JACA CONSTRUCTION AND MANAGEMENT CORPORATION AND ARNULFO D. MONDERIN, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION) AND MARIO DIOLA, RESPONDENTS.
BARRIOS, M. M., J.:
for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
assailing, on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction, the Resolution dated 12 January 2011[1] of the National Labor Relations Commission that overturned the decision of the Labor Arbiter. The decretal part reads:
x x x
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE,
and a new one entered, declaring Respondents to have illegally
dismissed Complainant, who is hereby ordered reinstated without the loss
of seniority rights and privileges, and paid full backwages up to
reinstatement.SO ORDERED.”
x x x
Likewise assailed is the Resolution[2] dated 24 March 2011 denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
The Antecedents
Private respondent was employed by petitioner-corporation on
August 2008 and was initially assigned as helper in the Septic Tank
Project of petitioner. He was thereafter transferred to Pudong Tool
Transfer Project at CV2 Numonyx Phils. Later on, private respondent was
assigned in South Forbes, Barangay Inchican, Silang, Cavite, and
lastly, as a welder in the Madison Project of petitioner on March 2010.
After the completion of the last project, Engr. Arvin Burgos informed
private respondent that he will just summon the latter for the next
project. However, private respondent did not receive any call for the
next project; and when he inquired, he was asked to wait. On 07 April
2010, with no probable work assignment from petitioner, private
respondent filed an illegal dismissal case against petitioner praying
for reinstatement, full backwages and other monetary benefits.
On
the other hand, petitioner averred that it is engaged in the
construction business and undertake the specific projects of its
clients. Private respondent was hired as a project employee in
connection with several projects pursued by petitioner. Accordingly,
several contracts of employment written in Pilipino were executed by the
parties whereby the services of private respondent were engaged for a
fixed period for the specific project assigned to him. Thus, for the
Pudong Tool Transfer Project undertaken for Numonyx Phils., petitioner
hired private respondent for a three (3) month period from 15 January
2009 until 15 April 2009. Then, the latter was re-hired as helper in
the same project from 15 May 2009 until 15 August 2009. Thereafter,
private respondent was again hired as helper for the Madison South
Subdivision (Hillary Phase 2) project in Calamba, Laguna from 15
September 2009 until 15 December 2009, and then again, from 15 January
2010 until 15 April 2010 in another phase (Nancy Phase I) of the
subdivision project. After the aforesaid housing project contract was
completed, private respondent was notified that his employment was
terminated due to the completion of the project for which he was hired.
Petitioners maintain that private respondent was a project employee,
and not a regular employee.
On 29 June 2010, the Labor Arbiter
rendered a decision dismissing private respondent’s complaint for lack
of merit. The Labor Arbiter posited that private respondent was a
project employee and was not illegally dismissed inasmuch as his
employment automatically ceased after the completion of the specific
project for which he was hired by petitioner.
On appeal,
however, public respondent NLRC reversed the decision of the Labor
Arbiter per its Resolution dated 12 January 2011, and ruled that there
was illegal dismissal and therefore awarded money claims in favor of
private respondent. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration,
but this was denied in a Resolution dated 24 March 2011. Hence, this
instant petition premised on the following arguments:
I.
PUBLIC RESPONDENT NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN RULING THAT PRIVATE
RESPONDENT MARIO DIOLA WAS A REGULAR EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY SINCE AUGUST 29, 2008, WHO WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED ON MARCH 27,
2010, CONTRARY TO THE ADMITTED FACTS AND RECORDS OF THE CASE.
II.
PUBLIC RESPONDENT NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND CONTRARY TO LAW AND
EXISTING JURISPRUDENCE, (sic) IN DECLARING PRIVATE RESPONDENT TO BE
ENTITLED TO REINSTATEMENT AND PAYMENT OF BACK WAGES AND EMPLOYEE
BENEFITS.
III.
PUBLIC RESPONDENT NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND CONTRARY TO LAW AND
EXISTING JURISPRUDENCE, (sic) IN DECLARING PETITIONERS LIABLE TO THE
“TWIN RELIEFS” OF REINSTATEMENT AND PAYMENT OF FULL BACK WAGES UNTIL
REINSTATEMENT, (sic) AS PRAYED FOR BY PRIVATE RESPONDENT.
