DANILO J. NACARIO AND DOMINGO BAÑO, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, 7TH DIVISION, PRIMARY STRUCTURES CORPORATION, WILLIAM LIU, AND PAULETTE D. LIU, RESPOND…
QUIJANO-PADILLA, J.:
The Antecedents
Petitioners Danilo Nacario (Nacario) and Domingo Baño (Baño) filed with the labor arbiter a case against private respondents for illegal dismissal; monetary claims for: unpaid salaries, overtime, holiday, night shift differential, 13th month and service incentive leave pays; and for backwages and damages.[4]
Nacario and Baño claimed that they were hired to work for private respondent Primary Structures Corporation (Primary Structures) on February 22, 2000 and January 15, 2007, respectively. They were continuously employed until they were told on September 26, 2011 by Emmanuel Nieves, private respondents’ administrative assistant, that they were terminated because of business losses. Petitioners were instantly forced out from private respondents’ premises and were not even given time to collect their personal belongings, and these were just turned-over to them later by their co-workers.
On the part of private respondents, they countered that petitioners were hired for the construction projects of Primary Structures. They were made to understand that their employments were co-terminous with the phases of work to which they were assigned. Petitioners signed appointment letters[5] indicating the duration of the projects or phases thereof, for which their services were engaged. Upon the termination or completion of the projects, petitioners were given notices of completion. Private respondents also notified the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) of petitioners’ termination by reason of the completion of the project or the phase of work to which they were assigned. After their terminations due to the completion of work or project, petitioners re-applied with Primary Structure for the latter’s other construction projects. Every time that they were hired, petitioners were issued and made to sign appointment letters. The procedures of giving notices of completion to petitioners and notifying the DOLE of their termination were observed every time petitioners were terminated due to the completion of the project or phase of work for which they were hired.
Due to the sudden slump in the construction business caused by the worldwide economic crisis, private respondents were not able to conclude a new project. Hence, they advised their workers of their inability to provide them with employment but promised to immediately inform them as soon as work would be available. Private respondents were just surprised when they learned that petitioners filed the case and pleaded for monetary claims considering that they paid petitioners the mandated minimum wage, 13th month pay, last salary and completion bonus for their last project.
In the proceedings before the labor arbiter, petitioners already raised the concern that the contracts presented by private respondents were forgeries. Private respondent Nacario claimed that his signature had a notable formation of a straight line to the right but the one appearing in the contracts did not show a straight line, but rather, a zigzagged line.
Upon the parties’ respective evidence, the labor arbiter ruled in favor of private respondents. She found that petitioners were project employees based on the following evidence, to wit: the appointment letters they signed every time their services were engaged; the project payrolls, the completion notices sent to petitioners; and the compliance with the reportorial requirements to the DOLE. The labor arbiter also confronted the matter raised by Nacario regarding the alleged forgeries in his signatures. The labor arbiter addressed the issue, as follows:
The only basis in Nacario’s questioning the signature affixed on his appointment letters as allegedly not his genuine signature is the wavy strokes before the signature ended in a straight line to the right. Nacario did not question the main signature itself but only the ending stroke. The main signature itself appears very difficult to forge in view of its various strokes, as compared to the ending stroke. In the minutes of the 11 October 2011 mediation and conciliation conference, complainant Nacario affixed his signature, which appears to have a wavy stroke before it ended in a straight line to the right. Glaringly, Nacarios’s signature on this Minutes of conference bears similarity to the signature as affixed on his appointment letters. Nacario likewise affixed his signature on the Minutes of the mediation and conciliation proceeding on 17 October 2011, and it appears to have no wavy stroke before it ended in a straight line to the right. Nacario’s signature on the Minutes of these two separate mediation and conciliation conferences vary in that one bears a wavy stroke before it ended in a straight line to the right, the other is without a wavy stroke. These two different signatures are the genuine signatures of Nacario since it was him who signed the Minutes of the proceeding after the conference.
As a matter of fact upon perusal of the various documents consisting of payrolls, etc. proffered by the respondents, it is found out that there are distinctive variations in the signature affixed opposite the name of Nacario, which is understood to mean that this signature is that of Nacario. It is emphasized that these documents consist mostly of payrolls, and that Nacario is not the only payee, as Nacario’s name and signature are not the only entries on these documents. Our observations considered, We are not persuaded by Nacario’s claim that his signature on the appointment letters are a forgery. We are inclined to believe that Nacario did sign those appointment letters.[6] [Emphasis supplied.]
