Case Summary (G.R. No. 192650)
Employment and Dismissal
Petitioners asserted they were regular employees whose services continued until February 2002, when they were effectively dismissed without due process. Respondent maintained all hires were project employees whose tenure automatically ended with the project. Only Felix Martos executed the required verification of the position paper; the other 99 petitioners failed to do so.
Procedural History
Three complaints for illegal dismissal and money claims were filed before the NLRC and consolidated under Labor Arbiter Leda. In May 2003 the Labor Arbiter declared Martos illegally dismissed and entitled to separation pay, backwages, and related benefits, while dismissing the claims of the other petitioners without prejudice. The NLRC in July 2008 partially granted petitioners’ appeal and ordered reinstatement of all. In July 2009 the Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC, reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s decision. Petitioners then sought certiorari review before the Supreme Court.
Verification Requirement and Dismissal of Co-petitioners
Under Rule 7, Sections 4 and 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, pleadings required to be verified and certified against forum shopping must bear proper verification; non-compliance warrants dismissal without prejudice. The Supreme Court held that only Martos signed the verification and certification, no proof existed that he was authorized by co-petitioners to do so, and no attempt was made to cure this defect after the Labor Arbiter’s decision. Accordingly, dismissal of the 99 co-petitioners was proper.
Martos’s Employment Status and Remedy
Martos was deemed a regular employee because respondent did not present any fixed-term employment contract, his duties were integral to respondent’s usual business, and respondent failed to comply with DOLE Department Order No. 19 on project employment terminations. His r
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 192650)
Facts
- New San Jose Builders, Inc. (NSJBI) is a Philippine corporation engaged in constructing roads, bridges, buildings, and low-cost housing for the government.
- The San Jose Plains Project (SJPP), also known as “Erap City,” involved low-cost housing turned over to the National Housing Authority.
- Between 1986 and 2002, over ninety workers—including Felix Martos, Jimmy Eclana, Rodel Pilones, and Domingo Roto—were hired in various capacities and dismissed on different dates.
- In 2000, SJPP works were slowed and suspended due to NHA’s lack of funds; some workers were laid off, others reassigned as project employees.
- Several retained workers, including Martos, refused to sign new “project employee” appointment papers and refused to continue working.
- Three separate complaints for illegal dismissal and money claims were filed in 2002 before the NLRC and subsequently consolidated before Labor Arbiter Facundo L. Leda.
Procedural History
- May 23, 2003: Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled Martos was illegally dismissed, awarding separation pay, backwages, and benefits; dismissed the other complaints without prejudice.
- July 30, 2008: NLRC dismissed NSJBI’s appeal and partially granted the other petitioners’ appeal, ordering reinstatement of all complainants with full backwages and benefits.
- October 28, 2008: NLRC denied motion for reconsideration.
- March 2009: NSJBI petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA) by certiorari under Rule 65.
- July 31, 2009: CA reversed the NLRC decisions and reinstated the LA decision in Martos’s favor.
- October 28, 2009: CA denied motion for reconsideration.
- October 24, 2012: Supreme Court promulgated decision denying the petition for review.
Issues
- Whether the CA correctly dismissed without prejudice the complaints of the 99 co-petitioners who failed to verify their position papers.
- Whether Felix Martos should be reinstated or entitled to separation pay and other monetary benefits.
Ruling of the Labor Arbiter
- Declared Martos a regular employee illegally dismissed.
- Awarded separation pay, backwages, salary differentials, 13th-month pay, service incentive leave pay, and attorney’s fees to Martos.
- D