Fegurin v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioners, employed by Francisco Cacho & Co. as carpenters, masons, and laborers, filed a complaint alleging they were regular and permanent workers illegally dismissed on September 28, 1977, due to union activities. The company contended that the petitioners were project workers whose employment automatically terminated upon completion of their respective project phases, citing individual employment contracts and a submitted report of termination. The company asserted that the termination was not discriminatory, as 27 employees were involved in the report. 2. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter dismissed the petitioners' complaint, finding that their employment contracts indicated they were project employees and that their separation was due to the completion of work phases, not union activities. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision but ordered the company to rehire the petitioners for future projects. The petitioners then sought review by the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: The petitioners assail the NLRC's resolution, arguing it was issued with grave abuse of discretion. They contend they are regular and permanent employees, citing their long tenure with the company (some since 1968), membership in the SSS, and recognition as permanent workers in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between their union and the company. The petitioners also highlight Social Security System records showing their earlier dates of coverage, contradicting the company's assertion of project-based employment. The Supreme Court, after initially dismissing the petition for late filing, reconsidered and granted due course, ultimately finding the petitioners to be regular and permanent employees and ordering their reinstatement with backwages.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioners are regular and permanent employees or project workers. Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Ruling
The Petition for certiorari is granted. The Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission, dated October 29, 1979, is SET ASIDE. Private respondent, Francisco Cacho & Co., Inc., is ordered to reinstate petitioners and pay each of them their backwages for three years.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether petitioners are regular and permanent employees or project workers: The Supreme Court found merit in petitioners' stand that they are regular and permanent employees. Under Article 281 of the Labor Code, an employment is deemed regular where the employee performs activities usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except when the employment is fixed for a specific project or undertaking with a determined completion or termination at the time of engagement, or is seasonal. The Court noted that four petitioners had worked for nine years, one for eight years, another for six years, and the shortest term was three years, contradicting the Company's claim of project employment based on notices of employment that indicated much shorter service periods. Furthermore, the nature of their work as carpenters, laborers, or masons suggests continuous and ongoing tasks, implying they belonged to a "work pool" and were thus "non-project employees" as per Policy Instructions No. 20 of the Minister of Labor. The Court also highlighted the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the Union and the Company, which categorically recognized petitioners as regular and permanent employees effective May 1, 1976, for the purpose of forming a core group of permanent and regular construction workers. The Court emphasized that the terms of the CBA constitute the law between the parties and must be complied with. Even disregarding the CBA, the Court considered the letter from the Social Security System (SSS) Production Manager, which showed the Company had reported petitioners for SSS registration with coverage dates dating back to 1968 and 1969, implicitly admitting their actual lengths of service and contradicting the shorter periods stated in the Notices of Employment. The Solicitor General also opined that petitioners are regular and permanent employees and recommended their reinstatement with backwages. On the issue of whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion: The Supreme Court found that the NLRC, by affirming the Labor Arbiter's decision that petitioners were project workers despite substantial evidence to the contrary, overlooked and failed to appreciate crucial evidence such as the SSS records and the CBA. This failure to consider evidence that clearly established petitioners' status as regular employees, and the subsequent dismissal of their complaint for illegal dismissal, constituted grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court's reconsideration of the petition for late filing and its ultimate grant of the petition underscore the gravity of the procedural and substantive errors committed by the public respondents in their appreciation of the facts and the law.
Main Doctrine
Employees who have rendered at least one year of service or perform activities usually necessary or desirable in the usual business of the employer are considered regular employees, regardless of any written agreement to the contrary. Membership in 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.