Molino v. Datem, Inc.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 252479. December 2, 2021.]

WILFREDO T. MOLINO, petitioner,vs. DATEM, INC., respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 2, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 252479 — Wilfredo T. Molino v. Datem, Inc.

The Case

This petition assails the following dispositions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 157482 entitled "Datem, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and Wilfredo T. Molino":

1. Decision 1 dated October 14, 2019, finding that petitioner was a project employee, thus, not entitled to retirement benefits; and

2. Resolution 2 dated March 2, 2020, denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

Antecedents

On February 20, 2017, petitioner Wilfredo T. Molino (petitioner) filed a complaint for non-payment of service incentive leave, separation pay, and retirement benefits with claims for damages, and attorney's fees against respondents Datem, Inc., and its President Arnold De Asis. 3

He essentially averred that on August 23, 2002, Datem hired him as a finishing carpenter. His work schedule was from Monday to Saturday from 7 o'clock in the morning until 4 o'clock in the afternoon with a daily salary of P481.00. 4 Datem hired him for the same task for a period of fourteen (14) years from August 23, 2002 to October 23, 2016. He signed over forty four (44) employment contracts, each usually lasting only for three (3) months. After every completed contract, he would be rehired for another project.

On September 20, 2016, he reached the age of sixty (60) years old. He felt he needed to stop working to spend more time with his family. 5 Thus, through letter dated October 23, 2016, he signified his intent to retire from work and avail of his retirement benefits. 6 Datem accepted his decision to retire but denied him of his retirement benefits. Datem explained that once it grants retirement benefits, the other employees would follow. 7

Thereafter, on January 9, 2017, he sought assistance from the Single-Entry Approach (SEnA) Desk in the NLRC, Quezon City. The parties, however, failed to amicably settle during the conciliation proceedings. 8

He discovered that Datem filed its termination reports with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) only on June 19, 2008 or six (6) years after he first started working with the company. 9 Out of the forty four (44) contracts he signed, only thirteen (13) termination reports were filed with the DOLE. He presented a Table 10 showing a summary of his employment contracts with Datem, viz.:

 

Employment Contract	Duration/End of Contract	DOLE Report-Date of Filing	Effectivity date of termination
August 23, 2002	3 months	Not reported	None
September 15, 2002	No period	Not reported	None
December 5, 2002	3 months	Not reported	None
January 25, 2003	3 months	Not reported	None
April 25, 2003	3 months	Not reported	None
July 26, 2003	3 months	Not reported	None
June 9, 2004	3 months	Not reported	None
June 16, 2005	3 months	Not reported	None
September 17, 2005	3 months	Not reported	None
March 1, 2006	[1] month	Not reported	None
August 24, 2006	3 months	Not reported	None
November 24, 2006	1 month	Not reported	None
March 6, 2007	3 months	Not reported	None
May 21, 2008	3 months	June 19, 2008	July 19, 2007
August 21, 2008	November 21, 2008	Not reported	None
November 21, 2008	February 21, 2008	Not reported	None
January 21, 2009	April 21, 2009	Not reported	None
April 9, 2009	July 21, 2009	Not reported	None
July 21, 2009	October 21, 2009	Not reported	None
October 28, 2009	January 28, 2009	Not reported	None
October 26, 2010	January 25, 2011	April 16, 2010-June 09, 2010	May 17, 2010-July 19, 2010
January 26, 2011	April 25, 2011	January 4, 2011	January 28, 2011
April 25, 2011	July 24, 2011	March 29, 2011	April 29, 2011
July 26, 2011	October 26, 2011	June 28, 2011	July 28, 2011
October 26, 2011	January 26, 2012	September 28, 2011	January 27, 2011
February 6, 2012	May 6, 2012	January 2, 2012	January 27, 2012
May 14, 2012	August 12, 2012	April 2, 2012	May 6, 2012
August 14, 2012	November 14, 2012	July 27, 2012	July 22-28, 2012
November 15, 2012	February 15, 2013	Not reported	None
February 15, 2013	March 15, 2013	Not reported	None
March 2, 2013	June 11, 2013	May 16, 2013	June 12, 2013
May 2, 2013	August 2, 2013	July 2, 2013	July 28-August 3, 2013
August 3, 2013	November 3, 2013	Not reported	None
November 4, 2013	February 4, 201[4]	Not reported	None
February 5, 2014	May 5, 2014	April 24, 2014	May 04-10, 2014
April 29, 2014	July 28, 2014	Not reported	None
October 29, 2014	January 28, 2015	Not reported	None
February 4, 2015	May 4, 2015	Not reported	None
May 3, 2015	August 2, 2015	Not reported	None
August 2, 2015	November 1, 2015	Not reported	None
November 11, 2015	January 31, 2016	Not reported	None
March 28, 2016	June 27, 2016	February 26, 2014	February 6, 2016
June 28, 2016	September 27, 2016	Not reported	None
September 27, 2016	October 29, 2016	Not reported	None

