Case Summary (G.R. No. 202466)
Antecedent Facts
The respondents were hired on different dates starting in April 1990 and worked as cement cutters at PGI until April 1993, when one of PGI's contracts with Sigma was preterminated. Following this termination, Sigma informed the respondents that their employment would cease as the contract with PGI would only last until April 30, 1993. On August 1993, respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and related claims against Sigma and PGI, and their cases were consolidated with other complaints. Initially, the Executive Labor Arbiter dismissed their complaints in a decision issued in March 1994 but ordered an indemnity payment.
Ruling of the Labor Arbiter
Following the remand of the case to a new arbiter, a decision was rendered in July 2011 stating that the respondents were regular employees as they were continuously employed for over a year and engaged in tasks beyond those of cement cutting. The arbiter determined that they were illegally dismissed since the petitioner did not follow procedural due process requirements for termination. The respondents were awarded back wages and damages.
Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission
Upon appeal, Jovero contended the Labor Arbiter applied the law incorrectly, asserting that the respondents were only project employees whose employment could end with the termination of PGI's contract with Sigma. The NLRC granted the appeal, citing a lack of merit, but maintained that Sigma owed each respondent a P1,000 penalty for failure to provide required termination documentation.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The respondents subsequently sought recourse in the Court of Appeals, claiming that Jovero's appeal to the NLRC was belated. The CA ruled that the NLRC abused its discretion by admitting a late appeal and reinstated the Labor Arbiter's decision, affirming that the respondents were regular employees and reversing previous rulings that supported the termination of their employment.
Issues Raised
The main issues involved whether petitioner’s delayed appeal to the NLRC should be considered and whether or not the respondents were regular employees deserving of protection under labor laws, particularly regarding unlawful termination.
Our Ruling
The Supreme Court determined that Jovero's petition was filed out of time. The justification offered for the delay was deemed unsubstantiated due to a lack of travel records. The Court highlighted that adheren
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 202466)
Background of the Case
- This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by Eduardo G. Jovero, assailing the December 22, 2010 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA).
- The CA's Decision reversed the February 18, 2008 Decision and September 24, 2002 Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which had found that the respondents were not illegally dismissed.
- The case centers around the employment status of the respondents—cement cutters hired by Sigma Construction and Supply (Sigma), owned by Jovero.
Antecedent Facts
- The respondents were employed by Sigma starting in April 1990 and were assigned to work on projects for Philippine Geothermal Inc. (PGI).
- PGI preterminated its contract with Sigma on April 1, 1993, originally set to end on October 31, 1993, leading to a notice issued to the respondents regarding the termination of their employment.
- In August 1993, the respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of wages against Sigma and PGI, which was later consolidated with similar complaints from other employees.
- Executive Labor Arbiter Vito C. Bote rendered a Decision on March 30, 1994, dismissing the complaints for lack of merit but ordered Jovero to pay each respondent P1,000.00 as indemnity.
Labor Arbiter's Ruling
- After a remand, Executive Labor Arbiter Gelacio L. Rivera Jr. ruled on July 31, 2011, in favor of the respondents, declaring them regular employees of Sigma.
- The Labor Arbiter based h