Case Summary (G.R. No. 114671)
Employment History and Complaints
Between 1979 and 1989, the petitioners worked with AG & P on various construction projects, performing roles such as laborer, carpenter, and crane driver. Following their termination, the petitioners filed separate complaints for illegal dismissal, which were consolidated and heard by Labor Arbiter Manuel P. Asuncion. The Labor Arbiter ruled that the petitioners were project employees, based on evidence such as their employment contracts indicating specific project assignments and durations.
NLRC's Affirmation of Labor Arbiter's Decision
The NLRC upheld the Labor Arbiter’s decision, concluding that the petitioners were project employees hired for specific projects rather than regular employees. This affirmation was based on the terms outlined in their employment contracts and the nature of the projects assigned to them. According to the NLRC, the completion of these projects justified the termination without penalties for illegal dismissal.
Petitioners' Arguments
The petitioners argue that the NLRC erred in declaring them project employees, pointing to their long employment periods and continuous renewal of contracts, which ranged from five to nine years. They contend that their work was integral to AG & P's business and that the company failed to provide proper termination reports to public employment offices, a requirement under Policy Instruction No. 20 at the time.
Respondent's Defense and Procedural Issues
AG & P countered the petitioners' claims by asserting their classification as project employees, highlighting that petitioners did not exhaust administrative remedies by not filing a motion for reconsideration before appealing. They argued that the decisions made by the NLRC were based on substantial evidence and should be treated as conclusive.
Judicial Findings and Precedents
The Supreme Court identified parallels to previous cases (notably Caramol vs. NLRC and Samson vs. NLRC), where employees with similar situations were found to be regular employees due to the continuous nature of their employment and the inherent necessity of their work in the company’s business operations. The court reiterated that employment classifications should not be exploited to evade legal obligations toward workers.
Legal Requirements and Interpretation
The court emphasized the essential requirement that employers must report employment termi
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 114671)
Case Background
- The case involves a petition for review filed by petitioners Aurelio Salinas, Jr., Armando Samulde, Alejandro Alonzo, and Avelino Cortez against the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Company of Manila, Inc. (AG & P).
- The petitioners contest the NLRC's Resolution dated January 31, 1994, which dismissed their complaints for illegal dismissal.
- The Labor Arbiter had previously ruled that the petitioners were project employees and not regular employees of AG & P.
Employment History of Petitioners
- Alejandro Alonzo: Employed from 1982 to 1989, worked as a laborer, bulk cement operator, bulk cement plant/carrier operator, and crane driver.
- Avelino Cortez: Employed from 1979 to 1988 as a carpenter/forklift operator.
- Armando Samulde: Served as a lubeman/stationary operator from 1982 to 1989.
- Aurelio Salinas, Jr.: Worked as a carpenter/finishing carpenter from 1983 to 1988.
- All petitioners filed separate complaints for illegal dismissal in 1989, which were consolidated and jointly heard.
Labor Arbiter's Findings
- Labor Arbiter Manuel P. Asuncion found that the petitioners were project employees based on the nature of their employment contracts.
- The contracts indicated they were hired for specific projects and periods and assigned to various projects, not just one.
- The Arbiter ruled that the termination of their em