FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 220185. November 9, 2015.]
ALBAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., REPRESENTED BY GERARD J. BALGEMINO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, JOHN RICK EMBUDO, JONEL ENANO, ALBERT DIAUNA, XERXES D. PADUA, ROLLY M. MADRIDANO, RAYMUND C. REGALADO, ROWELL PELOJERO AND MARCO C. BATALLER, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 9, 2015 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 220185 — Albay Electric Cooperative, Inc., represented by Gerard J. Balgemino v. Court of Appeals, John Rick Embudo, Jonel Enano, Albert Diauna, Xerxes D. Padua, Rolly M. Madridano, Raymund C. Regalado, Rowell Pelojero and Marco C. Bataller.
The Cash Collection and Disbursement Division is hereby DIRECTED to RETURN to the petitioner the excess amount of P1,270.00 paid for filing fess under O.R. No. 0125598-SC-EP dated September 28, 2015.
Assailed in this Petition for Certiorari1 are the March 25, 2014 Decision 2 and the June 16, 2015 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. SP. No. 119117, which reversed and set aside the September 29, 2010 Resolution 4 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the September 7, 2009 Joint Decision 5 of the Labor Arbiter.
The CA summarized the facts of the case as follows:
Petitioner Albay Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ALECO) is an electric cooperative engaged in electric distribution in the province of Albay. 6 The private respondents were hired by ALECO and occupied varied concurrent positions ranging from a meter reader, collector and disconnector. They were hired on a fixed term basis under the employment contract denominated as "contractual-project employment." 7 The private respondents worked six days a week (Monday-Saturday) from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. and were compensated a daily salary of P220.00. 8
The employment contracts of the private respondents were extended on several occasions but despite these extensions, they were never given the status and benefits of a regular employee. 9 The private respondents claimed that they were even transferred to a labor-only contracting agency where they basically performed the same functions under the control and supervision of ALECO. 10
ALECO, for its part, argued that the private respondents were hired as contractual employees to increase its collection so as to pay off ALECO's obligation to the National Power Corporation and at the same time, to reduce system losses. As further alleged by ALECO, there had been a time when some of the private respondents were made to sign emergency employment contracts so that they could work on the rehabilitation of ALECO's lines that were damaged by a typhoon.
After the expiration of their respective latest employment contracts, the services of the private respondents were no longer renewed resulting in the termination of their employment by ALECO. This led the private respondents to file complaints for illegal dismissal and regularization against ALECO.
In a Joint Decision dated September 7, 2009, the Labor Arbiter dismissed, for lack of merit, the complaints of the private respondents. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the judgment of the Labor Arbiter. The private respondents' motion for reconsideration was also subsequently denied by the NLRC.
The private respondents elevated their case to the CA. The CA reversed the earlier rulings of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter, declaring that private respondents have attained the status of regular employees and that ALECO failed to prove that private respondents' dismissal was for a just or authorized cause under the Labor Code. Consequently, the CA ordered ALECO to reinstate the private respondents to their respective positions without loss of seniority rights and to pay them full backwages from the time of their dismissal up to the date of their reinstatement. The corresponding motion for reconsideration filed by ALECO was later denied by the appellate court for lack of merit. cSaATC
Hence, the present petition wherein ALECO insisted that the private respondents were not illegally dismissed as the latter's employment contracts were for fixed periods. ALECO added that assuming ex gratia that private respondents are entitled to reinstatement and payment of backwages, such are no longer possible in view of the Concession Agreement 11 entered into between ALECO and SMC Global Power Holdings Corporation.
In determining the status of employment of the private respondents, reference must be made to Article 280 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to this provision, there are two kinds of regular employees namely: (1) those who are engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer; and (2) those who have rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in which they are employed. 12
Clearly, the private respondents fall under the first type of regular employees. The benchmark in ascertaining regular employment is the reasonable connection between the specific work performed by the employee in relation to the business or trade of the employer. 13
As aptly pointed out by the CA, the private respondents were employed to perform dual or multiple duties as meter reader, collector and disconnector and whose employment contracts were repeatedly renewed by ALECO. The continuing need for the private respondents' services and the fact that they were performing repetitive and routinary tasks for ALECO are indicative that the private respondents were engaged in the performance of activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business of the petitioner.
The Court cannot subscribe to ALECO's argument that private respondents' were not illegally dismissed as they were hired for fixed periods. Although the Court has acknowledged the validity of fixed-period employment contracts, they have been invalidated where from the circumstances it is apparent that the periods have been imposed to prevent acquisition of tenurial security by the employee. 14 An appreciation of the attendant circumstances in this case reveal that the fixed terms stipulated in the employment contracts were only meant to circumvent the right to security of tenure of the private respondents and for that reason, are invalid. Furthermore, well-settled is the rule that all doubts, uncertainties, ambiguities and insufficiencies are to be resolved in favor of labor. 15
Considering that the private respondents are regular employees of ALECO, they are entitled to security of tenure. This means that ALECO has the burden of proving that the dismissal of the private respondents was for a cause authorized under the law and that the private respondents were accorded due process. In the instant case, there was no showing that ALECO was able to discharge this burden.
As no cogent reason or reversible error exists to deviate from the findings of the CA, the petition should be denied. However, the CA Decision should be modified in so far as the reinstatement aspect is concerned since the same is no longer possible on account of the existing Concession Agreement between ALECO and SMC Global Power Holdings Corporation. In lieu of reinstatement, separation pay will be awarded to the private respondents.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The March 25, 2014 Decision and the June 16, 2015 Resolution of the CA are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner ALECO is ordered to pay the private respondents their: (a) separation pay computed at one month pay for every year of service in lieu of reinstatement, and (b) full backwages, computed from the time of their dismissal until the finality of this decision.
SO ORDERED." SERENO, C.J., on official business; CARPIO, J., acting member per S.O. 2261 dated October 28, 2015.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 3-13.
2. Id. at 14-23; penned by CA Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon and concurred in by Associate Justices Michael P. Elbinias and Marlene Gonzales-Sison.
3. Id. at 25-27.
4. Id. at 64-72; penned by Commissioner Gregorio O. Bilog III and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Alex A. Lopez and Pablo C. Espiritu, Jr.
5. Id. at 44-62; penned by Labor Arbiter Jesus Orlando M. Quiñones.
6. Id. at 15.
7. Supra note 1.
8. Id.
9. Id. at 15.
10. Id.
11. The Concession Agreement between ALECO and SMC Global Power Holdings Corporation was entered into on October 29, 2013 and shall remain effective for twenty-five (25) years. Pursuant to this agreement, SMC Global Power Holdings Corporation is entrusted with the management and operation of ALECO's business and is also obligated to ensure the quality, reliability, security and affordability of the supply of electric power in the Franchise Area.
12. Philips Semiconductors (Phils.), Inc. v. Fadriquela, 471 Phils. 355, 369 (2004).
13. Id.
14. Romares v. NLRC, 355 Phil. 835, 847 (1998).
15. Price, et al. v. Innodata Phils., Inc./Innodata Corp., et al., 588 Phil. 568, 586 (2008).