G.R. No. 95816. October 27, 1992
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND JEOFFREY G. GABAYA, EGMEDIO ARINES, JAIME ALLAPITAN, ROBERTO BALAJADIA, L…
GRINO-AQUINO, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the
Resolution*
dated October 19, 1990 of public respondent National Labor Relations Commission
(First Division) (hereinafter referred to as NLRC for brevity) which affirmed
the November 19, 1989 decision of Labor Arbiter Jose de Vera in NCR Cases Nos.
00-04-1890-89, 00-05-02388-89, 00-06-02633-89 and 00-06-02078-89 granting
separation pay to the complainants, herein private respondents.
Petitioner Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC for
brevity) is a government owned and controlled corporation engaged in general
construction work both in the Philippines and abroad. Private respondents were employed by the PNCC until their
retrenchment as specified hereunder:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(p. 65, Rollo.)
Sometime in February, 1989, PNCC embarked upon a retrenchment
program and notified its employees, including the private respondents, through individual
form letters which read in part:
“As we all know, it is the declared policy of the State that
whenever and whereever possible, the government shall privatize all business
enterprises owned or controlled by it, one of which is the construction business
of PNCC. This matter has been announced
by a management memorandum at a much earlier date. You will also note that we have avoided bidding for new projects
and have slowed down operations in some areas. In view of this, we are constrained to reduce the company’s workforce
gradually until the sale of the construction business shall have been
completed.
“It is my painful task to advise you that your employment with
PNCC will be terminated effective 30 days from date hereof under a special
separation program which provides more benefits than what the law requires.
“You will receive separation benefits according to the
following formula:
“1. One Hundred Percent (100%) of the
latest Monthly Basic Salary for entitled employees with at least one (1) year
but less than ten (10) years of completed/credited service in the Company.
“2. One Hundred Twenty-Five Percent (125%)
of the latest Monthly Basic Salary for entitled employees with at least ten
(10) years and above completed/credited service in the Company.
“3. For
entitled employees who have completed at least one (1) full year service, a
fraction of at least six (6) months in their succeeding months/years of service
shall be considered as one (1) year for the purpose of computing their separation
benefits entitlement.” (pp. 33-34,
Rollo.)
Believing that they had been underpaid their separation benefits
(or not paid at all, as in the case of Alfredo T. Gabriel), the private
respondents filed four (4) separate complaints in the NLRC (NCR Cases Nos.
00-04-01890-89, 00-05-02388-89, 00-06-02633-89 and 00-06-02078-89) for the
payment of said benefits.
During the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter, it was
established that, except for respondent Egmedio Arines, the other respondents
had been assigned to foreign projects of the company. Under the “Agreement for Overseas Assignment,” a
temporary foreign assignment would not interrupt the employees’ length of
service in the company and any employee who completed his foreign assignment
would be credited 1.5 years of service for every year of continuous service in
such foreign assignment. Petitioner
PNCC did not deny the overseas assignments of the following employees:
1.
Jeoffrey Gabaya –
December 5, 1978 to December 6,
1980 August 6, 1981 to August 9, 1983 (Malaysia)
2.
Jaime Allapitan – March
11, 1981 to February 11, 1983 (Iraq)
3.
Roberto Balajadia –
October 4, 1981 to August 21, 1983
(Iraq)
4.
Luciano Lacorta –
June 7, 1979 to July 11, 1985
(Malaysia)
5.
Agapito Lundang –
December 15, 1978 to June 1, 1982
(Saudi Arabia)
6.
Ponciano Pepito –
1979 to 1984 (Malaysia)
7.
Remigio Mequiota – 1978 to 1984 (Malaysia)
8.
Ernesto Venancio –
January 11, 1979 to August 8, 1983
(Saudi Arabia)
9.
Isabelo de Castro –
1981 to 1983 (Iraq)
10.
Ricardo Dimanlig –
October 30, 1981 to September 30,
1983 (Iraq)
11.
Perfecto Raymundo – 1981 to 1983 (Iraq)
12.
Alfredo Gabriel –
1979 to 1982 (Saudi Arabia)
13.
Alfredo Ramos –
September 4, 1982 to December 15,
1983 (Iraq)
On the other hand, the above private respondents admitted that
they had no project assignments on the following dates:
1.
