GR 89990; (March, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 89990; March 20, 1991
Eugenio de Jesus, petitioner, vs. Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC) and National Labor Relations Commission, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Eugenio de Jesus was a carpenter for respondent PNCC. In September 1984, while working on the Apalit Bridge project, he vomited blood, was treated at the company clinic, and was sent home. When he reported back in December 1984, he was informed by the General Manager that he had been replaced. His subsequent pleas for reinstatement in 1985 were denied. He thus filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, seeking reinstatement, backwages, and benefits.
PNCC contested the complaint, asserting de Jesus was a project employee hired only for a specific period under Policy Instructions No. 20, and his separation was due to project completion. It presented his 201-file showing a March 1984 hiring and a signed clearance acknowledging full payment. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint. The NLRC initially dismissed de Jesus’s appeal as unseasonably filed, but upon reconsideration, affirmed the Arbiter’s decision.
ISSUE
Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the dismissal, thereby ruling that de Jesus was a project employee lawfully terminated upon project completion.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the NLRC. The legal logic hinges on Article 280 of the Labor Code, which defines regular employment. An employee is deemed regular where engaged in activities usually necessary or desirable in the employer’s business, except if hired for a specific project with a predetermined completion date at the time of engagement.
The Court found de Jesus was a regular employee. His work as a carpenter was necessary to PNCC’s construction business. Crucially, his employment contracts, which stated duration was “co-terminus with the need” and “contingent upon the progress accomplishment,” did not stipulate a definite termination date predetermined at engagement. This indefinite condition, subject to the company’s discretion, did not qualify him as a legitimate project employee exempt from Article 280.
Furthermore, personnel action forms submitted by de Jesus, which PNCC objected to as new evidence, revealed he had been working for PNCC on successive projects since 1974, not merely from 1984 as PNCC claimed. This long tenure, which PNCC concealed, solidified his regular status. The Court held the NLRC’s factual findings are not binding when their application defeats constitutional labor protection. The quitclaim presented by PNCC was also invalid, as it was in English with no proof de Jesus understood it. Thus, his dismissal without just cause was illegal. He was ordered reinstated with three years of backwages.