De Ocampo, Jr. v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On September 30, 1980, 65 employees of Makati Development Corporation (MDC) were terminated due to the expiration of their contracts. On October 1, 1980, these employees filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. On October 8, 1980, the union filed a notice of strike on grounds of union-busting, subcontracting, and unfair labor practice. On October 14, 1980, a strike was declared. On November 4, 1980, MDC filed a motion to declare the strike illegal and applications for clearance to terminate 90 striking workers, 74 of whom were project employees under fixed-term contracts. Procedural History: Labor Arbiter Apolinar L. Sevilla denied MDC's applications for clearance and ordered the reinstatement of the individual complainants with back wages. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) modified this decision, granting clearance to dismiss union officers, considering the project employees' employment severed due to contract expiration (not illegal strike), and ordering the reinstatement of regular employees (except union officers) without back wages, or separation pay at their option. The Petition: Petitioners faulted the NLRC for grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the motion for reconsideration was filed out of time, the strike was illegal, and the separation of project employees was justified.
Issue(s)
Whether the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners was filed out of time. Whether the strike declared by the union was illegal. Whether the separation of the project employees was justified.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC decision but modified it by declaring the contract workers illegally separated and entitled to separation pay equivalent to one month's salary for every year of service. The Court ruled that the motion for reconsideration was filed on time. The strike was declared illegal under PD No. 823 as amended by PD No. 849. The separation of project employees was deemed illegal as their services were still needed for the ongoing project, and the termination appeared to be retaliatory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the motion for reconsideration: The Court found that the petitioners' motion for reconsideration was filed on time. Although the NLRC decision was rendered on June 7, 1984, the petitioners only received a copy on June 13, 1984. The reglementary period for filing a motion for reconsideration commenced from the date of receipt, making the filing on June 26, 1984, within the then-applicable fifteen-day period. The Court clarified that the new rules on motions for reconsideration, which provided a ten-day period, were not yet in force at the time of the resolution. On the illegality of the strike: The Court held that the strike was illegal under Presidential Decree No. 823, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 849. The strike was not based on unresolved economic issues, which was the only permissible ground for a strike at that time. Furthermore, the strike was declared only six days after the notice of strike and before the lapse of the mandatory thirty-day cooling-off period prescribed by law. This period was intended to allow for the resolution of differences between workers and management and to avoid strikes. On the separation of project employees: The Court ruled that the separation of the project employees was not justified, despite the expiration of their contracts. The Court distinguished this case from the general rule that contract workers are not considered regular employees, citing Cartagenas v. Romago Electric Co.. In this instance, the project was still ongoing, and the workers' services were still required for its completion. The termination was not due to unsatisfactory service, nor was it alleged by the respondent. The Court concluded that the real reason for their termination was their participation in the complaint and strike, making them persona non grata to management, and that MDC sought to retaliate by replacing them with more tractable employees. The Court also invoked Policy Instruction No. 20 of the Department of Labor, interpreting it to mean that project employees are entitled to separation pay if their projects are not completed at the time of termination, even if their contracts have expired, provided their services were still needed. Therefore, the project workers were entitled to separation pay.
Main Doctrine
Project employees whose services are terminated before the completion of the project, even if their contracts have expired, are entitled to separation pay if their separation was not for a valid cause, particularly when the termination appears to be retaliatory for their participation in a strike or filing of complaints.