FACTS:

The petition for review on certiorari is seeking to reverse the resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 51390. The CA resolution, dated January 31, 2001, granted the private respondents' motion for reconsideration. This reversed and set aside the decision of the CA, promulgated on September 12, 2000. The National Labor Relations Commission's (NLRC) decision dated August 22, 1997, and its resolution dated November 24, 1997, were affirmed. The petitioners in this case entered into contracts of employment with the respondent company as mixers, packers, and machine operators for a fixed term. Their services were terminated upon the expiration of their contracts, and they executed quitclaims. The petitioners filed complaints for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, non-payment of overtime, night differential, 13th-month pay, damages, and attorney's fees. The labor arbiter ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring their dismissal illegal and ordering their reinstatement. On appeal to the NLRC, the decision of the labor arbiter was set aside. The CA initially reinstated the labor arbiter's decision but then reversed itself, stating that the employment contracts with fixed terms were valid. The CA held that no force, duress, intimidation, or moral dominance was exerted on the petitioners, and the respondents dealt with them in good faith. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to this petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the petition for review on certiorari should have been denied for lack of proper verification and certification of non-forum shopping.

2. Whether or not the contracts of employment with a fixed term were valid.

RULING:

1. The petition for review on certiorari should have been denied for lack of proper verification and certification of non-forum shopping. However, the Court granted a liberal interpretation of the rules and proceeded to rule on the merits of the case.

2. The contracts of employment with a fixed term were valid. The Supreme Court held that the contracts were knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties and that there was no force, duress, or improper pressure exerted on the employees. The contracts were mutually advantageous to both parties, as the employer was able to meet increased demand in production and the employees found gainful employment for a fixed period. Thus, there was no illegal dismissal when the employees' services were terminated upon the expiration of their contracts.

PRINCIPLES:

• An employment shall be deemed to be regular when the employee has been engaged to perform activities that are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business of the employer, except when the employment has been fixed for a specific project or when the work is seasonal in nature.

• The parties are not prohibited from agreeing on the duration of employment, provided that the fixed period of employment was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon without force, duress, or improper pressure, and both parties dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance being exercised by the employer.

• Contracts of employment for a fixed period are not unlawful, as long as they are not intended to circumvent the security of tenure and the employee's consent is not vitiated.