EUGENIO DE JESUS, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION (FORMERLY CDCP), AND NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS.

De Jesus versus Philippine National Construction Corporation

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Eugenio de Jesus, a carpenter, against his former employer, the Philippine National Construction Corporation, formerly known as CDCP, and the National Labor Relations Commission. De Jesus asks the Supreme Court to set aside the Commission's ruling that affirmed his dismissal and to declare that he was illegally terminated. The case matters because it is a working illustration of how the Supreme Court reads Article 280 of the Labor Code on regular and project employment, and of how far the Court will go to protect a laborer against a technical defense raised by a company that concealed the truth from the labor arbiter.

Procedural History

De Jesus first filed a complaint before the labor arbiter, initially for separation pay, later amended to demand reinstatement for illegal dismissal, backwages, and legal benefits. The labor arbiter dismissed the complaint. He appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission, which at first dismissed the appeal as filed out of time, then on reconsideration affirmed the labor arbiter's decision. De Jesus then came to the Supreme Court by petition, and the Court allowed him to prosecute the case as a pauper litigant. The Solicitor General filed a manifestation informing the Court that, on his own assessment, he could not defend the Commission's decision. The Government Corporate Counsel appeared for the company in place of the Solicitor General.

Facts

De Jesus worked as a carpenter for the Philippine National Construction Corporation. In September 1984, while on duty at Apalit, Pampanga, where the company was building the Apalit Bridge, he vomited blood and was treated at the company clinic, after which he was sent home. When he reported back in December 1984, he was no longer accepted; the company's general manager, Moises Chiu, told him he had been replaced. From January to September 1985 he sought reinstatement but was repeatedly rebuffed.

The company's records, its so-called 201 file, showed that he had been hired as Carpenter II on March 31, 1984, that his appointment stated he was employed only for the period and specific works stated therein, that as a project worker he was covered by Policy Instructions Number 20, that his separation was due to completion of the project, and that he had signed a clearance acknowledging receipt of all remuneration due him.

Before the Supreme Court, De Jesus attached personnel action forms showing appointments for specific projects from June 1974 through May 1984, and showing that since January 1978 he had been a member of the CDCP Employees Savings and Loan Association. On these facts he claimed regular, not project, status, terminable only for a lawful cause.

Issues

• Whether or not De Jesus was a project employee or a regular employee under Article 280 of the Labor Code.
• Whether or not his termination on the ground of completion of the project was valid.
• Whether or not the personnel action forms may be considered by the Supreme Court despite not having been presented before the labor arbiter.
• Whether or not the quitclaim he signed bars his claim.

Applicable Provisions

Article 280 of the Labor Code provides:

Article 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.

This is the test the Court applied to decide whether De Jesus was a true project employee or a regular one.

The same Article continues:

An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, That, any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such actually exists.

This supplied the alternative ground: even if not a project employee, his years of service made him regular with respect to the activity in which he was employed.

Policy Instructions Number 20 of the Secretary of Labor, which the decision quotes, provides in part:

Members of a work pool from which a construction company draws its project employees, if considered employees of the construction company while in the work pool, are non-project employees or employees for an indefinite period.

This bore on the case because the Court found De Jesus was either a member of such a work pool or a probationary worker who had attained regular status.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that De Jesus was a non-project employee entitled to regular employment, having rendered service for more than ten years. A carpenter performs work necessary or desirable in the construction business. The fact that he was involved in project works did not alter his status, because the law requires a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of engagement. His appointment stated that his employment would be co-terminus with the need of structures of the North Luzon Expressway Stage II, as it would necessitate personnel in such number and duration contingent upon the progress accomplishment from time to time, and that the company would determine the personnel and the number as the work progresses. The Court reasoned that the engagement was not pre-determined because its duration was contingent upon progress accomplishment, and the company was free to determine the personnel as the work progressed. The employment was subject to no term but rather a condition, so it could not be said to be definite, and the company was not exempt from Article 280.

On the second issue, because he was a regular employee, he could not have been validly terminated by reason alone of the completion of the project.

On the third issue, the Court acknowledged that it is normally bound by the factual findings of the National Labor Relations Commission, but that rule yields where it would defeat, rather than enhance, the State protection to labor guaranteed by the Constitution. The company had known all along, but concealed from the labor arbiter, that De Jesus had been working for the firm since 1974; it insisted he joined only in 1984; and it took unfair advantage of his unfamiliarity with procedure. The company never denied the genuineness or existence of the personnel action forms. To allow its objection on nebulous pretenses of violation of due process would reward it for its own breach of faith.

On the fourth issue, the Court refused to accept the quitclaim as a genuine act of remission. Nothing in it suggested any acceptance by De Jesus of his termination. It was couched in English, and the company did not show that he understood English. Under the Civil Code, it was incumbent on the respondent to show that the terms had been fully explained, and it made no such showing.

Doctrine

An employee is a project employee only 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 engagement. Where the duration is contingent upon progress accomplishment and the employer remains free to determine the personnel as work progresses, the engagement is subject to a condition, not a term, and the employee is regular. Work necessary or desirable in the employer's usual business is regular employment, written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding. The factual findings of the National Labor Relations Commission are binding on the Court except where they would defeat the constitutional protection to labor. And a quitclaim in a language the worker does not understand, without proof that its terms were fully explained to him, is not a valid remission.

Disposition

The petition was granted; De Jesus was reinstated and awarded backwages based on the latest pay scale for Carpenter II equivalent to three years, without qualification or deduction.

Remember This

Memorize the line: a project employment must have its completion or termination determined at the time of engagement; a duration contingent on progress accomplishment is a condition, not a term, and makes the worker regular. Examiners use this case on Article 280 project versus regular employment, on the exception to the binding force of the Commission's factual findings, and on the invalidity of quitclaims not shown to have been fully explained to the worker.