Jeoffrey Gabaya –
August 10, 1983 to January 8, 1986
2.
Egmedio Arines –
1985 to 1986
3.
Jaime Allapitan –
February 12, 1983 to March 13,
1985
4.
Roberto Balajadia –
August 22, 1983 to February 15,
1985
5.
Luciano Lacorta –
June 7, 1985 to February 4, 1987
6.
Agapito Lundang –
June 1, 1982 to March 5, 1985
7.
Ponciano Pepito –
October 7, 1984 to January 13,
1986
8.
Remigio Mequiota – November 18, 1984 to December 11, 1986
9.
Ernesto Venancio –
August 10, 1983 to January 2, 1985
10.
Isabelo de Castro –
1983 to 1986
11.
Ricardo Dimanlig –
October, 1983 to September, 1987
12.
Perfecto Raymundo – 1983 to February 1988
13.
Alfredo Gabriel –
October 24, 1985 to August 22,
1988
14.
Alfredo Ramos –
December 16, 1983 to January, 1985
Thus, based on their employment records,
both local and overseas, less the period when they had no project assignment,
the Labor Arbiter credited each private respondent with the following length of
service with the PNCC.
1.
Jeoffrey Gabaya – 16
years, 4 months & 15 days
2.
Egmedio Arines – 13
years, 11 months & 19 days
3.
Jaime Allapitan – 17
years, 11 months & 27 days
4.
Roberto Balajadia – 15
years, 2 months & 10 days
5.
Luciano Lacorta – 24
years, 9 months & 11 days
6.
Agapito Lundang – 18
years, 6 months & 4 days
7.
Ponciano Pepito – 22
years, 8 months & 17 days
8.
Remigio Mequiota – 20
years, 10 months & 10 days
9.
Ernesto Venancio – 19
years, 4 months & 14 days
10.
Isabelo de Castro – 13
years, 8 months & 19 days
11.
Ricardo Dimanlig – 10
years & 3 months
12.
Perfecto Raymundo – 11
years, 9 months & 29 days
13.
Alfredo Gabriel – 19
years & 8 days
14.
Alfredo Ramos – 11
years & 7 months.
In a decision dated November 19, 1989, the Labor Arbiter ruled
that in providing a retrenchment program for its employees, the PNCC expressly
admitted that respondents were not project employees. Hence, pursuant to the provision of the retrenchment program that
employees with more than ten (10) years of credited service shall receive
separation benefits equivalent to 125% of the latest monthly basic salary for
each year of service, the Labor Arbiter ordered the payment of separation
benefits as follows:
“WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises being considered,
judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondent company to pay complainants the
latter’s separation benefits as follows:
Alfredo
Gabaya – P48,826.40
Egmedio
Arines – 58,065.00
Jaime
Allapitan – 59,436.00
Roberto
Balajadia – 41,250.00
Luciano
Lacorta – 66,950.00
Agapito
Lundang – 56,050.00
Ponciano
Pepito – 68,367.50
Remigio
Mequiota – 60,900.00
Ernesto
Venancio – 59,280.00
Isabelo
de Castro – 37,856.00
Ricardo
Dimanlig – 26,520.00
Perfecto
Raymundo – 28,860.00
Alfredo
Gabriel – 46,193.75
Alfredo
Ramos – 34,476.00
less whatever sums of money paid by
respondent to the above-named complainants by way of separation pay.
“Further, respondent is also ordered to pay complainants
attorney’s fees at the rate of 10% of whatever sum herein adjudicated in favor
of the complainants in accordance with the above disposition.” (pp. 39-40, Rollo.)
On appeal to the NLRC, the Commission affirmed the decision of
the Labor Arbiter and dismissed the appeal for lack of merit.
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari by the PNCC
which maintains that respondents are project employees within the purview of
Policy Instruction No. 20, hence, they are not entitled to separation pay. The company hires workers only if it has an
on-going project and terminates their employment once the project is
completed. It has been the policy of
the company to inform the workers hired that their employment is co-terminous
with the particular project for which they are hired and the continuation of
their service is dependent upon the continued demand for the worker’s
particular skill. When there is no
project for them to work on, respondents are free to seek employment with other
contractors.
