Jovero v. Cerio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents, hired by Sigma Construction and Supply (Sigma) as cement cutters for projects with Philippine Geothermal Inc. (PGI), filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of benefits. They alleged continuous employment from 1990 to 1993, including transfers to different PGI projects and performance of tasks beyond cement cutting. Sigma, owned by petitioner Eduardo G. Jovero, contended that respondents were project employees whose employment was coterminous with Sigma's contracts with PGI, and thus their termination was justified when PGI pre-terminated one such contract. Procedural History: The Executive Labor Arbiter initially dismissed the complaint but ordered indemnity. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) initially remanded the case for further determination. Subsequently, the NLRC granted Sigma's belated appeal, setting aside the Labor Arbiter's decision and dismissing the complaint, while imposing a penalty for failure to submit a termination report. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the NLRC, reinstating the Labor Arbiter's decision, finding the appeal to the NLRC was filed out of time and that the respondents were regular employees. The CA denied reconsideration, leading to the present petition. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review of the CA's decision, raising two issues: (1) whether the NLRC erred in giving due course to his belatedly filed appeal, and (2) whether the respondents were regular employees illegally dismissed. The petition was filed significantly beyond the reglementary period, with the petitioner claiming to be an Overseas Foreign Worker. The Supreme Court noted conflicting findings among the lower tribunals and, despite the procedural infirmities, took cognizance of the case. The Court found that petitioner failed to prove respondents were project employees, as he only presented Sigma's service contracts with PGI, not individual employment contracts, and did not provide substantial evidence that respondents were informed of their project-based employment status at the time of hiring. The Court also affirmed the CA's finding that the appeal to the NLRC was indeed filed out of time.
Issue(s)
Whether the appeal belatedly filed by the petitioner before the NLRC can be given due course. Whether respondents were regular employees and illegally dismissed by the petitioner.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals' decision. It held that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in giving due course to Jovero's belated appeal. Furthermore, it concurred with the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the CA that the respondents were regular employees and were illegally dismissed. The case was remanded to the labor arbiter for computation of the amounts due each respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the belated appeal: The Court reiterated the well-settled rule that the perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is not merely a technicality but a jurisdictional requirement. Service of orders and notices upon the counsel of record is binding upon the client. The records showed that Jovero's counsel received the Labor Arbiter's decision on August 21, 2001, making his appeal filed on September 11, 2001, belated. The CA correctly found that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in taking cognizance of the appeal, as there were no strong and compelling reasons to justify the liberal application of the rules. Failure to perfect an appeal as required by the Rules renders the judgment final and executory, depriving the appellate body of jurisdiction to alter the final judgment. On the issue of whether respondents were regular employees and illegally dismissed: The Court agreed with the CA and the Labor Arbiter that the respondents were regular employees. Jovero's assertion that respondents were project employees was not substantiated by substantial evidence. The presentation of service contracts between Sigma and PGI did not prove that the respondents were informed at the time of hiring that they were project employees, nor did it show that their employment was coterminous with specific projects. Unlike in the case of Cartagenas, individual employment contracts for specific projects were not presented. Moreover, Jovero's failure to file termination reports with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) at the end of each project indicated that the respondents were regular employees. As regular employees, their dismissal was illegal for failure to comply with the substantive and procedural due process requirements under the Labor Code, entitling them to separation pay and backwages.
Main Doctrine
The failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period renders the judgment final and executory, and the appellate body loses jurisdiction to alter the final judgment, absent strong and compelling reasons for the liberal application of rules. Furthermore, the presentation of service contracts between an employer and its client does not, by itself, establish that the employees are project employees; individual employment contracts or other substantial evidence proving that employees were informed of their project status at the time of hiring are necessary.