Rada vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 96078, January 9, 1992, 205 SCRA 69
Rada vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 96078, January 9, 1992, 205 SCRA 69
SECOND DIVISION
HILARIO RADA,
Petitioner,
-versus-
NATIONAL
LABOR
RELATIONS
COMMISSION (Second Division) and
PHILNOR
CONSULTANTS
AND
PLANNERS, INC.,
Respondents.
x----------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
REGALADO, J.:
In this Special Civil Action for Certiorari, petitioner Rada seeks to
annul the decision of respondent National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC), dated November 19, 1990, reversing the
decision of the labor arbiter which ordered the reinstatement of
petitioner with backwages and awarded him overtime pay.[1]
chanroblespublishingcompany
x x x
Highlighting the nature of Petitioners employment, Annex A
specifically provides as follows:
It is hereby understood that the Employer does not have a
continuing need for the services of the Employee beyond the
termination date of this contract and that the Employees
services shall automatically, and without notice, terminate upon
the completion of the above specified phase of the project; and
that it is further understood that the engagement of his/her
services is coterminous with the same and not with the whole
project or other phases thereof wherein other employees of
similar position as he/she have been hired. (Par. 7, emphasis
supplied).
chanroblespublishingcompany
Culled from the records, it appears that on May 20, 1987, petitioner
filed before the NLRC, National Capital Region, Department of Labor
and Employment, a Complaint for nonpayment of separation pay and
overtime pay. On June 3, 1987, Philnor filed its Position Paper
alleging, inter alia, that petitioner was not illegally terminated since
the project for which he was hired was completed; that he was hired
under three distinct contracts of employment, each of which was for a
definite period, all within the estimated period of MNEE Stage 2
Project, covering different phases or areas of the said project; that his
work was strictly confined to the MNEE Stage 2 Project and that he
was never assigned to any other project of Philnor; that he did not
render overtime services and that there was no demand or claim for
him for such overtime pay; that he signed a Release, Waiver and
Quitclaim, releasing Philnor from all obligations and claims; and
that Philnors business is to provide engineering consultancy services,
including supervision of construction services, such that it hires
employees according to the requirements of the project manning
schedule of a particular contract.[3]
On July 2, 1987, petitioner filed an Amended Complaint alleging that
he was illegally dismissed and that he was not paid overtime pay
although he was made to render three hours overtime work from
Monday to Saturday for a period of three years.
chanroblespublishingcompany
dated February 22, 1985 informing them that they are not entitled to
termination benefits as they are contractual/project employees.
On August 31, 1989, Labor Arbiter Dominador M. Cruz rendered a
Decision,[7] with the following dispositive portion:
chanroblespublishingcompany
1. The decision of the labor arbiter, dated August 31, 1989, has
already become final and executory;
2. The case of Quiwa vs. Philnor Consultants and Planners, Inc.
is not binding nor is it applicable to this case;
SO ORDERED.
chanroblespublishingcompany
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
chanroblespublishingcompany
chanroblespublishingcompany
chanroblespublishingcompany
chanroblespublishingcompany
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
chanroblespublishingcompany
chanroblespublishingcompany
chanroblespublishingcompany
chanroblespublishingcompany
chanroblespublishingcompany
chanroblespublishingcompany