The Court’s Ruling
The petition is meritorious.
The principal test for determining whether particular
employees are properly characterized as “project employees”, as
distinguished from “regular employees”, is whether or not the “project
employees” were assigned to carry out a “specific project or
undertaking”, the duration and scope of which were specified at the time
the employees were engaged for that project. As defined, project
employees are those workers hired (1) for a specific project or
undertaking, and (2) the completion or termination of such project or
undertaking has been determined at the time of engagement of the
employee.[3]
Reviewing the records, We immediately take note that all the
employment contracts signed by private respondent Mario Diola is titled
“Kontrata ng Gawain (Project Basis Contract)” and clearly indicated the
specific project or undertaking for which he was hired, e.g. “Pudong
Tool Transfer Project”, “Residential Housing Project – Madison South
Subdivision (Hillary Phase 2)”. Said employment contracts also indicate
the specific period of employment, the latest being “Enero 15, 2010 matatapos sa o bago mag Abril 15, 2010”. Moreover, there is even a clear agreement on the termination of respondent’s employment, viz: “Kung
sakaling pansamantala o tuluyang mahinto o matapos ang trabaho sa
nabanggit na proyekto, kayo ay maaring tanggalin o bawasan sa trabaho,
at wala magiging pananagutan ang kumpanya sa pagtetermena ng inyong
kontrata ng gawain.”
From these factors, it is clearly
evident that respondent Diola knew fully well that his emloyment is not
regular but for a specific period and project only.
In this regard, We quote with approbation the ruling of the Labor Arbiter, thus:
x x x
“We hold that Complainant was a project employee
considering that he was hired for specific projects or undertakings the
completion or termination of which had been determined at the time of
his engagement. (Article 280, Labor Code)Specifically, admitted by Complainant in his Position Paper,
His first work for Respondent JCMC was, as Helper in “Septic Tank
Project”; then in “PUDONG Tool Transfer Project” for CV2 Numonyx Phils.;
next, in “South Forbes”, also, a project in Brgy. Inchican, Silang
Cavite, and lastly, in “Madison Project” as a Welder”. (Page 1, pars. 6
and 7, Complainant’s Position Paper)Complainant further admitted that “on March 26, 2010, the
last day of the Madison Project”, he was informed by Engr. Arvin Burgos
that he would be called “for the next project”. (Page 1, par. 8, ibid)
And it was when he was not assigned to any project, and was “just told
to wait”, that he filed the present labor complainant.Thus, undisputedly, by Complainant’s own allegation, his
last work for Respondents was in the Madison Project, the “last day” of
which was on March 26, 2010. This fact is even corroborated by the
evidence that the said completed project was actually accepted by the
project owner on March 30, 2010, for purposes of processing the final
billing of Respondent Construction Company as Contractor. (CF, Annex
“4”, Respondent’s Position Paper)His project at Madison having been completed on March 26,
2010, his employment automatically ceased on that date pursuant to his
last project employment contract. It cannot thus be figured by any
stretch of the imagination how he could be illegally dismissed.Concordantly, Complainant is not therefore
entitled to 1) position reinstatement, 2) full backwages and other
benefits payment and 3) continuous enjoyment of seniority rights and
privileges.”x x x
We find as reasonable, logical and just the petitioner’s
explication that the usual standard of considering length of service to
determine when the employment of an employee becomes permanent cannot be
applied to the construction industry; as it would be unfair and
prejudicial because construction firms cannot guarantee work and payroll
beyond the termination of a project. The employment of a project
employee should end on the date specified in the contract or upon the
completion of the project. Here, the latest project where private
respondent worked (i.e. Madison South Subdivision – Julia Phase 3) was
completed and actually turned over on 30 March 2010.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated 12 January 2011[4] and the Resolution[5] dated 24 March 2011 of the National Labor Relations Commission are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE, and the Decision[6] dated 29 June 2010 of Labor Arbiter Robert A. Jerez dismissing private respondent’s complaint is hereby REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
Reyes, Jr., (Chairperson) and Pizarro, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 19-26.
[2] Id., pp. 28-29.
[3] Grandspan Development Corporation vs. Bernardo, G.R. No. 141464, September 21, 2005, 470
SCRA 461.
[4] Supra note 1.
[5] Supra note 2.
[6] Rollo, pages 41 to 47.