 

Based on the contracts, Datem continuously and repeatedly hired him for a period of fourteen (14) years. 11 His Certification of Employment dated October 24, 2016 also indicated he got hired from August 23, 2002 to October 23, 2016. Some of the periods, however, overlapped, thus, casting doubt on the specific duration of his employment. As a finishing carpenter, he performed tasks such as formworks installation, beams and slabs installation, structural works, stripping and hauling of formworks materials, among others, which were all necessary and indispensable in the construction business of the company. In addition, the failure of Datem to file termination reports for every project completion proved that his employment status was not that of a mere project employee. These circumstances, taken together, established his regular employment status which entitled him to receive his retirement benefits.

In the course of his employment with Datem, he was not paid his leave credits. 12

On the other hand, respondents countered that Datem is a general construction company whose operations depend on the contracts it is able to secure from different private real estate developers. Datem hired petitioner as a project employee for specific phases in several construction projects. They presented petitioner's employment contracts showing he worked for them from August 23, 2002 to October 29, 2016. 13 When his services were needed, he would be rehired for a new project. His employment contracts specified the duration of his employment and the work he ought to perform. Based thereon, petitioner was a mere project employee 14 whose employment got terminated upon completion of the projects for which he got hired. 15

Under the company's Retirement Plan, only employees with regular employment status are entitled to retirement benefits, viz.:

"ARTICLE I

xxx xxx xxx

Section 2. PURPOSE. —

This plan shall establish the DATEM, INC. RETIREMENT TRUST FUND which will provide retirement, death disability and severance benefits for all eligible employees of the Company.

xxx xxx xxx

ARTICLE III

Section 1. MEMBERSHIP. —

Membership in the Plan shall be automatic for all officers and employees of the Company who are considered having Regular Employment Status x x x." 16

Verily, petitioner is not entitled to retirement benefits because he did not become a regular employee of the company. 17

Respondents admitted, though, that on several occasions, they failed to report the termination of petitioner's employment to the DOLE. But still, this instance did not make him a regular employee. 18

Also, the company regularly paid petitioner's service incentive leaves as indicated in his payslips. 19 As for separation pay, he cannot be entitled to the same because he did not even allege that he had been illegally dismissed. 20

Finally, petitioner purportedly failed to adduce sufficient evidence in support of his claim for damages. 21

The Labor Arbiter's Ruling

By Decision 22 dated January 31, 2018, Labor Arbiter Jenneth B. Napiza ruled in petitioner's favor, viz.:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered directing respondent Datem, Inc. to pay complainant Wilfredo T. Molino, a regular employee, the total amount of ONE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED TWO PESOS and 27/100 ([P]165,402.27) representing his retirement pay and service incentive leave [credits] per attached computation, which forms an integral (sic) of this Decision.

All other claims are dismissed for want of merit.

