Case Digest (G.R. No. 196476)
Facts:
The case, titled Square Meter Trading Construction and Lito C. Pascual vs. Court of Appeals, Ricardo Gallano, Felimon Francisco, Oscar Borja, et al., centers on a series of legal disputes involving employment status, wage claims, and allegations of illegal dismissal. The petitioners, Square Meter Trading Construction and its sole proprietor, Lito C. Pascual, challenged the decisions of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated February 24, 2016, and June 8, 2016, arising from the second case CA-G.R. SP No. 130349.
The history of the case is bifurcated into two initial proceedings. The first complaint, filed by private respondents Gallano, Francisco, Borja, and others, on February 14, 2011, alleged underpayment of wages, among other monetary claims from multiple years of service. This was initially assigned to Labor Arbiter Adela S. Damasco, who concluded that the complainants were project employees but dismissed their claims due to insufficient evidence. This decision was appealed and ul
Case Digest (G.R. No. 196476)
Facts:
- Background and Procedural History
- Petitioners, Square Meter Trading Construction and proprietor Lito C. Pascual, employed private respondents between 2002 and 2008 in the construction industry.
- Two separate complaints were filed by private respondents:
- The first complaint (NCR-02-02511-11) for money claims involving underpayment of wages, overtime pay, holiday pay, service incentive leave, and the 13th month pay.
- The second complaint (consolidated NCR-04-06754-11 and NCR-06-08563-11) alleging illegal dismissal and unfair labor practices.
- The instant case originates from the second complaint.
- Proceedings in the First Case (CA-G.R. SP No. 124979)
- Issues raised:
- Whether the complainants were entitled to their money claims.
- Whether respondent Oscar Borja was an employee of the petitioners.
- Labor Arbiter (LA) Damasco ruled that:
- Private respondents were deemed construction workers assigned to various projects and, after completion, would be employed elsewhere.
- Borja’s claim was unsupported by evidence, as his services were on a voluntary basis despite his familial relationship with petitioner Pascual.
- The NLRC affirmed LA Damasco’s decision, which was later reversed by the CA on monetary computations but reiterated that Borja was not an employee.
- Proceedings in the Second Case (CA-G.R. SP No. 130349)
- LA Napiza, handling the second complaint, examined issues including:
- Whether private respondents were project employees or regular employees.
- Whether their dismissal was justified and followed due process.
- Allegations of unfair labor practices and entitlement to additional damages.
- Petitioners argued that the respondents were project employees and cited indicators under DOLE Department Order No. 19, Series of 1993, meant for project employment in construction.
- LA Napiza found that:
- Petitioners failed to produce written employment contracts or termination reports required to classify the respondents as project employees.
- Consequently, the respondents were deemed regular employees who enjoyed security of tenure and were entitled to due process before dismissal.
- LA Napiza ruled that the respondents were illegally dismissed and ordered remedies including reinstatement (with backwages), separation pay (in lieu of reinstatement), and damages.
- Appeal, Reconsideration, and Res Judicata Issues
- Petitioners filed appeals and motions with the NLRC and eventually with the Court of Appeals (CA) to challenge the classification of employment and resulting remedies.
- A key contention was whether the prior CA ruling in the first case (that the respondents were project employees) was binding on the second case via the doctrine of res judicata.
- The CA, while acknowledging that a Rule 65 petition is generally improper when a Rule 45 appeal is available, nonetheless examined and ruled on the doctrine’s applicability.
- The CA differentiated respondent Oscar Borja from the other private respondents by upholding the earlier final finding that Borja was not an employee, while ruling that the remaining respondents were regular employees eligible for reinstatement and monetary awards.
- Petitioners’ Arguments and Contentions
- Petitioners contended that:
- The CA’s second ruling violated the doctrine of res judicata by re-litigating the nature of the respondents’ employment already decided in the first case.
- The decision on the employees’ status should have been conclusive, precluding a second adjudication on the same issue.
- Private respondents, in their comment, maintained that the petition under Rule 65 was the wrong remedy since the proper appeal (Rule 45) was not utilized within the prescribed period, and that the CA correctly applied the principle of res judicata.
Issues:
- Proper Remedy
- Whether a petition under Rule 65 is a proper remedy to assail the Court of Appeals’ decision when an appeal under Rule 45 was available.
- Application of Res Judicata
- Whether the prior decision of the CA 12th Division in CA-G.R. SP No. 124979, which found the respondents to be project employees, barred through res judicata the current determination concerning their employment nature.
- Nature of Employment
- Whether the private respondents are to be considered project employees or regular employees under the criteria of DOLE Department Order No. 19 and the relevant employment laws.
- Legality of Dismissal
- Whether petitioners dismissed the respondents with a just or authorized cause and with due process, in compliance with the requirements for terminating regular employees.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)