Case Digest (G.R. No. 96078)
Facts:
Hilario Rada v. National Labor Relations Commission (Second Division) and Philnor Consultants and Planners, Inc., G.R. No. 96078, January 09, 1992, Supreme Court Second Division, Regalado, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Hilario Rada was first hired by private respondent Philnor Consultants and Planners, Inc. as a driver under a written Contract of Employment for a Definite Period effective July 1, 1977 (first contract ending June 30, 1979) for the supervision phase of the Manila North Expressway Extension, Second Stage (MNEE Stage 2). Philnor employed Rada on a succession of fixed-term contracts: a second contract executed July 7, 1979 (July 1, 1979–April 30, 1980), a third contract beginning May 1, 1980 (to Nov. 30, 1981) and a series of subsequent extensions culminating in a final extension (Oct. 1, 1985–Dec. 31, 1985). Rada acknowledged receipt of certain payments and executed a Release, Waiver and Quitclaim upon personnel clearance on December 9, 1985.
On May 20, 1987 Rada filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) alleging nonpayment of separation pay and overtime pay. Philnor maintained that Rada was a project employee whose engagement was coterminous with the MNEE Stage 2 project, that he signed a release, that he did not render overtime, and that its business model required hiring according to project manning schedules. Petitioner amended his complaint (July 2, 1987) and insisted he was a regular employee entitled to security of tenure under Article 278(c) of the Labor Code and thus could not be dismissed without just cause; he also alleged unpaid overtime.
Labor Arbiter Dominador M. Cruz (decision dated August 31, 1989) found Rada to be a regular employee, ordered his reinstatement with full backwages from the time of dismissal, and awarded overtime pay for three excess hours daily for January 1983–December 1985. Philnor appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC, in the assailed decision of November 19, 1990, set aside the labor arbiter’s reinstatement/backwages ruling (finding Rada a project employee coterminous with MNEE Stage 2 and thus validly terminated at project completion) but held that Rada was entitled to overtime pay for the additional hours spent transporting employees; the NLRC therefore modified the labor arbiter’s award as to overtime. Philnor had filed its supersedeas bond late but eventually complied after the NLRC specified the amount; petitioner assailed t...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the NLRC deprived of jurisdiction when it entertained Philnor’s appeal despite the late payment of the supersedeas bond?
- Was petitioner a regular employee entitled to security of tenure, or a project employee whose engagement was coterminous with the MNEE Stage 2 project?
- Was petitioner entitled to overtime pay for the time spent picking up and dropping off employ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)