SO ORDERED.23

The Labor Arbiter found that respondents failed to file the corresponding termination report for every accomplished project for which petitioner's services were engaged. 24 If petitioner was indeed a project employee, respondents should have shown the complete termination reports as there were projects actually finished beginning from the date petitioner got hired for the first time. 25 This is mandated by Section 2.2 (e) of DOLE Department Order No. 19, Series of 1993. 26 Too, settled is the rule that the failure of the employer to file its termination report after every project completion with the nearest public employment office indicates that an employee is not a project employee. 27

Further, petitioner's repeated tasks as a carpenter were necessary and indispensable to Datem's usual trade and business as a construction company, thus, supporting his status as a regular employee. 28 Also, as a regular employee, petitioner worked with Datem for more than five (5) years and had reached the optional retirement age of sixty (60).

Applying Republic Act No. 7641 (RA 7641), 29 otherwise known as the "Retirement Pay Law," Labor Arbiter Napiza consequently ordered Datem to pay petitioner his retirement benefits in the amount of P151,515.00. 30 In addition, Datem was ordered to pay P13,887.27 representing petitioner's service incentive leave. 31

Meanwhile, petitioner's claims for separation pay and damages were denied for lack of basis. He opted to retire and there was no showing he had been illegally dismissed.

Finally, the complaint against respondent De Asis was dismissed for lack of merit. Petitioner failed to show that De Asis was guilty of bad faith in the exercise of his official acts as Datem's President. 32

The Ruling of the NLRC

On appeal, the NLRC affirmed per Decision 33 dated May 15, 2018. It concurred in the finding of the Labor Arbiter that respondents intermittently and incompletely filed the required establishment termination report on petitioner's employment status after each completed project. Of the forty four (44) employment contracts petitioner signed, only thirteen (13) termination reports were filed with the DOLE. At the time the first termination report got filed in 2008, petitioner had been working with Datem for six (6) years already. He, too, performed the same tasks for every project as a carpenter for a continuous period since 2002 or for fourteen (14) years. This only meant that he performed tasks which were necessary and desirable to respondents' business as a construction company. These circumstances were clear badges indicating petitioner's employment status as a regular employee. Hence, he should be entitled to retirement benefits. 34 Notably, Datem likewise failed to pay petitioner his full leave credits.

Under Resolution 35 dated June 28, 2018, the NLRC denied respondents' motion for reconsideration.

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In its assailed Decision 36 dated October 14, 2019, the Court of Appeals reversed, thus:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed (i) May 15, 2018 Decision, and (ii) June 28, 2018 Resolution, both of the National Labor Relations Commission [Third Division], in NLRC LAC No. 04-001378-18 [NLRC NCR Case No. 02-02446-17], are ANNULED and SET ASIDE.

Private respondent Wilfredo T. Molino's Complaint for money claims, specifically for retirement benefits, is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Petitioner Datem, Inc. is, however, ORDERED to pay private respondent the total amount of Thirteen Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Seven and 27/100 ([Php]13,887.27), representing his service incentive leave differentials per computation attached in the January 31, 2018 Decision of the Labor Arbiter.

SO ORDERED.37

The Court of Appeals ruled that petitioner was a project employee. For his employment contracts allegedly indicated the particular tasks and the period during which his tasks were to be done. 38

Although he was employed for fourteen (14) years, he only worked intermittently. His tasks, though, were indeed vital and necessary to Datem's business as a construction industry. 39 And while respondents failed to file as many termination reports as there were completed projects involving petitioner, such omission did not automatically make him a regular employee. 40 Thus, petitioner as a project employee is not entitled to retirement benefits. 41

Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals affirmed the labor tribunals' ruling that Datem failed to pay petitioner the service incentive leaves due him. 42

Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied under Resolution 43 dated March 2, 2020.

The Present Petition

Petitioner now seeks the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction to reverse and set aside the assailed dispositions of the Court of Appeals. In support hereof, petitioner essentially repeats the arguments he raised before the three (3) tribunals below.

In its comment, respondent Datem, Inc. likewise presents anew its counter arguments against petitioner's plea for affirmative relief.

Core Issue

Was petitioner a project or a regular employee?

Ruling

We sustain petitioner's status as a regular employee.

