As ruled by the Supreme Court in the recent case of INNODATA PHILIPPINES, INC.

v
s. JOCELYN L. QUEJADA-LOPEZ (G.R. No. 162839, October 12, 2006):
In the interpretation of contracts, obscure words and provisions shall not favor
the party that caused the obscurity. Consequently, the terms of the present con
tract should be CONSTRUED STRICTLY AGAINST PETITIONER, WHICH PREPARED IT.
Article 1700 of the Civil Code declares:
Art. 1700. The relations between capital and labor are not merely contrac
tual. They are so impressed with public interest that labor contracts must yiel
d to the common good. Therefore, such contracts are subject to the special laws
on labor unions, collective bargaining, strikes and lockouts, closed shop, wage
s, working conditions, hours of labor and similar subjects.
Indeed, a contract of employment is impressed with public interest. F
or this reason, provisions of applicable statutes are deemed written into the co
ntract. Hence, the parties are not at liberty to insulate themselves and their re
lationships from the impact of labor laws and regulations by simply contracting
with each other. MOREOVER, IN CASE OF DOUBT, THE TERMS OF A CONTRACT SHOULD BE CO
NSTRUED IN FAVOR OF LABOR. (emphasis ours, citing Philippine Federation of Cred
it Cooperatives, Inc. v. NLRC, 360 Phil. 254, 261, December 11, 1998, Magsalin v
. National Organization of Working Men, 451 Phil. 254, May 9, 2003; Bernardo v.
NLRC, 369 Phil. 443, July 12, 1999.)