Implied consent
Before a case for illegal dismissal can prosper, an employer-employee relationship must first be established by the employee who alleges that he is illegally dismissed. This case of Lita is an example of lack of employer-employee relationship.
Sometime in 1992, Lita started working as “lady keeper” mainly tasked with manning the ladies comfort room of the night club-restaurant of BC Corporation pursuant to the letter of its owner/manager Andy. The said letter dated January 6, 1992 contained the terms and conditions of a concessionaire agreement wherein Lita would provide independently and at her own expense, customer comfort services and assist users of the ladies comfort room of the club to further enhance its business in consideration of which she shall receive all remunerations, tips and donations of the customers provided that if the tips exceeds 200% of the daily minimum wage, BC shall get 50% of the excess. The said concessionaire agreement expressly states that it shall be for a period of one year, renewable every year unless notice of termination is given prior to separation. The agreement also provides that no employee-employer exists between Lita and BC.
While doing her job at the club Lita received special allowance, was issued an ID card and was required to follow the rules and regulations prescribing appropriate conduct while in the premises of the club. Three years later, she received a letter from Andy asking her to explain why the concessionaire agreement should not be terminated or suspended in view of an incident wherein Lita was seen to have acted in a hostile manner against a lady customer. Subsequently on
Hence Lita filed a complaint for illegal dismissal contending that she was dismissed from employment without just cause. She said that she was not a concessionaire as she had not signed the concessionaire agreement. On the contrary she had already become a regular employee as she was receiving allowances equivalent to the minimum wage. She was also issued an ID card similar to those issued to regular employees and required to follow the rules of conduct within the premises. Was Lita correct?
No. While Lita did not affix her signature to the document evidencing the concessionaire agreement, she performed the tasks indicated in the said agreement for a period of three years without any complaint or question. This fact only goes to show that she has given her implied consent to the said agreement.
Contracts are perfected by mere consent upon the acceptance by the offeree of the offer made by the offeror. For a contract to arise, the acceptance must be made known to the offeror. The acceptance may be expressed or implied as can be inferred from the contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the contracting parties. A contract will be upheld as long as there is proof of consent, subject matter and cause; it is generally obligatory in whatever form it may have been entered into. Hence, while Lita did not sign the letter of Andy containing the proposed concessionaire agreement, she is deemed to have given her consent to the said proposal when she continuously performed the tasks indicated therein for a considerable length of time. For all intents and purposes, the concessionaire agreement had been perfected.
Lita is also estopped from denying the existence of the concessionaire agreement. She should not after enjoying the benefits of said agreement be allowed to later disown the same through her allegation that she was an employee of BC when said agreement was terminated by reason of violation of the terms and conditions thereof.
Thus Lita was not dismissed by BC and Andy. Instead as shown by the letter of Andy dated February 15, 1995, their relationship was terminated by reason of the latter’s termination of the concessionaire agreement, which was in accordance with its provision in case of violation of its terms and conditions (Lopez vs. Bodega City et. al. G.R. 155731, September 3, 2007).
E-mail at: [email protected]
- Latest
- Trending
