G.R. No. 108996 February 20, 1998
DOMINGO ABAD, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, THIRD DIVISION and ATLANTIC GULF AND PACIFIC CO., respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co. (AG&P) is a construction company. Petitioners were hired by AG&P’s Offshore and Marine Services Division (OMSD) for its Poro Point Project in San Fernando, La Union. They were employed in various capacities such as mechanic, electrician, welder, foreman, clerk, etc. AG&P treated petitioners as project employees, hiring them for definite periods based on the availability of project contracts, with their tenure depending on the need for their particular skills. Petitioners had been in service for three to ten years until their termination on different dates during 1973-1976. They filed complaints before the NLRC alleging they were non-project employees who should have become regular employees after one year, entitling them to CBA and other regular employee benefits. In 1977, the complaints were archived upon petitioners’ own motion to hold hearings in abeyance pending the final resolution of an “identical and analogous” case (Jose Abuan, et al. v. AG&P), which was then on appeal. The Supreme Court ultimately denied the petition in the Abuan case in 1980. Petitioners moved to revive their cases in 1981 and 1986. In 1991, Labor Arbiter Ricardo Olairez ruled in favor of petitioners, finding they were non-project employees, noting they signed employment contracts every 15th and 30th with blanks as to details, worked continuously even without major projects, and their jobs were essential to AG&P’s business. He ordered reinstatement, backwages, and benefits. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision on November 17, 1992, applying the principle of stare decisis based on the Abuan case, where workers were held to be project employees. The NLRC, however, ordered AG&P to pay petitioners backwages for the period they were not reinstated pending appeal. Petitioners filed this petition for certiorari directly, without first filing a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC decision.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Labor Arbiter’s decision and ruling that petitioners were project employees, primarily by applying the principle of stare decisis based on the Abuan case.

RULING

The petition is without merit. The NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. First, the principle of stare decisis was correctly applied. Petitioners themselves admitted their case was “identical and analogous” to the Abuan case to avoid conflicting decisions. The facts and questions involved are substantially the same: both sets of workers were hired for AG&P’s Poro Point Project under its OMSD, had employment contracts with durations ranging from 15 to 30 days specifying projects, and performed similar jobs. The Supreme Court had already denied the petition in the Abuan case, which upheld the finding that the workers were project employees. Second, the petition is procedurally defective. Petitioners filed this petition for certiorari without first filing a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC’s decision, which is a prerequisite for availing of such remedy. Their failure to do so is fatal to their petition. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the NLRC.