Article 295 of the Labor Code distinguishes a project-based employee from a regular employee, viz.:

Art. 295. 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. x x x (Emphasis supplied)

As ordained, regular employees are those engaged to perform activities which are necessary or desirable in the usual trade or business of the employer. 44 In Abasolo v. NLRC, 45 the Court decreed the standard to determine regular employment status, thus:

The primary standard, therefore, of determining a regular employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer. The test is whether the former is usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. The connection can be determined by considering the nature of the work performed and its relation to the scheme of the particular business or trade in its entirety. Also, if the employee has been performing the job for at least one year, even if the performance is not continuous or merely intermittent, the law deems the repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity if not indispensability of that activity to the business. Hence, the employment is also considered regular, but only with respect to such activity and while such activity exists. (Emphasis supplied)

On the other hand, whether an employee is a "project employee" is determined by the "specific project or undertaking" for which the employee is hired and the duration (and scope) of the employment which details are all specified at the time the employee is engaged. 46 "Project" refers to a particular job or undertaking that is within the regular or usual business of the employer, but which is distinct, separate, and identifiable from the undertakings of the company. Such job or undertaking begins and ends at a determined or determinable time. 47

Before an employee hired on a per project basis can be dismissed, a report must be made to the nearest employment office of the termination of the services of the workers every time it completed a project pursuant to Section 2.2 (e) of DOLE Department Order No. 19, Series of 1993, thus:

Section 2.2. Indicators of project employment. — Either one or more of the following circumstances, among others, may be considered as indicators that an employee is a project employee.

xxx xxx xxx

(e) The termination of his employment in the particular project/undertaking is reported to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional Office having jurisdiction over the workplace within 30 days following the date of his separation from work, using the prescribed form on employees' terminations/dismissal/suspensions.

xxx xxx xxx

Here, petitioner claims that he performed the same tasks as a finishing carpenter which were necessary and indispensable to Datem's construction business. He was continuously and repeatedly hired for a period of fourteen years from August 23, 2002 until October 23, 2016. 48 In addition, the failure of Datem to file a termination report of his employment after every project completion indicated that his employment status was not that of a mere project employee. These circumstances proved that he was a regular employee, hence, he should be entitled to retirement benefits.

On the other hand, respondent argues that petitioner was a mere project employee whose employment got terminated upon completion of the projects for which he was hired. 49 Therefore, he cannot claim payment of retirement benefits because he was not a regular employee of the company. 50

Petitioner was not a mere project employee

As a general rule, the Court is not a trier of facts and does not recalibrate evidence adduced before the lower tribunals. 51 But where the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are substantially different from the factual findings of the Court of Appeals, as in this case, the Court has the discretion to re-evaluate such factual findings. 52

Here, there is ample evidence showing that petitioner attained the status of a regular employee. Consider:

First. Petitioner's task as a carpenter is necessary and desirable in Datem's business as a construction industry. His tasks include formworks installation, beams and slabs installation, structural works, stripping and hauling of formworks materials, and pouring guard, among others. These tasks in fact constitute the core activities Datem offers and performs as a construction company. Not only that. The uniform pattern of re-hiring and the recurring need for petitioner's services are strong veritable evidence of the necessity and indispensability of his services to respondent's construction business. 53

Second. Records show that petitioner had been continuously and repeatedly hired by the company for fourteen (14) years. Indeed, there was an unbroken string of petitioner's rehiring from August 23, 2002 until October 23, 2016. Through all those years, however, respondent improperly treated him as a mere project employee who was never accorded security of tenure. 54

The Court ordained in Chua v. Court of Appeals55 that while therein private respondents may have been initially hired as carpenters, masons, and fine graders for specific projects or undertakings, their repeated re-hiring and the continuous need for their services over a long span of time — the shortest being two (2) years and the longest being eight (8) — had undeniably made them regular employees.

In the similar case of Liganza v. RBL Shipyard, Corp., 56 Liganza was hired as a carpenter for a period of over eight (8) years. Contrary to therein respondent's claim that Liganza was a mere project employee, the repeated re-hiring and continuing need for his services for eight (8) years had made him a regular employee.

