LABORRADA v. NLRC and PhilNor | B2015 CASES 3. The contract of employment for a definite period executed between him and Philnor is against public February 15, 2012 policy and a clear circumvention of the law designed Mendoza, J merely to evade any benefits or liabilities under the Patrick statute 4. His position as driver was essential, necessary and SUMMARY: Rada, who worked as a project driver, claims illegal dismissal and overtime from PhilNor despite desirable to the conductpay of the business of Philnor his signing of quitclaim. 5. He rendered overtime work until 6:00 p.m. daily except Sundays and holidays for a period of three DOCTRINE: Project employees are those employed in connection with particular project. Project yearsaand therefore,construction he was entitled to overtime pay employees are not entitled to termination pay if they are terminated as a result of the completion of the project or any phase thereof in which they are employed, regardlessARGUMENT/S of the number projects in which they have been OFof THE RESPONDENT: employed by a particular construction company. Moreover, the company is not required to obtainClearance" clearance form from for Rada already signed the "Personnel the Secretary of Labor in connection with such termination. P3,796.20 representing conversion to cash of unused leave credits and financial assistance and also a "Release, Waiver and Quitclaim" which also released Philnor from all obligations and/or claims. He did not render overtime work and neither did he demand for overtime pay. He was not a regular employee, as he was merely employed during the PETITIONER: Hilario Rada duration of the phase of the construction contract PhilNor was finishing. RESPONDENT: National Labor Relations Commission and Philnor Consultants And Planners, Inc. RULING OF THE LOWER COURTS: Labor Arbiter for Rada – reinstatement with overtime pay. FACTS: Hilaro Rada was employed by PhilNor in three His assigned task as driver was necessary and desirable in separate renewals of “Contract of Employment for a Definite the usual trade/business of the respondent employer, and Period” from 1977 to 1985, the third and last Contract having having so worked for 8 years more or less, he is entitled to been extended for four years. He worked as a driver for a tenure. North Luzon Extension construction project, which was NLRC for PhilNor- reversed LA’s decision repeatedly extended as well due to lack in budgets (hence the renewals and extensions of his contract). In 1985, the phase of the project for which he was hired having been ISSUES: finished, his employment was terminated. Now he claims 1. WON the NLRC erred in accepting the appeal of PhilNor illegal dismissal from Philnor and claims separation pay as despite its failure to post a supersedeas bond within well as overtime pay. ten days of receipt of the LA’s decision -NO 2. WON the NLRC erred in upholding the termination of ARGUMENT/S OF THE PETITIONER: Rada -NO 1. He was a regular employee entitled to security of 3. WON Rada was entitled to overtime pay -YES tenure 2. He was not a project employee since Philnor is not engaged in the construction business as to be covered RATIO: by Policy Instructions No. 20 all in the interest of due process 2.upheld workers as project employees Cartagenas. then there would have been no need to find a replacement driver to fetch these employees. the rules of evidence prevailing in Courts of law or equity shall not be controlling and it is the spirit and intention of this Code that the Commission and its members and the Labor Arbiters shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively without regard to technicalities of law or procedure. Moreover. vs. except PhilNor ordered to pay Rada overtime pay. regardless of the number of projects in which they have been employed by a particular construction company. Art 221. et al. Romago Electric Companyupheld electrical contractors as project employees Project employees. the company is not required to obtain clearance from the Secretary of Labor in connection with such termination. Despite being late. Quiwa v. Project employees are not entitled to termination pay if they are terminated as a result of the completion of the project or any phase thereof in | B2015 CASES which they are employed. PhilNor. then he is doing overtime work and should be paid for such RULING: NLRC decision upheld. Labor Code: "In any proceeding before the Commission or any of the Labor Arbiters. as distinguished from regular or non-project employees. But since the assigned task of fetching and delivering employees is indispensable and consequently mandatory. . are mentioned in section 281 of the Labor Code as those "where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee. The broader interests of justice and the desired objective of resolving controversies on the merits demands that the appeal be given due course. If driving these employees to and from the project site is not really part of petitioner's job. laborers and masons) means that he is merely a project worker.LABOR 1. 3. The fact that Rada does not belong to a "work pool" from which the company would draw workers for assignment to other projects at its discretion (as opposed to in-company groups of carpenters." Project employees are those employed in connection with a particular construction project. It is usually the project driver who is tasked with picking up or dropping off his fellow employees. what was important was PhilNor did pay.