Petitioner PNCC further submits that respondent’s claims against
the company are already barred by estoppel and prescription. When the services of the respondents were
terminated due to the completion of the project, they signed the quitclaim
incorporated in the Personnel Action Form. Not one of them registered his objection to this procedure which had been
followed several times in the past. For
failure to object to the quitclaims which they had voluntarily signed, the
private respondents are in estoppel to assert their present claims against the
company.
Petitioner further alleges that while the retrenchment program of
the company is intended to include only the project employees currently
employed in the projects of the company, the separation pay demanded by the
private respondents pertains to their past employment in the company’s projects
way back in 1976 and for which they have already received the corresponding
benefits. Respondent’s right of action
has prescribed.
Private respondents, on the other hand, hold that they are not
project employees because they were hired continuously for a series of projects
for several years. They were described
as either “regular” or “probationary” employees in their
employment papers and were given separation pay only in 1989. As held in Philippine National
Construction Corporation vs. NLRC (174 SCRA 191),
PNCC’s practice of rehiring an employee after the completion of every project
for several years, without reporting to the nearest public employment office,
the termination of the employment every time a project is completed, as
required under Policy Instruction No. 20, shows that the employee is a regular
employee and not a mere project employee.
The petition is bereft of merit.
Project employees are those whose work
is coterminous with the project for which they were hired (Sandoval Shipyards,
Inc. vs. NLRC, 136 SCRA 674). As
distinguished from regular or non-project employees, they are those who are
hired “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.” (Art. 280, Labor Code.)
However, in Philippine National Construction
Corporation vs. NLRC, (supra), a case involving the
petitioner and an oiler who had worked with the company for thirteen (13)
years, the Court affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s ruling that since the company had
rehired the oiler after the completion of every project and this
rehiring continued throughout the oiler’s period of employment, the latter was
a regular employee. The same
conclusion should be arrived at in this case where the private respondents had
been hired and rehired for the period of their respective employment with the
company which ranged from eleven years to more than twenty-four years.
Indeed, if the private respondents were project employees, the
petitioner should have submitted a report of their termination to the nearest
public employment office everytime their employment was terminated due to the
completion of the project, as required under Policy Instruction No. 20 which
provides:
“Project employees are not entitled to termination
pay if they are terminated as a result of the completion of the project
or any phase thereof in which they are employed, regardless of the number of
projects in which they have been employed by a particular construction
company. Moreover, the company is not
required to obtain a clearance from the Secretary of Labor in connection with
such termination. What is required of
the company is a report to the nearest Public Employment Office for statistical
purposes.” (PNCC vs. NLRC, 174 SCRA 191; Magante vs. NLRC, 185 SCRA 21,
28.)
The termination letter which PNCC sent to each of the private
respondents expressly promised them separation benefits. As observed by the Labor Arbiter, this is an
express admission by the petitioner that the private respondents are not
project employees for, as provided in Policy Instruction No. 20, “project
employees are not entitled to termination pay if they are terminated as a
result of the completion of the project or any phase thereof in which they are
employed.” (p. 13, Rollo.)
The fact that the respondents-employees signed quitclaims will
not bar them from pursuing their claims against the company for quitclaims
executed by laborers are frowned upon as contrary to public policy, and are
ineffective to bar claims for the full measure of the workers’ legal rights
(Lopez Sugar Corporation vs. Federation of Free Workers, 189 SCRA 179).
Petitioner’s contention that the respondents’ cause of action has
prescribed is not well taken. The
three-year prescriptive period under Article 291 of the Labor Code is counted
from the time the cause of action accrues. Respondents’ cause of action accrued only in March, 1989. The complaint for underpayment of separation
pay was filed on April 18, 1989, barely a month after their separation from
employment. Clearly, prescription had
not yet extinguished their claims.
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DENIED
for lack of merit and the Resolution dated October 19, 1990 of the NLRC is
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Padilla, (Acting Chairman), Medialdea, and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.
Cruz, J., (Chairman), on leave.
*
Penned by Presiding Commissioner Bartolome S. Carale and concurred in by
Commissioners Vicente S.E. Veloso III and Romeo Putong.