Maraguinot, Jr. v. NLRC57 likewise decreed that once a project or work pool employee has been: (1) continuously, as opposed to intermittently, rehired by the same employer for the same tasks or nature of tasks; and (2) these tasks are vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer, then the employee must be deemed a regular employee, as in this case.

While length of time is not the controlling test for project employment, 58 it is vital in determining if the employee was hired for a specific undertaking or tasked to perform functions vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer. 59

Applying settled jurisprudence here, petitioner is deemed to have long attained the status of a regular employee, having been repeatedly hired as carpenter forty four (44) times to be exact, for fourteen (14) years. As such, his employment ceased to be coterminous with any specific projects. 60

Third. Pursuant to Section 2.2 (e) of DOLE Department Order No. 19, Series of 1993, employers are required to submit a report of the termination of every employee to the nearest public employment office. The failure of the employer to file termination reports is an indication that the employee is not a project employee. 61Goma v. Pamplona Plantation, Inc.62 is in point:

Most important of all, based on the records, respondent did not report the termination of petitioner's supposed project employment to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). Department Order No. 19 (as well as the old Policy Instructions No. 20) requires employers to submit a report of an employee's termination to the nearest public employment office every time the employment is terminated due to a completion of a project. Respondent's failure to file termination reports, particularly on the cessation of petitioner's employment, was an indication that the petitioner was not a project but a regular employee. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Here, Datem admitted that on several occasions, it did not submit to the DOLE the required termination reports on petitioner's employment. In fact, of the forty four (44) contracts it had which petitioner signed, it was only able to submit to the DOLE thirteen (13) termination reports.

Indubitably, Datem's failure to report the so-called termination of petitioner's project employment for its thirty one (31) other projects is a strong evidence that petitioner after all was a regular, not a project employee. 63

Fourth. Petitioner's regular employment status is further bolstered by the incomplete and inconsistent entries on the various employment contracts he signed:

a) Seven (7) of petitioner's employment contracts bore overlapping periods. 64 to wit: 1) February 15, 2013 to March 15, 2013 (30th contract); 2) March 2, 2013 to June 11, 2013 (31st contract); 3) May 2, 2013 to August 2, 2013 (32nd contract); 4) February 5, 2014 to May 5, 2014 (35th contract); 5) April 29, 2014 to July 28, 2014 (36th contract); 6) February 4, 2015 to May 4, 2015 (38th contract); and 7) May 3, 2015 to August 2, 2015 (39th contract).

b) Petitioner's Employment Contract dated September 15, 2002 did not indicate the specific period or duration of his engagement. 65

c) The Employment Contract dated March 6, 2007 failed to identify the specific undertaking which petitioner ought to accomplish. 66

Taken together, these circumstances negate respondents' claim that petitioner was indeed hired for a specific or fixed undertaking for a determined or determinable period of time. It appears that respondents themselves made attempts to hide the regular employment status of petitioner, albeit it faintly succeeded.

In any event, whatever doubts exist on the nature of petitioner's employment status should be resolved in favor of his regular employment in line with the policy of the law to afford protection to labor and construe doubts in favor of labor. 67

Petitioner is entitled to retirement benefits

Retirement benefits are intended to help the employee enjoy the remaining years of his life to lessen the burden of worrying for his financial support, and to reward him for his loyalty and service to the employer. Retirement benefits are either granted by law, by agreement of the employees and their employer, or by the employer's voluntary act. 68

Article 287 of the Labor Code, as amended by RA 7641 provides, 69viz.:

Art. 302 [287]. Retirement. — Any employee may be retired upon reaching the retirement age established in the collective bargaining agreement or other applicable employment contract. 70

In case of retirement, the employee shall be entitled to receive such retirement benefits as he may have earned under existing laws and any collective bargaining agreement and other agreements: Provided however, That an employee's retirement benefits under any collective bargaining and other agreement shall not be less than those provided herein.

In the absence of retirement plan or agreement providing for retirement benefits of employees in the establishment, an employee upon reaching the age of sixty (60) years or more, but not beyond sixty five (65) years which is hereby declared the compulsory retirement age, who has served at least five (5) years in said establishment, may retire and shall be entitled to retirement pay equivalent to at least one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, a fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one whole year.

