmed by the NLRC.

On appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the NLRC.

ISSUE

Whether or not the CA committed an error when it reversed the NLRC, which declared that respondent
employees, as mere project employees, were validly placed on floating status and, therefore, were not
illegally dismissed.

RULING

No. The Court ruled that the Innodata’s legal document reviewers were illegally dismissed. While the
contracts stated they were hired to work on legal review project for ACT , the employees were made to
work as “ case classifiers “ on another project called Bloomberg project, without signing a new contract
for that purpose, it was already outside of the scope of the particular undertaking for which they were
hired; it was beyond the scope of their employment contracts.

The employment status of a person is defined and prescribed by law and not by what the parties say it
should be. Equally important to consider is that a contract of employment is impressed with public
interest such that labor contracts must yield to the common good. Thus, provisions of applicable
statutes are deemed written into the contract, and the parties are never at liberty to insulate
themselves and their relationships from the impact of labor laws and regulations by simply entering into
contracts with each other.