Consequently, the labor arbiter ordered the dismissal of petitioners’ complaint but ordered Primary Structures to pay holiday pay to petitioners for the holidays falling within the period of their employment based on the payrolls presented, but limited only to three years, in accordance with the prescriptive period in Article 291[7] of the Labor Code. The labor arbiter likewise ordered the payment of attorney’s fees. The dispositive portion of her decision reads, viz.:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING the complaint for illegal dismissal. This notwithstanding, the respondent PRIMARY STRUCTURES CORPORATION is hereby directed to pay complainants, as follows:
DANILO J. NACARIO – P 8,742.00 DOMINGO BAÑO – 8,742.00 TOTAL P 17,484.00 Add: 10% Attorney’s Fees 1,748.40 GRAND TOTAL P19,232.00 in concept of holiday pay and attorney’s fees either in cash or in manager’s check payable to the NLRC-RAB VII, Cebu City, through the Cashier of this Arbitration Branch, within ten (10) days from receipt of this Decision and further, to submit a manifestation/compliance of this directive attaching thereto a copy of the evidence of payment, immediately thereafter.
All other claims are DISMISSED for being dropped/abandoned or for lack of specifics/failure to substantiate and/or for lack of merit.
The case and the claims against the individual respondents WILLIAM LIU and PAULETTE D. LIU are DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[8]
Petitioners appealed to the NLRC.[9] They insisted that they were regular employees since the signatures in the appointment letters were forged. According to petitioners, their supposed project employment existed only in their contracts but in reality, they were regular employees since they were continuously engaged and their employments were not specified only to a certain project. Since they were regular employees, they were illegally dismissed when they were terminated. Consequently, they were entitled to full backwages, separation pay, damages and attorney’s fees.
The NLRC, however, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the labor arbiter’s decision that petitioners were project employees. Petitioners moved for reconsideration[10] but the NLRC denied their motion.
Hence, petitioners brought this petition raising the following issues, viz.:
I. WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC RESPONDENT NLRC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF THE LABOR ARBITER THAT HEREIN PETITIONERS ARE PROJECT EMPLOYEES AND THEIR DISMISSAL WAS LEGAL;
II. WHETHER OR NOT THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DID NOT GRANT THE MONETARY CLAIMS OF THE PETITIONERS.
This Court’s Ruling
The petition is unimpressed with merit.
Petitioners insist that they were regular employees and that they worked for private respondents without interruption. They ask this Court to look into the daily equipment utilization reports purportedly showing that they were always sent to various project sites for the purpose of augmenting the labor needs in private respondents’ projects. According to petitioners, the intermittent periods were allegedly fabricated by private respondents to make it appear that they were project employees. Petitioners also reiterated that the signatures in the contracts were forged. As for their money claims, petitioners argued that since they were regular employees who were illegally dismissed, they were entitled to backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, damages and attorney’s fees.
Generally, in a certiorari proceeding such as this case, this Court does not assess and weigh each piece of evidence introduced in the case and which were used by the labor arbiter and the NLRC to justify their decisions. Instead, Our query is limited to the determination of whether or not the NLRC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in rendering its decision.[11] We examine only the factual findings of the NLRC to determine whether or not its conclusions are supported by substantial evidence.
After scrutinizing the record, We find that no grave abuse of discretion could be ascribed to the NLRC for affirming the labor arbiter’s findings that petitioners were project employees.
Firstly, it was undisputed that Primary Structures is a construction company. Petitioners themselves admitted that they were sent to various project sites depending on the labor requirements of Primary Structure’s projects. Private respondents’ several re-hirings of petitioners’ services did not qualify the latter as regular employees. Jurisprudence has recognized that the length of service of a project employee is not the controlling test of employment tenure but whether or not the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee.[12]
More importantly, it has also been ruled that it would be unfair to consider length of service as a yardstick for determining the status of one’s employment in the construction business. The Supreme Court has explicitly recognized[13] the following realities in such type of business, to wit: (1) that construction firms cannot guarantee work and funding for its payrolls beyond the life of each project; and (2) that getting a project is not a matter of course as construction companies have no control over the decisions and resources of project proponents or owners. Hence, since the availability of work in the construction business depended on decisions and developments over which construction companies have no say, the termination of employment at the end of projects is expected and valid, so long as the contractor-employer complies with the legal requirements. In this case, private respondents had sufficiently shown with documentary evidence that they complied with these requirements. Hence, We cannot validate petitioners’ claim that they were private respondents’ regular employees and were illegally dismissed.
