Southern Cotabato Development and Construction, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Southern Cotabato Development and Construction, Inc. (SODECO) and Liberty Construction, in a joint venture, undertook a road construction project funded by the Asian Development Bank (ADB). Private respondents, hired as watchmen, survey aides, laborers, and carpenters for this project, alleged they were dismissed by SODECO's Managing Director, Ella G. Demandante, after demanding salary increases. They subsequently filed complaints for illegal dismissal, seeking reinstatement, wage differentials, overtime pay, premium pay for rest days and holidays, thirteenth-month pay, and damages. Procedural History: The private respondents filed their complaints with the Regional Arbitration Branch VII of the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaints of several individuals who withdrew their claims or failed to substantiate them. The Labor Arbiter found the complainants to be project employees, not illegally dismissed, but awarded premium pay, holiday pay, and overtime pay to specific watchmen. The private respondents appealed to the NLRC, which initially dismissed the appeal for being filed late but later reconsidered and reinstated it. The NLRC, in its assailed decision, found that the respondents failed to prove just cause for dismissal and ordered payment of salaries up to the completion of the project or relevant phases for all complainant-workers, directing the Labor Arbiter to compute the awards. Petitioners sought reconsideration, which was denied, leading to the filing of the present special civil action for certiorari. The Petition: The petitioners, SODECO and Liberty Construction, filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the NLRC's decision and resolution. They argue that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion by disregarding evidence and judicial admissions that negated the claims, by giving due course to a belated appeal, by holding that the respondents were illegally dismissed, and by awarding back wages. Petitioners contend that the private respondents were project employees whose employment was coterminous with the project phases and that the Labor Arbiter's findings, based on evidence, should have been respected. They also argue that the NLRC erred in reconsidering the dismissal of the appeal due to lateness, asserting that the appeal period is mandatory and jurisdictional. The petition specifically challenges the award of back wages to those who did not submit affidavits, did not appear for trial, or had moved to dismiss their complaints.
Issue(s)
Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in disregarding evidence and judicial admissions, and holding that private respondents were illegally dismissed. Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to the private respondents' appeal despite being filed beyond the reglementary period. Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in awarding back wages to the private respondents. Whether the NLRC erred in the admissibility of affidavits as evidence.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The NLRC decision is modified to exclude the award of back wages to private respondents who moved for dismissal of their complaints, and to those who did not submit affidavits and did not appear during the hearing before the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter is directed to resolve the remaining issues with dispatch.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in disregarding evidence and judicial admissions, and holding that private respondents were illegally dismissed: The Court found that while private respondents were project employees, they were entitled to security of tenure for the duration of the project or its phases. The employer bears the burden of proving just cause for dismissal. Petitioners failed to present credible evidence, such as service contracts or project phase completion schedules, to support their claim that the project phases were completed, leading to the lawful termination of project employees. The testimony of the paymaster and incomplete payroll sheets were insufficient. Petitioners did not avail of any just causes for dismissal provided by law. Therefore, the NLRC did not err in finding that the private respondents were illegally dismissed, as the petitioners failed to discharge their burden of proof. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to the appeal despite being filed beyond the reglementary period: The Court ruled that the NLRC did not err in allowing the appeal. Petitioners did not oppose the private respondents' motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order. The motion for reconsideration demonstrated that the appeal was filed within the reglementary period, evidenced by a postmaster's certification and a return card. By vigorously arguing their defenses and seeking affirmative relief from the NLRC after the reconsideration, petitioners were estopped from claiming lack of jurisdiction. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in awarding back wages: The Court found merit in the petition concerning the award of back wages to specific complainants. It was undisputed that twelve original complainants failed to submit affidavits and did not appear during the hearing. Four of these complainants had also moved for the dismissal of their complaints. The Court held that for those who moved for dismissal or did not submit affidavits nor appear during trial, and for whom no independent evidence was adduced, no award for back wages could be validly made due to the lack of factual basis. The affidavits of other complainants were not offered as evidence for these individuals, nor did they have any bearing on their rights. Therefore, the award of back wages was modified to exclude these complainants. On the admissibility of affidavits as evidence: The Court reiterated that the rules of evidence are not strictly observed in proceedings before the NLRC. Under Article 221 of the Labor Code, the NLRC is authorized to use all reasonable means to ascertain facts speedily and objectively. Affidavits submitted with position papers can stand in place of direct testimony, and their admissibility is not defeated by the affiant's non-presentation for cross-examination, as held in previous cases.
Main Doctrine
Project employees are entitled to security of tenure for the duration of the project or its phases. Dismissal before completion without just cause and due process constitutes illegal dismissal, with the employer bearing the burden of proof. Awards for back wages are not proper for complainants who did not submit affidavits or appear during trial, or who moved for dismissal of their complaints.