G.R. No. 257849 - Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office vs. Antonio F. Mendoza

Respondents, comprising Rogelio Ceria, Jesus Alburo, Jr., Gil Clavecillas, Domingo Zepeda, Raul Clerigo, Domingo Cantes, Marcelino Copino, Ceazar CaAezo, Levy Legaspi, Eustaquio Rangasa, Elmar Convencido, and Achiles Dycoco, were hired by Sigma Construction and Supply (an independent contractor owned by Eduardo G. Jovero) to work as cement cutters and perform various tasks.
The assignment of respondents commenced in April 1990 at the drilling site of Philippine Geothermal Inc. (PGI).

Respondents were engaged on a project basis, with their employment tied to Sigma’s contract with PGI.
PGI preterminated one of its contracts with Sigma on April 1, 1993, though this contract was originally set to run until October 31, 1993, causing a premature cessation of the project.
Consequently, Sigma’s project manager notified all engaged cement cutters through a notice indicating the contract’s effective period would expire on April 30, 1993.

In August 1993, respondents filed complaints for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, and non-payment of labor standard benefits against both Sigma and PGI.
The complaints were consolidated with those of two other groups (Capis et al. and Miguel et al.).
Executive Labor Arbiter Vito C. Bote rendered a March 30, 1994 Decision dismissing these complaints for lack of merit, though ordering a minimal indemnity payment of P1,000.00 to each respondent.

On March 31, 1995, the Third Division of the NLRC remanded the cases to the respective Arbitration Branches for determination concerning the legality of the dismissals and the nature of employment.
Whereas the Capis et al. and Miguel et al. cases were handled by Executive Labor Arbiter Bote who reaffirmed his earlier decision, the Ceria et al. case was later remanded in 1996 to Executive Labor Arbiter Gelacio L. Rivera Jr.
Despite party participation and a hearing, the parties failed to reach an amicable settlement in Rivera’s proceedings.

Asserted that respondents were hired as project employees whose service was coterminous with Sigma’s projects with PGI.
Argued that upon PGI’s contract termination, Sigma was compelled to also terminate the employment of respondents.
Maintained that respondents were paid wages and benefits according to the law and that employment ceased upon project completion.
Supported his contention with Sigma’s service contracts with PGI, specifying various project durations.

Contended that their employment was continuous, arguing that they had been engaged from 1990 until their termination in 1993 and were even transferred among various PGI projects.
Claimed the scope of work extended beyond cement cutting to include cleaning, repairing, and other project-related tasks, thereby showing regular employment characteristics.

Labor Arbiter Rivera rendered a July 31, 2011 Decision finding respondents to be regular employees based on:

Continuous hiring and employment exceeding one year.
Transfers among projects before completion and performance of diverse work tasks.
The petitioner’s failure to adduce evidence (such as appointment papers or termination reports) showing project-specific or limited-duration employment.
The conclusion that respondents were illegally dismissed, entitling them to separation pay and backwages (while denying claims on labor standard benefits).

In a September 21, 2001 Memorandum on Appeal, the petitioner argued that the Labor Arbiter had erred by classifying respondents as regular employees.
The NLRC eventually upheld the petitioner’s appeal on technical grounds (including the belated filing) by ordering dismissal of respondents’ cases for lack of merit, but imposed a nominal penalty for failure to submit termination reports.

Respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari alleging abuse of discretion over issues including the classification of employees and timeliness of appeal filing.
The CA, in its December 22, 2010 Decision, granted the respondents’ petition, thereby setting aside the NLRC’s resolution and reinstating the Labor Arbiter Rivera’s July 31, 2011 Decision.
The CA held that respondents were regular employees based on continued employment and task diversity, and emphasized that the petitioner’s appeal was belated since evidence showed that the proper reglementary period had lapsed.

Petitioner’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA in its September 26, 2011 Resolution.

Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner before the NLRC, which was filed past the reglementary period, could be given due course.
Evaluation of the procedural compliance regarding service of notices and the computation of the appeal period.

Whether the respondents were regular employees of Sigma or mere project employees.
Whether the evidence, including service contracts with PGI versus individual appointment agreements and termination reports, sufficiently established that the respondents’ employment was project-based and coterminous with specific projects.