G.R. No. 105359. April 22, 1993
CAPITOL INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION GROUPS, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, THIRD DIVISION, PERCIVAL GRANADO (IN HIS CAPACITY AS SHERIFF OF THE NLRC), NATIONAL…
GRIRO-AQUINO J.:
This is a case where the findings of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) and the Labor Arbiter differed from each other. The Labor Arbiter held that the private
respondents were not regular, but project, employees who were validly dismissed
upon the termination of their project. The NLRC found otherwise and held the employer liable for their illegal
dismissal.
The private respondents were hired by the petitioner on different
dates to work in its various projects. Before entering upon their duties, each of them executed an employment
contract captioned “Appointment as Project Contract Worker,” which
contained the following stipulations:
“1. Your status is that of a contract worker
for JO #1172 CS project and such other projects as the
Company may designate and limited to the approximate period of project
requirements. The Company shall
exercise its prerogative, among others transferring or assigning you in such
place of working such shift as may be necessary.
“xxx xxx xxx.
“5. As a contract worker for a specific
project, your employment is temporary and terminates upon completion of the
project without any need for verbal or written notice and you are not entitled
to separation or termination pay.
“xxx xxx xxx.
“9. The completion of this contract or any
extension or renewal thereof does not entitle you to become regular employee of
the Company. Likewise, the Company is
not under any obligation to appoint you as a regular employee not withstanding
(sic) the total duration of this contract and/or any extension or renewal
thereof.” (p. 41, Rollo.)
Instead of being assigned at the job sites, the private
respondents were made to work as welder, inventory clerk, truck helper,
machinist, batteryman or warehouseman either at the Company’s Central Shop,
Central Warehouse, or Central Office, in Cainta, Rizal.
On November 1, 1990, the petitioner terminated the services of
the private respondents on the ground of completion of their projects.
The private respondents thereupon filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal against the company and/or its personnel coordinator, Gregorio M.
Noriega.
On May 30, 1991, the Labor Arbiter rendered judgment finding that
the private respondents were contract workers, hence, their employment was
coterminous with the completion of the particular projects to which they had
been assigned to work. Nevertheless,
the Labor Arbiter held that since the private respondents had spent the best
years of their lives in the service of the petitioner, they should receive
separation benefits at the rate of one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of
service, a fraction of six (6) months to be considered as one (1) whole
year. The Labor Arbiter also granted
their claims far service leave pay subject to the three-year prescriptive
period.
Both parties appealed to the NLRC.
On August 30, 1991, the NLRC set aside the Labor Arbiter’s
decision and issued a resolution:
1. declaring the
complainants to be regular employees;
2. declaring their
dismissal illegal;
3. ordering their reinstatement
to their former positions without loss of seniority rights; and
4. ordering the Capitol Industrial Construction Groups (now
petitioner) to pay the complainants their backwages from the date of their
dismissal until actual reinstatement.
Both parties filed motions for reconsideration.
On October 15, 1991, the NLRC rendered a resolution denying
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, but modified its decision by ordering
the payment of service incentive leave pay to the employees.
The company filed this petition for certiorari alleging
that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction in finding that the private respondents are regular employees
of the petitioner and ordering their reinstatement with full backwages and
other benefits.
Petitioner’s defense is mainly anchored on the employment
contract quoted above which is captioned “Appointment as Project Contract
Worker.” Petitioner contends that since private respondents are bound by
said contract which provides that they are contract workers, their tenure of
employment is coterminous with the completion of their assigned projects or
tasks. Further, it claimed that since
it maintains only one central shop and warehouse that caters to the company’s
various projects, workers hired for a
particular project may also be assigned in the central shop and warehouse
without violating the contract.
The above argument of the petitioner is devoid of merit. The NLRC did not err in holding that private respondents are
regular employees entitled to security of tenure. The evidence shows that the private respondents are not project
employees.
Article 280 of the Labor Code defines regular and casual employees:
“Art. 280. Regular and
Casual Employment. – The provisions of written agreement to the contrary
notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an
employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to
perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer, except where 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 or where the
work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is
for the duration of the season.”