Unless the parties provide for broader inclusions, the term one-half month salary shall mean fifteen (15) days plus one twelfth (1/12) of the 13th month pay and the cash equivalent of not more than five (5) days of service incentive leaves.

xxx xxx xxx (Emphases supplied)

The Implementing Rules of RA 7641 further enunciates:

RULE II

Retirement Benefits

SECTION 1

General Statement on Coverage. — This Rule shall apply to all employees in the private sector, regardless of their position, designation or status and irrespective of the method by which their wages are paid, except to those specifically exempted under Section 2 hereof. As used herein, the term "Act" shall refer to Republic Act No. 7641 which took effect on January 7, 1993.

xxx xxx xxx

As a regular employee of Datem, petitioner is covered by the company's Retirement Plan as stated under Section 1, Article III thereof, thus:

ARTICLE III

MEMBERSHIP

Section 1. MEMBERSHIP. —

Membership in the Plan shall be automatic for all officers and employees of the Company who are considered having a Regular Employment Status. Membership in the Plan will commence retroactively on the first day of the month coincident with or next following his attainment of Regular Employment Status. Upon commencement of membership in the Company may require the Member to execute a pledge to the effect that he has read and is conformity with this Plan and that he shall abide by its provisions and with any amendments and supplementary rules thereto.

Notably, both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC applied the retirement benefits provided under RA 7641, without assessing first which between Datem's Retirement Plan on one hand, and the retirement benefits granted under RA 7641 on the other, would be more beneficial to petitioner.

In Rustan Supercenters, Inc. v. Funa, 71 the Court ordered the Labor Arbiter to make a re-computation of Funa's retirement benefits in accordance with Rustan Supercenters, Inc.'s company policy on retirement benefits, or RA 7641, whichever is higher.

Here, the Labor Arbiter, too, should make a comprehensive re-computation of petitioner's retirement benefits to determine which between the company's retirement plan and RA 7641 is more beneficial to petitioner.

In another vein, petitioner is entitled to service incentive leave pay in the total amount of Php13,887.27 as well as the award of attorney's fees 72 since he was compelled to litigate to protect his interest. 73

Finally, consistent with Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 74 six percent (6%) legal interest per annum is imposed on the total money award from finality of this Resolution until fully paid.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated October 14, 2019 and Resolution dated March 2, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 157482 are nullified. Respondent Datem, Inc. is ORDERED to pay petitioner Wilfredo T. Molino the following:

(1) Retirement benefits in accordance with Datem, Inc.'s Retirement Plan, or Republic Act No. 7641, otherwise known as the "Retirement Pay Law," whichever is more beneficial to petitioner;

(2) P13,887.27 as unpaid service incentive leave;

(3) Attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award; and

(4) Six percent (6%) legal interest per annum from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid.

The respondent's comment/opposition to the petition for review on certiorari is NOTED.

SO ORDERED." Lopez, J., J., took no part; Gaerlan, J., designated additional Member per raffle dated November 24, 2021.

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz and concurred in by Associate Justice Tita Marilyn Payoyo-Villordon and Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez (now a member of the Court), all members of the Special Thirteenth Division, rollo, pp. 28-40.

2.Id. at 4.

3.Id. at 366.

4.Id. at 253.

5.Id.

6.Id.

7.Id.

8.Id.

9.Id. at 305.

10.Id. at 305-308.

11.Id. at 303.

12.Id. at 253.

13.Id. at 320.

14.Id. at 299.

15.Id. at 297.

16. Annex "77", id. at 299.

17.Id.

18.Id. at 319.

19.Id. at 298.

20.Id.

21.Id. at 300.

22.Id. at 316-323.

23.Id. at 322-323.

24.Id. at 303.

25.Id.

