Labor Code is the basis of “endo” PDF Print E-mail
Wednesday, 03 May 2017 13:55




LIFE’S INSPIRATIONS: “… Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty…” (James 5:4, the Holy Bible).


LABOR CODE IS THE BASIS OF “ENDO”: This is not to dampen the fight against what has come to be known as “contractualization” of labor —that is, the practice of hiring employees for a period of time less than the usual six-months’ probationary period of employment—but it has to be stated that “contractualization” is in fact found at the existing Labor Code of the Philippines.

What is clear is that “contractualization of labor” is a practice that is allowed by the very law that is supposed to protect laborers and employees, particularly under the Labor Code’s Art. 280, which deals with the “probationary” period of employment, or the period of time during which the employee is supposed to undergo testing to see his fitness to continue in the employ of a company.

This period of time usually lasts six months. The only problem here is that, many employers have abused this provision, such that almost all employees now are hired through “endo” contracts, or those that provide for only five months of work for the workers. After five months of working, the employee is no longer given another contract, so his employment contract ends. This has given rise to the term “endo” (or end of contract) today.


SC RULES: EMPLOYEES CAN BE REGULARIZED EVEN IF THERE IS “ENDO”: Be that as it may, the Supreme Court has time and again issued decisions that uphold the right of workers to continue working, even if their contracts provide for specific periods during which their contracts shall be in existence, or even if the periods in their contracts have already expired.

Among these decisions are those which rule that even if the employment contract is stated to be for a period shorter than six months, the employee is to be considered a regular employee just the same, with a full guarantee of security in his job, if his work is necessary and desirable in the line of business of the employer.

Then, there is also the rule which says that the employer must have to make clear to the employee, at the start of his probationary employment, the standards under which he will qualify as a regular employee. If the employer does not communicate these standards to the employee at the start of the probationary employment, the employee is to be considered a regular employee.


OTHER RULES ON PROBATIONARY EMPLOYMENT: These requirements on probationary employment were imposed by the high tribunal specifically in the case of Abbot Laboratories Philippines vs. Alcaraz, G. R. No. 192571, July 23, 2013, in a decision written by Associate Justice Estela Perlas Bernabe. Here are parts of that decision:

“In other words, the employer is made to comply with two (2) requirements when dealing with a probationary employee: first, the employer must communicate the regularization standards to the probationary employee; and second, the employer must make such communication at the time of the probationary employee’s engagement. If the employer fails to comply with either, the employee is deemed as a regular and not a probationary employee.

“In keeping with these rules, an employer is deemed to have made known the standards that would qualify a probationary employee to be a regular employee when it has exerted reasonable efforts to apprise the employee of what he is expected to do or accomplish during the trial period of probation. This goes without saying that the employee is sufficiently made aware of his probationary status as well as the length of time of the probation…”


WATCH “ANG TANGING DAAN”, “KAKAMPI MO ANG BATAS”, AT FB LIVE: Please watch “Ang Tanging Daan”, a round-the-clock Bible Exposition and prayer session at; and  “Kakampi Mo Ang Batas”, a legal counseling and news commentary program at Reactions: 0917 984 24 68, 0918 574 0193, 0977 805 9058. Email: