Fernandez v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ricardo Fernandez was hired as a laborer by D.M. Consunji, Inc., a construction firm, on November 5, 1974. He became a skilled welder and worked for the company until March 23, 1986, when his employment was terminated due to the alleged completion of the project he was assigned to. Skeptical of this reason, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, which was consolidated with three other similar complaints. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on May 12, 1988, finding the terminations illegal and ordering reinstatement with backwages for those not yet of retirement age, and retirement/separation benefits for those who had reached retirement age. The Labor Arbiter also ordered payment of service incentive leave and 13th-month pay for some complainants. The private respondent appealed, arguing that the complainants were project employees hired on a project-to-project basis. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision on September 29, 1989, finding the complainants to be project employees and dismissing their complaints. A motion for reconsideration was denied on July 19, 1991. The Petition: Petitioner Ricardo Fernandez filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court on July 21, 1992, assailing the NLRC's decision, contending that he and the other complainants should be considered regular employees.
Issue(s)
Whether the National Labor Relations Commission acted with grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Labor Arbiter's decision. Whether petitioner Ricardo Fernandez and other complainants were project employees or regular employees. Whether the petition for certiorari was filed within a reasonable time.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC's finding that the complainants were project employees and that their dismissal was valid upon project completion. The Court also found the petition to be filed beyond a reasonable period.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion: Even if the timeliness issue were dispensed with, the petition would still be dismissed on the merits. The private respondent presented material documents showing that petitioner was hired as a project employee with specific dates of hiring, duration, and lay-offs, including lay-off and termination reports submitted to the Ministry of Labor and Employment. These documents covered the period from November 5, 1974, to March 23, 1986. The clear gaps between the hiring in numerous projects indicated that petitioner worked intermittently, not continuously, and was hired solely for specific projects. This aligns with Policy Instruction No. 20, which defines project employees as those employed in connection with a particular construction project. The Court disagreed with petitioner's reliance on the proviso in the second paragraph of Article 280, which states that any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee. Citing Mercado v. NLRC, the Court clarified that this proviso applies only to "casual" employees and is not applicable to "project" employees, who are specifically excepted. The proviso's purpose is to qualify the immediately preceding phrase and not to alter the general rule regarding project employment. Furthermore, the Court found that the complainants, including petitioner, failed to meet the requirement of Policy Instruction No. 20 for membership in a work pool. To qualify, a worker must be considered an employee of the construction company even while in the work pool, meaning they must be on call and not free to offer services to other employers. Petitioner failed to present evidence of such an obligation. Furthermore, the private respondent's faithful submission of lay-off and termination reports to the Ministry of Labor and Employment every time a project was completed, as required by Policy Instruction No. 20, distinguished this case from others where failure to report led to a finding of regular employment. This consistent reporting proved the intermittent nature of the workers' employment as project employees. On whether the complainants were project employees: The private respondent presented material documents showing that petitioner was hired as a project employee with specific dates of hiring, duration, and lay-offs, including lay-off and termination reports submitted to the Ministry of Labor and Employment. These documents covered the period from November 5, 1974, to March 23, 1986. The clear gaps between the hiring in numerous projects indicated that petitioner worked intermittently, not continuously, and was hired solely for specific projects. This aligns with Policy Instruction No. 20, which defines project employees as those employed in connection with a particular construction project. On the timeliness of the petition: The Court held that the petition was not filed within a reasonable time from receipt of the questioned decision on November 13, 1989, as it was filed on July 21, 1992. Even reckoning from the denial of the motion for reconsideration on August 2, 1991, the petitioner waited for almost one year before availing of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari. The Court reiterated that the "yardstick to measure the timeliness of a petition for certiorari is the reasonableness of the duration of time that had expired from the commission of the acts complained of up to the institution of the proceedings to annul the same." Petitioner's negligence or indifference rendered the questioned decision final and no longer assailable.
Main Doctrine
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. The proviso in Article 280 of the Labor Code, which deems casual employees with at least one year of service as regular employees, is not applicable to project employees.