26. Section 2.2. Indicators of project employment. — Either one or more of the following circumstances, among others, may be considered as indicators that an employee is a project employee.

xxx xxx xxx

e) The termination of his employment in the particular project/undertaking is reported to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional Office having jurisdiction over the workplace within 30 days following the date of his separation from work, using the prescribed form on employees' terminations/dismissal/suspensions.

27.Rollo, p. 303.

28.Id. at 321.

29. Or "An Act Amending Article 287 of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines, by Providing for Retirement Plan to Qualified Private Sector Employees in the Absence of Any Retirement Plan in the Establishment."

30.Rollo, p. 324.

31.Id.

32.Id. at 322.

33.Id. at 365-376.

34.Id. at 373-374.

35.Id. at 392-393.

36.Id. at 28-40.

37.Id. at 38-39.

38.Id. at 34.

39.Id. at 35-36.

40.Id. at 37.

41.Id. at 38.

42.Id.

43.Id. at 4.

44. As cited in Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corp. v. Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa URSUMCO-National Federation of Labor, G.R. No. 224558, November 18, 2018.

45. 400 Phil. 86, 103 (2000).

46.Uy v. NLRC, 330 Phil. 218, 227 (1996) as cited in Integrated Contractor and Plumbing Works, Inc. v. NLRC, 503 Phil. 875, 881 (2005).

47.Herma Shipyard, Inc. v. Oliveros, 808 Phil. 668, 685 (2017).

48.Rollo, p. 305.

49.Id. at 434.

50.Id. at 437-438.

51. See Javier v. Fly Ace Corp., 682 Phil. 359, 371 (2012); Alilin v. Petron Corp., 735 Phil. 509, 522 (2014).

52.Minsola v. New City Builders, Inc., 824 Phil. 864, 874 (2018).

53.Integrated Contractor and Plumbing Works, Inc. v. NLRC, supra note 45 at 882.

54. See D.M. Consunji, Inc. v. Jamin, 686 Phil. 220, 231 (2012).

55. 483 Phil. 126, 131 (2004).

56. 535 Phil. 662, 673 (2006).

57. 348 Phil. 580, 601 (1998).

58.D.M. Consunji, Inc. v. NLRC, 401 Phil. 635, 641 (2000).

59.Supra note 45 at 882.

60. See Liganza v. RBL Shipyard Corp., 535 Phil. 662, 673 (2006).

61. See Aurora Land Projects Corp. v. NLRC, 334 Phil. 44, 57 (1997); Philippine National Construction Corp. v. NLRC, 289 Phil. 655 (1992); Philippine National Construction Corporation v. NLRC, 255 Phil. 880-883 (1989); Ochoco v. NLRC, 205 Phil. 677-681 (1983); Integrated Contractor and Plumbing Works, Inc. v. NLRC, supra at 883; Magante v. NLRC, 263 Phil. 718-727 (1990); Phesco, Inc. v. NLRC, 309 Phil. 402, 404 (1994); Violeta v. NLRC, 345 Phil. 762, 769 (1997).

62. 579 Phil. 402, 413 (2008).

63.Supra note 45.

64. Dates in bold, as indicated in the Table.

65. Annex "2".

66. Annex "13".

67.Supra note 59 at 674.

68.Aquino v. NLRC, 283 Phil. 1, 6 (1992) as cited in De La Salle Araneta University v. Bernardo, 805 Phil. 580, 597 (2017).

69.Paz v. Northern Tobacco Redrying Co., Inc., 754 Phil. 251, 258 (2015).

70.Santo v. University of Cebu, G.R. No. 232522, August 28, 2019.

71. G.R. No. 250289 (Notice), March 9, 2020.

72. See Tangga-an v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., 706 Phil. 339, 354 (2013); See Salafranca v. Philamlife Village Homeowners Association, Inc., 360 Phil. 652, 668 (1998).

73. See Alva v. High Capacity Security Force, Inc., 820 Phil. 677, 685 (2017); Santo v. University of Cebu, G.R. No. 232522, August 28, 2019.

74. 716 Phil. 267 (2013) as cited in Inocentes, Jr. v. R. Syjuco Construction, Inc., G.R. No. 240549, August 27, 2020.