Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
L A 'S
D EC IS IO N
N LR C
R E V ER S ED
CA
NLRC
LA
affirmed
affirmed no illegal
NLRC's
LA's
dismissal
decision reinstated
pay full
backwages, MR also
w/o
inclusive of
denied
backwages ,
all benefits
premium pay
the
for holiday,
respondent
rest days
s should
and
have
nightshift
received
differential;
had they
allowed
not been
claims for
dismissed.
holiday pay,
MR denied
service
incentive
leave pay
and 13th
month pay.
Issues:
Whether or not CA erred and committed grave
abuse
of
discretion
in
ordering
the
reinstatement of respondents to their former
positions which were no longer existing because
its findings of facts are premised on
misappreciation of facts.
Held:
Petitioners are misguided. They forgot that there are two types of
employees in the construction industry. The first is referred to as
project employees or those employed in connection with a
particular construction project or phase thereof and such
employment is coterminous with each project or phase of the
project to which they are assigned. The second is known as nonproject employees or those employed without reference to any
particular construction project or phase of a project.
The second category is where respondents are classified. As such
they are regular employees of petitioners. It is clear from the
records of the case that when one project is completed,
respondents were automatically transferred to the next project
awarded to petitioners. There was no employment agreement
given to respondents which clearly spelled out the duration of their
employment, the specific work to be performed and that such is
made clear to them at the time of hiring. It is now too late for
petitioners to claim that respondents are project employees whose
employment is coterminous with each project or phase of the
project to which they are assigned.
Nonetheless, assuming that respondents were initially hired as
project employees, petitioners must be reminded of our ruling in
Maraguinot, Jr. v. National Labor Relations Commission that [a]
project employee x x x may acquire the status of a regular
employee when the following [factors] concur:
1.
There is a continuous rehiring of project employees
even after cessation of a project; and
2.
The tasks performed by the alleged project
employee are vital, necessary and indespensable to
the usual business or trade of the employer.
In this case, the evidence on record shows that respondents were
employed and assigned continuously to the various projects of
petitioners. As painters, they performed activities which were
necessary and desirable in the usual business of petitioners, who
are engaged in subcontracting jobs for painting of residential units,
condominium and commercial buildings. As regular employees,
respondents are entitled to be reinstated without loss of seniority
rights.
In cases where there is no evidence of dismissal, the
remedy is reinstatement but without backwages. In this case,
both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC made a finding that there was
no dismissal much less an illegal one. It is settled that factual
findings of quasi-judicial agencies are generally accorded respect
and finality so long as these are supported by substantial
evidence.