Secondly, the NLRC’s conclusion that petitioners were project employees was derived from the numerous documentary evidence submitted by private respondents, which substantially proved the fact that petitioners were, indeed, engaged for specific projects and that the termination of their engagement was made known to them at the onset of their employment. The documents relied upon by the NLRC for its ruling also included the notices of completion sent to petitioners and to the DOLE.
Thirdly, the daily equipment utilization report which petitioners asked Us to look into, as well as the other documentary evidence that they banked upon for their claim of having rendered uninterrupted service, had already been thoroughly evaluated by the NLRC but the Commission was not convinced thereof. The NLRC declared, thus:
We are also not convinced by complainant’s allegation that they were regularly assigned to work at respondent corporation’s Equipment Department. Most of the Daily Equipment Utilization Reports presented by complainants do not show that the same were prepared by respondents. Complainants also assert that their work with respondent corporation was continuous and uninterrupted. However, the documents they have presented to prove such claim do not show that they were indeed working on the dates outside the period indicated by respondents. The Weekly Payroll for the period, 27 October 2009 to 9 November 2009, also does not show who prepared the same. Hence We cannot give said documents much evidentiary value.[14]
Fourthly, the crucial issue regarding the alleged forgeries in the signatures of petitioners as affixed in their engagement contracts, had also been thoroughly threshed out, even when the case was still before the labor arbiter. The matter was again re-examined by the NLRC when the case was appealed, but the said body made the following observations, thus:
xxx Complainants, however, failed to present substantial evidence to support their allegation. Their allegation that the signatures appearing on the said appointment letters and notices are not theirs is not supported by substantial evidence. A comparison between the signatures appearing on these documents with Nacario’s signature appearing in his complaint and verification has convinced Us x x x that the signature on the questioned documents are markedly similar to Nacario’s standard signatures. We note that even in the standard signatures, zigzag lines appear before finally ending with a straight line. The only difference is that in the standard signature, the zigzag lines appear closer to the “main body” of the signature, while in the questioned signature, the zigzag lines appear farther from such “main body” and closer to the tail. To our mind, the difference is minor. Considering the stroke in the questioned signature appears similar with that in the standard signatures, We are convinced that they belong to Nacario. Thus, We are inclined to agree with the Labor Arbiter’s observation that Nacario did affix his signature on the questioned documents. The same is true with the signature of Baño who did not even attempt to explain how and why We should disregard his signatures appearing on the appointment letters.[15]
It is well-settled that judicial review of labor cases does not go beyond the evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which its labor officials’ findings rest.[16] As such, the findings of facts and conclusion of the NLRC are generally accorded not only great weight and respect but even clothed with finality and deemed binding on the Court as long as they are supported by substantial evidence.[17]
We find no justification to deviate from the findings of the NLRC for as We have explained at the onset of Our discussion, it is not the function of this Court to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below or substitute the findings of fact of an administrative tribunal which has expertise in its special field.[18]
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated July 16, 2012 and Resolution dated September 21, 2012 of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC Case No. VAC-04-000263-2012 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Hernando, Chairperson and Azcarraga-Jacob, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 40-51.
[2] Rollo, pp. 201-221.
[3] Rollo, pp. 53-55.
[4] See Complaints, rollo, pp. 75-76.
[5] Rollo, pp. 98-101.
[6] See rollo, pp. 210-211.
[7] Art. 291. Money claims. All money claims arising from employer-employee relations accruing during the effectivity of this Code shall be filed within three (3) years from the time the cause of action accrued; otherwise they shall be forever barred. All money claims accruing prior to the effectivity of this Code shall be filed with the appropriate entities established under this Code within one (1) year from the date of effectivity, and shall be processed or determined in accordance with the implementing rules and regulations of the Code; otherwise, they shall be forever barred.
[8] Rollo, p. 220-221.
[9] See Memorandum on Appeal, rollo, pp. 222-227.
[10] Rollo, pp. 56-71.
[11] See Aklan Electric Cooperative, Incorporated v. NLRC, G.R. No. 121439. January 25, 2000.
[12] See Filipinas Pre-Fabricated Building Systems (Filsystems), Inc. vs. Puente, G.R. No. 153832. March 18, 2005.
[13] See William Uy Construction Corp. v. Trinidad, G.R. No. 183250. March 10, 2010.
[14] Rollo, p. 48.
[15] Rollo, p. 47.
[16] See G & M (Phil), Inc. v. Rivera, G.R. No. 141802. January 29, 2007.
[17] See P.J. Lhuillier Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 158758. April 29, 2005.
[18] See G & M (Phil), Inc. v. Rivera, G.R. No. 141802. January 29, 2007.