G.R. No. 129449 - Kiamco vs. National Labor Relations Commission

On 1 July 1992, petitioner Cisell A. Kiamco was hired by the Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC), through its Energy Research and Development Division (later PNOC-EDC), as a project employee for the Geothermal Agro-Industrial Plant Project in Valencia, Negros Oriental.
The first Contract of Employment stipulated a fixed term of five (5) months (1 July 1992 to 30 November 1992 or up to the completion of the project) with a monthly salary of P3,500.00.
A second contract was entered into from 1 December 1992 to 30 April 1993, which maintained essentially the same terms except for a shortened work-time (twenty-two days per month rather than twenty-six).
Subsequently, a third contract was executed for a six (6) month period from 1 May 1993 to 30 November 1993, with an increased monthly salary of P3,850.00.

On 20 October 1993, petitioner received a Memorandum from the administration department alleging several infractions, including:

Misconduct for replacing a stereo in a UNDP-ERDC vehicle without authorization.
Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL) for his absence on 13 and 15 October 1993.
Failure to comply with administrative reporting procedures related to a vehicular accident, including the non-submission of the Police Accident Report.
Unauthorized use of a company vehicle.

On 22 October 1993, Kiamco responded by explaining his side, but his explanation was deemed unsatisfactory by PNOC.
On 28 October 1993, a subsequent Memorandum placed him under preventive suspension from 1 November 1993 to 30 November 1993 pending further investigation, although no investigation was ultimately conducted.

On 1 December 1993, upon reporting for work after the suspension period, Kiamco was prevented from entering the company premises by security guards.
On 27 May 1994, PNOC-EDC informed the Department of Labor and Employment that Kiamco had been terminated on 1 November 1993 due to the expiration of his employment contract and abolition of his position.
On 25 April 1994, Kiamco filed a complaint before the NLRC Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch in Dumaguete City for illegal suspension and dismissal, seeking reinstatement and back wages.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on 30 June 1995 dismissing the complaint on the basis that the contracts were fixed-term, and Kiamco’s dismissal was in strict accordance with the terms of his employment contracts.
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision on 27 September 1996, declaring Kiamco a regular employee and ordering his reinstatement with back wages.
However, on 23 January 1997, the NLRC modified its earlier decision by declaring Kiamco a project employee, awarding him six (6) months of back wages totaling P23,100.00, and deleting the order for reinstatement as a regular employee.
Petitioner's certiorari petition assailed the 23 January 1997 NLRC Resolution, raising issues regarding procedural defects (failure to file a motion for reconsideration), his employment status, entitlement to reinstatement and full back wages, and the award of moral and exemplary damages.

Whether the petition should be dismissed on the ground that petitioner Kiamco failed to file a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC, given that such failure allegedly rendered the Resolution final and executory.
Whether the rule requiring a motion for reconsideration before filing a petition for certiorari is absolute or subject to exceptions when the issues were already raised and considered by the NLRC.

Whether petitioner Kiamco is to be characterized as a regular employee or as a project employee.
How the stipulations in the employment contracts and the nature of the project affect his classification.

Whether Kiamco, as a project employee whose employment was allegedly terminated without due process or valid cause, is entitled to reinstatement to his former position.
Whether he is entitled to the payment of full back wages from the date of his dismissal until his actual reinstatement, notwithstanding the fixed-term nature of his contracts.

Whether petitioner is entitled to moral and exemplary damages, based on the allegation that his dismissal was effected in a manner characterized by bad faith, fraud, or oppressive action.