G.R. No. 202466 , June 23, 2021
EDUARDO G. JOVERO, Petitioner, vs. ROGELIO CERIO, JESUS ALBURO, JR., GIL CLAVECILLAS, DOMINGO ZEPEDA, RAUL CLERIGO, DOMINGO CANTES, MARCELINO COPINO, CEAZAR CAÑEZO, LEVY LEGAZPI, EUSTAQUIO RANGASA, ELMAR CONVENCIDO, and ACHILES DYCOCO, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondents were hired on various dates by Sigma Construction and Supply (Sigma), an independent contractor owned by petitioner Eduardo G. Jovero, as cement cutters assigned to work at the drilling site of Philippine Geothermal Inc. (PGI) beginning April 1990. PGI preterminated one of its contracts with Sigma on April 1, 1993, which was to end on October 31, 1993. Consequently, Sigma issued a notice informing the cement cutters that the contract with PGI would be effective only until April 30, 1993. In August 1993, respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, and non-payment of labor standard benefits against Sigma and PGI. The Labor Arbiter initially dismissed the complaints but ordered Jovero to pay each respondent P1,000 as indemnity. The NLRC later remanded the case. On July 31, 2001, Executive Labor Arbiter Gelacio L. Rivera, Jr. rendered a Decision finding respondents to be regular employees who were illegally dismissed, ordering Sigma and Jovero to pay them backwages, separation pay, and damages. Petitioner appealed to the NLRC, which, in a September 24, 2002 Resolution, granted the appeal, dismissed the complaints for lack of merit, and ordered payment of P1,000 to each complainant as a penalty for failure to submit a termination report to the DOLE. Respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA, which, in a December 22, 2010 Decision, granted the petition, reversed the NLRC, and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s Decision. The CA found that petitioner’s appeal to the NLRC was filed out of time and that respondents were regular employees, not project employees.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether respondents are project employees, whose employment is coterminous with specific projects, or regular employees, who are entitled to security of tenure and due process upon dismissal.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the December 22, 2010 Decision and September 26, 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that respondents are regular employees. Petitioner failed to prove by substantial evidence that respondents were project employees. The evidence showed that respondents were continuously hired and employed for more than a year, were transferred to various projects even before the completion of a previously assigned project, and performed tasks not limited to being cement cutters. Petitioner did not submit employment contracts specifying the duration of each project or termination reports to the DOLE at the end of each project, which are indicators of project employment. Furthermore, respondents were not informed at the time of hiring that they were project employees. Consequently, their dismissal due to the pretermination of Sigma’s contract with PGI was illegal for failure to comply with the substantive and procedural due process requirements under the Labor Code. The case was remanded to the labor arbiter for the computation of the amounts due each respondent.