Case Digest (G.R. No. 74969)
Facts:
Telesforo Magante v. National Labor Relations Commission and Constress Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 74969, May 07, 1990, Supreme Court Third Division, Fernan, C.J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Telesforo Magante was employed by Constress Philippines, Inc. as a carpenter from April 17, 1980 until his dismissal on March 6, 1982, receiving about P300.00 a week (exclusive of allowance) and working long hours at the employer’s plant producing forms and other carpentry works. Although hiring was documented by successive written contracts—allegedly signed every three months and the last dated December 7, 1981 with daily pay of P21.36—Magante was not sent from project to project and worked continuously under the supervision of Bernardo Padaon, supervisor of the Carpentry Department.
On March 6, 1982, Constress posted a notice terminating several employees, including Magante, purportedly because their contracts had expired and they were “project employees,” and the termination was reported to the Ministry of Labor. Magante filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Ministry (now Department) of Labor and Employment. Labor Arbiter Domingo V. del Rosario rendered a decision on June 22, 1983 concluding that the “project” label in the written contracts did not determine employment status and that the contracts were a scheme to evade legal obligations; the arbiter ordered reinstatement with full backwages and benefits.
Constress appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which, in a decision promulgated August 1, 1984, reversed the labor arbiter and dismissed the complaint. The NLRC held Magante to be a project employee within the construction industry rule set by Policy Instruction No. 20, and found that termination upon completion of the particular phase of a project did not give rise to termination pay. Magante’s motion for reconsideration to the NLRC was denied.
Magante then filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court seeking to set aside the NLRC decision for grave abuse of discretion. The Solicitor-General filed a comment supporting Magante’s claim that he was a regular employee and invoking this Court’s earlier decis...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the National Labor Relations Commission commit grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Labor Arbiter’s finding and dismissing Magante’s complaint?
- Was petitioner Telesforo Magante a project employee whose employment validly terminated upon completion of the project phase, or was he a regular employee entitled to re...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)