THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 239958. July 10, 2019.]
RICKY C. CATAAG, petitioner, vs.WHITEPORT, INC. AND BRYAN JAKE DIEGO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated July 10, 2019, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 239958 (RICKY C. CATAAG, petitioner v. WHITEPORT, INC. and BRYAN JAKE DIEGO, respondents). — For this Court's resolution is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 filed by Ricky C. Cataag (Cataag), assailing the Court of Appeals' November 21, 2017 2 and June 7, 2018 3 Resolutions in CA-G.R. SP No. 151444. The Court of Appeals affirmed the labor tribunals' ruling to dismiss Cataag's Complaint for illegal dismissal.
Cataag claimed that he started working as a laborer/keyman at construction company Whiteport, Inc. (Whiteport) on May 17, 2011. Receiving a daily salary of P451.00, he worked five (5) days a week from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. without overtime pay. 4
On September 17, 2014, Whiteport's human resources officer allegedly told Cataag to report to the Robinsons Place Antipolo Project and wait for a new assignment. 5 However, he said that no assignment was given to him, putting him under a floating status for six (6) months. Thus, he was constrained to file a Complaint 6 for illegal dismissal and money claims. 7
In his Position Paper, 8 Cataag argued that having no work for six (6) months, he was constructively dismissed as a regular employee. 9 He prayed that he be declared constructively dismissed and be paid his monetary claims, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. 10
In its Position Paper, 11 Whiteport averred that as a construction company, it relies on projects for continued operations. Its laborers are project-based employees, whose status are coterminous with the project for which they are hired, and who are free to work elsewhere upon the completion of a project. 12
Whiteport claimed that Cataag was last hired from August to September 2014 for the Robinsons Place Antipolo Project. Upon the project's completion, Cataag and 43 other workers were separated from the company. Whiteport averred that the severance of employment was not a dismissal, and was properly reported to the Department of Labor and Employment. 13 CAIHTE
To support its claims, Whiteport presented the following: (1) the Project Basis Employment Contract at Robinsons Place Antipolo Project from August 11 to September 10, 2014; 14 (2) the Establishment Employment Report filed with the Department of Labor and Employment on October 16, 2014; 15 (3) the September 17, 2014 Notice of Termination; 16 and (4) the September 17, 2014 Separation and Clearance Form. 17 Whiteport also posited that it was not liable for separation pay. 18
Labor Arbiter Patricio P. Libo-on (Labor Arbiter Libo-on) rendered his November 25, 2016 Decision, 19 ruling in favor of Whiteport and Bryan Jake Diego (Diego), the company owner. Having found that Cataag was a project employee, he declared that Cataag could not have been constructive1y dismissed. He further rejected Cataag's monetary claims. 20
The dispositive portion of the Decision read:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit and/or basis.
SO ORDERED. 21
On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission rendered a January 31, 2017 Decision 22 affirming Labor Arbiter Libo-on's ruling.
The National Labor Relations Commission found that Cataag had been sufficiently informed of the terms of his employment, as evidenced by the Employment Contract. It also found that the Termination Report, which Whiteport had filed in accordance with the Department of Labor and Employment regulations, clearly stated that Cataag had been a project employee. 23
The National Labor Relations Commission also held that Cataag failed to prove that he was continuously hired from 2011 to 2014. It clarified that even if there was a showing of Whiteport's successive hiring of Cataag, he was still not a regular employee, as held in Dacles v. Millennium Erectors Corporation. 24
The dispositive portion of the National Labor Relations Commission Decision read:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision of Labor Arbiter Patricio P. Libo-on dated 25th November 2016, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.25 (Emphasis in the original)
On March 31, 2017, the National Labor Relations Commission issued a Resolution 26 denying Cataag's Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit.
Undeterred, Cataag filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari. 27
The Court of Appeals, however, denied the Petition in its November 21, 2017 Resolution. 28 It found that Cataag's only proof was his company identification card issued to him in 2011. On the contrary, Whiteport had substantially established that Cataag was a project employee through the documents it had submitted, which all bore Cataag's signature demonstrating his conformity with the terms. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals held that Cataag's company identification card supported Whiteport's claim that he was a project employee successively hired on a per-project basis. Hence, it ruled that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the National Labor Relations Commission. 29
The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals Decision read:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit and substance, not necessitating further review.