Since the private respondents worked for the petitioner not only
for a specific period of time, but long after their supposed projects had been
finished, the Office of the Solicitor General correctly pointed out that:
“x x x Thus, in the cases of Roberto Villa, Joel Ballebas and
Arnel Tapore, they were all terminated in November 1990 when the projects (JO
#1165 and JO #1172) for which they were allegedly employed were completed in
1986 and June 1989, respectively (see p. 8, Annex ‘A’, Petition). This circumstance belies petitioner’s claim
that private respondents were hired for particular projects.” (p. 146, Rollo.)
The private respondents did not always work in the project
sites. They were sometimes assigned at
the Central Office which took care of administration, engineering, auditing,
and financing, or at the Central Shop which was responsible principally for the
maintenance and repair of company trucks, tools, and equipment, and the
transfer of materials to the project sites. They also worked in the Central Warehouse where company materials were
stored and issued. Clearly, they performed
tasks vital and indispensable to the efficient administration and completion of
the company’s various projects, hence, they were regular employees, i.e.,
employees who perform work “usually necessary and desirable in the
employer’s usual business or trade” (Art. 280. Labor Code). In the case of Magante vs. National Labor
Relations Commission, 185 SCRA 21, 27-28, we ruled that:
“Although petitioner had only rendered almost two years of
service, nevertheless this should not detract from his status of being a
regular employee because as correctly stated by the labor arbiter, the
determining factor of the status of complainant-petitioner or any worker is the
nature of the work performed by the latter and the place where he performed his
assignment.
“xxx xxx xxx.
“Moreover, if petitioner were employed as a ‘project employee’
private respondent should have submitted a report of termination to the nearest
public employment office every time his employment is terminated due to
completion of each construction project, as required by Policy Instruction No.
20.”
The NLRC correctly observed that:
“We view as
untenable the respondents’ position that the work of the complainants assigned
to the Central Shop were confined only to the repair and maintenance of vehicles
and equipment for a specific project, while those at the Central
Warehouse limited their duties to the inventory, distribution and
transportation of materials needed for a particular project. What We perceive to be more in tune with the realities of the
construction industry is that the Central Shop and Central Warehouse of the
respondent are the offices or departments tasked with the repair and
maintenance of vehicles and equipment used for various projects, whether
undertaken simultaneously or not, and for the inventory and distribution of
materials needed for the projects. By
this, We mean that the concerns of the employees in these two offices are not
limited only to a specific project but to all of the projects entered into by
their employer.
“This in fact is the assertion of complainants in their position
paper ‘they perform tasks vital and indispensable to the efficient
administration and completion of the company’s several projects
(underlining supplied) which the Labor Arbiter gave a wrong interpretation
(pages 8-9 of Decision, Rollo pp. 166-167).
“What We find disturbing is the averment of the respondents in
their Reply to Complainants’ Position Paper (Records, p. 136) to the effect
that the contract of the complainants; as project employees, are effective
until they have attended to the equipment backloaded to the Motor Pool in its
principal address at Cainta, after which, if they are not assigned to other
projects, then their services are terminated.
“We find as being against the nature of a project employment
the requirement of the respondents for the complainants to attend to the
equipment used in the projects, long after the completion thereof, it being Our
view that the inspection, repair and maintenance of the same is the area of
responsibility of those workers assigned to the Motor Pool.
“To our mind, the services of a project employee
ends with the completion of the project or a phase thereof to which he may have
been assigned, and there is no necessity to defer the termination of the
contract until after he shall have attended to the equipment that he may have
used, or for that matter, for any other task that may be required of him by his
employer.
“A rundown of the type of work and place of assignment of the
complainants, viz: Floro Cagomoc –
welder assigned to the Central Shop; Roberto Villa – inventory clerk, Central
Warehouse; Arnel Lapore – truck helper, Central Shop; Joel Ballebas – truck
helper, Central Shop; Henry Monte – machinist, Central Shop; and Antonio M. de
Guzman – batteryman, Central Shop would disclose that the aforenamed persons
were not assigned to a specific project, their appointment papers
notwithstanding.
“Hence, We hold that the complainants, by the very nature of
their work are regular non-project employees entitled to security
of tenure.” (pp. 31-33, Rollo.)
These factual findings of the NLRC should be “accorded not
only respect but also finality since they are supported by substantial
evidence” (Reyes & Lim Company, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations
Commission, 201 SCRA 7721).
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED
for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Cruz, (Chairman), Bellosillo, and
Quiason, JJ., concur.