Nadal v. Vistamar Beach Resort & Country Club

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 206605. June 9, 2014.]

RACHEL NADAL, petitioner, vs. VISTAMAR BEACH RESORT & COUNTRY CLUB and/or IMELDA S. YU, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 9, 2014, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 206605 (Rachel Nadal v. Vistamar Beach Resort & Country Club and/or Imelda S. Yu). — Before the Court is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the March 30, 2012 Decision 1 and January 7, 2013 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in a consolidated complaint for illegal dismissal filed by petitioner Rachel Nadal (Nadal) and Casino Amante (Amante) against respondent Vistamar Beach Resort & Country Club and Imelda Yu (respondents).

In their joint position paper, Nadal and Amante alleged that they were employed on January 21, 2002 and May 31, 2004, respectively, as pool attendants/lifeguards with a daily salary of P135.00; that during the period of their employment, they were made to work for more than eight (8) hours a day without being paid overtime pay; that they did not receive 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay and premium for holiday pay; and that every time they received their salary, they were asked to sign waivers and quitclaims.

Nadal further alleged that prior to his termination, he was asked by respondents to sign a five-month contract of employment after being continuously employed for over five (5) years. When Nadal refused to sign the contract, he was barred from entering the resort starting January 26, 2007.

Amante, on the other hand, averred that on November 6, 2006, he was called by Lisa Bautista, the Assistant Manager of the resort, and was informed that the management would be implementing employment reduction and that it would be his last day of work. Thereafter, he was barred from entering the workplace. 3

In their answer, respondents denied the allegations and asserted that Nadal and Amante were seasonal employees; that at the time they were employed, they were informed that their undertakings were for the duration of a certain season; and that they were still part of the pool of the seasonal employees of the resort. 4

On November 27, 2007, the Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered judgment 5 dismissing the case for illegal dismissal, but respondents were ordered to pay wage differential, 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay. The dispositive portion reads: SHADcT

WHEREFORE, VIEWED FROM THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING complainants' claim for illegal dismissal. However, respondents VISTAMAR BEACH RESORT AND COUNTRY CLUB/IMELDA S. YU are hereby ordered to pay complainants with the following, to wit:

	Names	Wage	13th Month Pay	Service	Total
		Differential		Incentive Leave
1.	Casino	P2,869.00	P1,402.00	P269.62	P3,540.62
	Amante
2.	Rachel Nadal	P12,523.00	P8,389.42	P1,652.51	P22,564.93
					–––––––––
	Total				26,104.55
	10% Attorney's Fees				P2,610.45
					–––––––––
					P28,715.00
					========

Other claims are denied for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED. 6

The LA stated that the documentary evidence adduced by the parties proved that both Nadal and Amante were seasonal employees as they were hired only during a specific occasion or season. As such, their respective terms of office expired when the specific occasion or season for which they were hired ended.

On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the decision of the LA. The NLRC found that the employment of Nadal and Amante with respondents were not continuous as they were called only to augment the regular work force especially during peak season as the regular employees of respondents could only efficiently serve 100 guests. Thus, the completion of the contract or phase for which they were engaged automatically terminated their employment. 7

Aggrieved, Nadal elevated the matter to the CA, raising the sole argument that the NLRC palpably erred when it ruled that he was a project employee and so, there was no illegal dismissal.

On March 30, 2012, the CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the decision of the NLRC. The dispositive portion reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing premises, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The March 25, 2009 decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirming the November 27, 2007 decision of the Executive Labor Arbiter is AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED. 8

The CA found that Nadal signed employment contracts indicating the specific project or phase of work for which he was hired with a fixed period of employment. On this score, it deemed Nadal a seasonal employee whose work or service to be performed was seasonal in nature and the employment was only for duration of the season. It further stated that his employment for several years did not equate to regular employment as his employment depended on a specific undertaking/project for which he was hired.

Nadal filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied in the CA Resolution, dated January 7, 2013.

Hence, this petition.

GROUNDS:

THE COURT OF APPEALS, 18TH DIVISION, DECIDED THE CASE CONTRARY TO LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE;

WHEN IT HELD THAT THE PETITIONER WAS A SEASONAL AND/OR PROJECT EMPLOYEE;

WHEN IT RULED THAT THE PETITIONER WAS VALIDLY DISMISSED UPON THE END OF THE SEASON OR PROJECT.9

The petition is not meritorious.

The Court is not a trier of facts, and this doctrine applies with greater force in labor cases. The findings of fact of the CA, particularly if they coincide with those of the LA and the NLRC, and when supported by substantial evidence, are entitled to great weight and respect, and even finality, unless it is shown that the evidence of the parties were arbitrarily disregarded. As long as their decisions are devoid of any unfairness or arbitrariness in the process of their deduction from the evidence proffered by the parties, all that is left is for the Court is to stamp its affirmation and declare its finality. 10

Article 280 of the Labor Code provides: cAHDES

ART. 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 services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for 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 actually exists.

A project employee is one whose 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. 11 The principal test for determining whether a particular employee is a project employee or a regular employee is whether or not the employee was assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking, the duration and scope of which were specified at the time the employee was engaged for that project. 12

The Court agrees with the findings of the LA, the NLRC and the CA that Nadal was a project employee. Respondents presented several contracts signed by Nadal showing that he was indeed employed as a project employee to perform a specific undertaking for a definite duration. Nadal's length and nature of service was summarized as follows:

Year	Period	Purpose
2002	January 29-February 5	seaweeds clean-up installation
	February 6-20	Installation of barbed wire-
		seaside portion
	February 21-March 5	Assisting Engineering
		Department clean-up
	March 21-April 5	Assist carpentry of banquet
		tables and chairs
	December 21-January 5	Fixing of banquet table and
		chairs
2003	February 6-20	Transfer of used plywood and
		lumber to swimming pool
		basement
	May 6-20	Preparation/carpentry and
		installation of Jacuzzi cover
	August 21-September 5	Transfer of sand from basketball
		court to beach area
2004	March 21-April 5	Painting of boardwalk
	July 21-August 5	Repair of tables and chairs
2005	August 21-September 5	Clearing of temporary houses of
		the carpenters
	December 6-20	Banquet function clean-up
2006	November 6-20	Transfer of tables and chairs
		from function area to swimming
		pool
2007	January 21-February 5	Planting of flowers in front of
		Vistamar Condo.

Though the contract showed that Nadal was constantly re-hired by respondents, such fact however, did not ipso facto prove that he became a regular employee. His employment was not continuous and depended on the availability of the work/project. The Court notes that the gaps between engagements were considerably long. With Nadal being a project employee/seasonal employee, his employment legally ended upon a completion of each project.

Accordingly, the termination of his employment cannot be considered an illegal dismissal. DaHcAS

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. (Villarama, Jr., J., designated Acting Member in view of the vacancy in the Third Division, per Special Order No. 1691, dated May 22, 2014)

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 144-156. Penned by Associate Justice Pampio A. Abarintos with Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, concurring.

2. Id. at 158-159.

3. Id. at 23-33.

4. Id. at 35-41.

5. Id. at 42-52.

6. Id. at 51.

7. Id. at 67-73.

8. Id. at 144-156. Penned by Associate Justice Pampio A. Abarintos with Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, concurring.

9. Id. at 7.

10. Becton Dickinson Phils., Inc. v. NLRC, 511 Phil. 566, 585 (2007).

11. Caseres v. Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation, 560 Phil. 615 (2007).

12. Grandspan Development Corporation v. Bernardo, 507 Phil. 442 (2005), citing Kiamco v. NLRC, 368 Phil. 736 (1999).