SO ORDERED.30 (Emphasis in the original)
Cataag's Motion for Reconsideration was denied in the Court of Appeals' June 7, 2018 Resolution. 31
Cataag filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition, which this Court granted in its July 23, 2018 Resolution. 32 He later filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari. 33
In its October 3, 2018 Resolution, 34 this Court required Whiteport and Diego to comment on the Petition within 10 days from receipt of the notice. DETACa
Whiteport and Diego initially filed a Motion for Extension of Time 35 to comment on the Petition. Subsequently, they filed their Comment, 36 which this Court noted in its February 27, 2019 Resolution. 37
Insisting that he was a regular employee, petitioner argues that he was entitled to security of tenure, and could only be dismissed for a just and authorized cause after compliance with due process. 38 He contends that in the Affidavit of one Architect Joseph L. Landig (Architect Landig), which respondents submitted to Labor Arbiter Libo-on, it was admitted that his work as a laborer/keyman conducting finishing works is necessary and desirable to respondents' business as it "goes to the very core of the construction business." 39
Even if he were a project employee, petitioner asserts that he has acquired the status of a regular employee based on the length of time and his repeated rehiring, citing D.M. Consunji Corporation v. Bello. 40 By having presented his company identification card, he claims that "the burden to prove that he was not an employee" 41 was shifted to respondents — who, he adds, have failed to prove that he was a project employee. 42 He alleges that the documents that respondents have presented pertain only to the 2014 engagement, but failed to show that he had been a project employee since 2011. For him, Architect Landig's Affidavit, which stated that he was hired from May 19 to June 19, 2011 as a project employee, was self-serving and a mere afterthought. 43
Respondents counter that it is not disputed that petitioner had been their employee. However, while his company identification card showed that he was respondents' employee, they aver that this "cannot be stretched to establish that he continuously worked with [respondent Whiteport] from 2011 to 2014[.]" 44 They maintain that all three (3) lower tribunals found that he was a project employee, not a regular one. 45
For this Court's resolution is the lone issue of whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the National Labor Relations Commission did not commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Labor Arbiter's finding that petitioner Ricky C. Cataag was a project employee.
The Petition is denied for lack of merit.
I
This Court is not a trier of facts. Generally, questions of fact cannot be raised before this Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. 46 Whether petitioner was a project employee is a question of fact entailing an examination of the documentary evidence presented by the parties. Petitioner did not invoke any of the exceptions to this Rule, and we find none either.
Moreover, "factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies like the [National Labor Relations Commission], if supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and even finality by this Court, more so when they coincide with those of the [Labor Arbiter]." 47 In Manggagawa ng Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas v. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, Inc.: 48
In labor cases, a Rule 45 petition "can prosper only if the Court of Appeals . . . fails to correctly determine whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion."
A court or tribunal is said to have acted with grave abuse of discretion when it capriciously acts or whimsically exercises judgment to be "equivalent to lack of jurisdiction." Furthermore, the abuse of discretion must be so flagrant to amount to a refusal to perform a duty or to act as provided by law. 49 (Citations omitted)
The inquiry at this juncture is whether the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the National Labor Relations Commission committed no grave abuse of discretion.
II
This Court has scrutinized the records and found no error on the Court of Appeals judgment. The National Labor Relations Commission did not act with grave abuse of discretion. aDSIHc
Article 295 of the Labor Code distinguishes project employment from regular employment:
ARTICLE 295. [280] Regular and casual employment. — The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except 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 or where the work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.
An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, That any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such activity exists.
The Court of Appeals justified its ruling by citing Dacles, where this Court found that rehiring project-based employees is usual in a construction business due to the nature of its work. 50Dacles declared that "the repeated and successive rehiring of project employees does not, by and of itself, qualify them as regular employees." 51
This finds support in ALU-TUCP v. National Labor Relations Commission: 52
In the realm of business and industry, we note that "project" could refer to one or the other of at least two (2) distinguishable types of activities. Firstly, a project could refer to a particular job or undertaking that is within the regular or usual business of the employer company, but which is distinct and separate, and identifiable as such, from the other undertakings of the company. Such job or undertaking begins and ends at determined or determinable times. The typical example of this first type of project is a particular construction job or project of a construction company. A construction company ordinarily carries out two or more discrete identifiable construction projects: e.g., a twenty-five-storey hotel in Makati; a residential condominium building in Baguio City; and a domestic air terminal in Iloilo City. Employees who are hired for the carrying out of one of these separate projects, the scope and duration of which has been determined and made known to the employees at the time of employment, are properly treated as "project employees," and their services may be lawfully terminated at completion of the project. 53
It would be unjust to insist that corporations keep all their project employees in the payroll even when a project has been completed.
