Case Digest (G.R. No. 125606)
Facts:
San Miguel Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, Third Division, and Francisco de Guzman, Jr., G.R. No. 125606, October 07, 1998, the Supreme Court First Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court. The petition seeks relief under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court from the NLRC’s reversal of a Labor Arbiter decision.Petitioner San Miguel Corporation (SMC) operated a glass plant. Private respondent Francisco de Guzman, Jr. was hired by SMC on November 28, 1990 as a helper/bricklayer “for a specific project,” namely the repair and upgrading of furnace C; the employment was for an approximately four-month period. On April 30, 1991 the project was completed and respondent’s employment ended. On May 10, 1991 respondent was rehired for another specific undertaking—draining/cooling furnace F and emergency repair of furnace E—expected to last about three months; that work finished at the end of July 1991 and respondent’s services were again terminated.
Respondent discovered his name on an August 1, 1991 company memorandum as among those “considered dismissed” and filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on August 12, 1994 (NLRC-NCR Case No. 08-05954-94). Labor Arbiter Felipe T. Garduque II dismissed the complaint on June 30, 1995, finding respondent was a project employee and thus did not attain regular status; the Arbiter also noted respondent’s more-than-three-year silence as weakening his claim.
Respondent appealed to the public respondent National Labor Relations Commission, Third Division (Comms. Ireneo B. Bernardo, ponente; Joaquin A. Tanodra, concurring; Lourdes C. Javier, concurring and dissenting). On April 18, 1996 the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter and ordered reinstatement with full backwages (less earnings elsewhere), holding that the employer’s practice of rehiring shortly after expiration could not be countenanced and that respondent’s security of tenure had been violated. The NLRC denied SMC’s motion for reconsideration on May 30, 1996. SMC t...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion in failing to rule that private respondent was a project (fixed-period) employee?
- Was private respondent illegally dismissed such that reinstatement and backwages were warranted?
- Did laches (respondent’s more-than-three-year silence) bar or weaken his ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)