Samson v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Ismael Samson was employed by private respondent Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co., Manila, Inc. (AG & P) as a rigger since April 1965, working on various construction projects, including overseas assignments from 1977 to 1985. On November 5, 1989, Samson filed a complaint for conversion of his employment status from project to regular employee, claiming entitlement to benefits due to his considerable and continuous length of service. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter found Samson to be a regular employee, citing AG & P's failure to report project completions and terminations to the DOLE as required by DOLE Policy Instruction No. 20. The Labor Arbiter also noted that Samson was not free to offer his services to other employers and was part of a work pool, thus his employment was for an indefinite period. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, ruling that Samson was a project employee engaged for a fixed and determinable period, and that DOLE Department Order No. 19, Series of 1993, had superseded Policy Instruction No. 20, rendering the notice requirement non-essential for determining project employment. The Petition: Samson filed a petition for review on certiorari, which was treated as a special civil action for certiorari, assailing the NLRC's decision and arguing that he should be considered a regular employee.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner Ismael Samson is a project employee or a regular employee. Whether the failure to exhaust administrative remedies (filing a motion for reconsideration) is a fatal omission.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the NLRC and reinstated the decision of the Labor Arbiter, declaring petitioner Ismael Samson a regular employee.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether petitioner Ismael Samson is a project employee or a regular employee: The Court held that Samson is a regular employee. The governing rule at the time of Samson's complaint and prior employment was DOLE Policy Instruction No. 20, which required employers to report the termination of project employees to the nearest Public Employment Office. AG & P's failure to make these reports was a clear indication that Samson was not a project employee. Furthermore, Department Order No. 19, Series of 1993, which superseded Policy Instruction No. 20, did not entirely dispense with the notice requirement but considered it an indicator of project employment. Even under Department Order No. 19, the notice of termination requirement was retained. The Court emphasized that the liberal interpretation of labor laws in favor of the workingman, as mandated by Article 4 of the Labor Code, should apply. Samson's continuous service for approximately twenty-eight years, performing virtually the same work as a rigger, demonstrated that his tasks were necessary and desirable to AG & P's usual business, making him a regular employee under Article 281 of the Labor Code. The repeated re-hiring and continuing need for his services were sufficient evidence of their necessity and indispensability. The imposition of periods to preclude tenurial security was struck down as contrary to public policy. On the issue of whether the failure to exhaust administrative remedies is a fatal omission: The Court ruled that the failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC decision was not a fatal omission in this case. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not an absolute rule and may be dispensed with when the issue is purely legal, as in the present case. Moreover, in the interest of substantial justice, especially in cases involving the rights of workers, procedural lapses may be disregarded to enable the Court to resolve the conflicting rights and responsibilities of the parties. The intervention of the Court was deemed necessary for the protection of the petitioner.
Main Doctrine
Failure to report the termination of project employees to the DOLE, as required by Policy Instruction No. 20, is a strong indication that the employee is not a project employee. Department Order No. 19, Series of 1993, which superseded Policy Instruction No. 20, did not dispense with the notice requirement and cannot be given retroactive effect to the prejudice of labor.