On the other hand, the Court of Appeals held that D.M. Consunji Corporation does not apply here. It explained:
An examination of the Supreme Court's ruling in D.M. Consunji Corp. vs. Bello, supra, reveals that it does not apply in this case. The complainant in the Consunji was hired as a mason, which, by definition, was certainly necessary and indispensable to the construction industry. Petitioner herein, however, was hired as a laborer/keyman, which was not shown to be necessary nor indispensable to private respondent's business or trade. We have carefully reviewed the records of this case and found no description of petitioner's duties as a laborer/keyman, except for the bare claim as so. Noticeably, (sic) however, was the last period of petitioner's employment as a project employee, which lasted only for one (1) month from August 11, 2014 to September 10, 2014, indicating that his employment was fixed for a specific project or undertaking. 54 (Citation omitted)
This Court finds no error in this conclusion as the records support it.
Furthermore, Architect Landig's Affidavit showed that petitioner was hired from May 19, 2011 to June 19, 2011 for a certain project. Upon its completion, petitioner was given a notice of separation. 55
Between this period and respondents' last project in 2014, to which respondents admit, there is no evidence that petitioner has rendered work for the company. His claim that he had continuously worked from 2011 to 2014 remains unsubstantiated at this stage. ETHIDa
The Court of Appeals and the National Labor Relations Commission gave weight to the Employment Contract signed by petitioner, among other documents presented, demonstrating petitioner's knowledge of its terms. More important, respondents filed a Termination Report with the Department of Labor and Employment, as required by its Department Order No. 19, series of 1993. Under the Order, employers must submit a report of a project employee's termination from work to the nearest public employment office each time the project is completed and the employment is terminated.
The totality of evidence shows that petitioner was a project employee who was dismissed upon his contract's expiration. Thus, the Court of Appeals did not err in finding that the National Labor Relations Commission committed no grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's claim for lack of merit.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED for lack of merit, and the Court of Appeals' November 21, 2017 and June 7, 2018 Resolutions in CA-G.R. SP No. 151444 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 12-40.
2.Id. at 41-49. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang (now an Associate Justice of this Court), and concurred in by Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela of the Second Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3.Id. at 51-54. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang (now an Associate Justice of this Court), and concurred in by Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela of the Former Second Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
4.Id. at 41.
5.Id. at 41-42.
6.Id. at 97-99.
7.Id. at 42.
8.Id. at 100-107.
9.Id. at 101-102.
10.Id. at 105.
11.Id. at 108-114.
12.Id. at 108-109.
13.Id. at 109.
14.Id. at 115.
15.Id. at 116-117.
16.Id. at 118.
17.Id. at 119.
18.Id. at 112.
19.Id. at 134-139. The Decision was penned by Labor Arbiter Patricio P. Libo-on of the National Labor Relations Commission, Quezon City.
20.Id. at 138-139.
21.Id. at 139.
22.Id. at 84-91. The Decision was penned by Commissioner Bernardino B. Julve, and concurred in by Commissioner Leonard Vinz O. Ignacio and Presiding Commissioner Grace M. Venus of the Fourth Division, National Labor Relations Commission, Quezon City.
23.Id. at 86-88.
24.Id. at 88-89 citing 763 Phil. 550 (2015) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division].
25.Id. at 90.
26.Id. at 93-95. The Resolution was penned by Commissioner Bernardino B. Julve, and concurred in by Commissioner Leonard Vinz O. Ignacio and Presiding Commissioner Grace M. Venus of the Fourth Division, National Labor Relations Commission, Quezon City.
27.Id. at 66-83.
28.Id. at 41-49.
29.Id. at 48.
30.Id. at 49.
31.Id. at 51-54.
32.Id. at 10-A.
33.Id. at 12-40.
34.Id. at 158.
35.Id. at 159-163.
36.Id. at 164-177.
37.Id. at 178-179.
38.Id. at 20.
39.Id. at 21. Architect Joseph L. Landig's Affidavit is found in p. 133 of the rollo.
40.Id. at 22 citing 715 Phil. 335 (2013) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
41.Id. at 23.
42.Id.
43.Id. at 24-26.
44.Id. at 172.
45.Id. at 171.
46.RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, sec. 1.
47.Naguit v. San Miguel Corporation, 761 Phil. 184, 193-194 (2015) [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].
48.809 Phil. 106 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
49.Id. at 120.
50.Rollo, p. 48.
51.Dacles v. Millennium Erectors Corporation, 763 Phil. 550, 560 (2015) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division].
52.304 Phil. 844 (1994) [Per J. Feliciano, En Banc].
53.Id. at 851-852.
54.Rollo, p. 53.
55.Id. at 133.