ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 
 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
March-1996 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 91935 March 4, 1996 - RODOLFO QUIAMBAO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106043 March 4, 1996 - CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY LANDLESS RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109645 March 4, 1996 - ORTIGAS AND COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. TIRSO VELASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115365 March 4, 1996 - ESMENIO MADLOS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118126 March 4, 1996 - TRANS-ASIA SHIPPING LINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-921 March 5, 1996 - AMPARO A. LACHICA v. ROLANDO A. FLORDELIZA

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-1009 March 5, 1996 - ALBERTO NALDOZA v. JUAN LAVILLES, JR.

  • G.R. No. 111501 March 5, 1996 - PHIL. FUJI XEROX CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 113930 March 5, 1996 - PAUL G. ROBERTS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115548 March 5, 1996 - STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1039 March 6, 1996 - FE ALBANO MADRID v. RAYMUNDO RAMIREZ

  • G.R. Nos. 112858-59 March 6, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RALPHY ALCANTARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120193 March 6, 1996 - LUIS MALALUAN v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. CBD-174 March 7, 1996 - GIOVANI M. IGUAL v. ROLANDO S. JAVIER

  • G.R. No. 66555 March 7, 1996 - LEONCIO MEJARES, ET AL. v. JUAN Y. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 95353-54 March 7, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO PAT

  • G.R. No. 109390 March 7, 1996 - JGB and ASSOCIATES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112445 March 7, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS V. PATROLLA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 113710 March 7, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERDINAND V. JUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116011 March 7, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RHODESA B. SILAN

  • G.R. No. 117650 March 7, 1996 - SULPICIO LINES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120905 March 7, 1996 - RENATO U. REYES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95260 March 8, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO C. PRADO

  • G.R. No. 110983 March 8, 1996 - REYNALDO GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 2024 March 11, 1996 - SALVADOR T. CASTILLO v. PABLO M. TAGUINES

  • G.R. No. 108625 March 11, 1996 - ALLIANCE OF DEMOCRATIC FREE LABOR ORGANIZATION v. BIENVENIDO LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113194 March 11, 1996 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119381 March 11, 1996 - MARCOPPER MINING CORPORATION v. JOSE BRILLANTES

  • G.R. No. 96882 March 12, 1996 - EUTIQUIANO PAGARA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109800 March 12, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO N. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. 114388 March 12, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO TRILLES, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-4-156 March 13, 1996 - IN RE: FERNANDO P. AGDAMAG

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1344 March 13, 1996 - VERONICA GONZALES v. LUCAS P. BERSAMIN

  • G.R. No. 101332 March 13, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLARO BERNAL

  • G.R. No. 101699 March 13, 1996 - BENJAMIN A. SANTOS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 104088-89 March 13, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE JAIN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 108743 March 13, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNALDO B. DONES

  • G.R. No. 112193 March 13, 1996 - JOSE E. ARUEGO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112546 March 13, 1996 - NORTH DAVAO MINING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119073 March 13, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO DIAZ

  • G.R. No. 120223 March 13, 1996 - RAMON Y. ALBA v. DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101070 March 14, 1996 - BALAYAN COLLEGES, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102062 March 14, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAMILO FERRER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104685 March 14, 1996 - SABENA BELGIAN WORLD AIRLINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119706 March 14, 1996 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73592 March 15, 1996 - JOSE CUENCO BORROMEO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94494 March 15, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO C. LAPURA

  • G.R. No. 103695 March 15, 1996 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105819 March 15, 1996 - MARILYN L. BERNARDO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 106229-30 March 15, 1996 - LEOVIGILDO ROSALES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108001 March 15, 1996 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111651 March 15, 1996 - OSMALIK S. BUSTAMANTE, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115106 March 15, 1996 - ROBERTO L. DEL ROSARIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114988 March 18, 1996 - CATALINO BONTIA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 117667 March 18, 1996 - INLAND TRAILWAYS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • Adm. Matter No. 94-5-42-MTC March 20, 1996 - QUERY OF JUDGE DANILO M. TENERIFE

  • G.R. No. 102360 March 20, 1996 - ROSITA DOMINGO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111656 March 20, 1996 - MANUEL MANAHAN, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116665 March 20, 1996 - MELQUIADES D. AZCUNA, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. 95-1-07-RTC March 21, 1996 - JDF ANOMALY IN THE RTC OF LIGAO, ALBAY

  • Adm. Matter No. 95-10-06-SCC March 27, 1996 - IN RE: DEMASIRA M. BAUTE

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1071 March 28, 1996 - ELIZABETH ASUMBRADO v. FRANCISCO R. MACUNO

  • G.R. No. 104386 March 28, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR L. LEVISTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121424 March 28, 1996 - IN RE: MAURO P. MAGTIBAY v. VICENTE VINARAO

  • G.R. No. 90215 March 29, 1996 - ERNESTO ZALDARRIAGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94594 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO REDULOSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 96178-79 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO ESMAQUILAN

  • G.R. No. 97785 March 29, 1996 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 99259-60 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO D. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 103525 March 29, 1996 - MARCOPPER MINING CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104296 March 29, 1996 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 106083-84 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. QUINTIN T. GARRAEZ

  • G.R. No. 106600 March 29, 1996 - COSMOS BOTTLING CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109312 March 29, 1996 - PLACIDO MIRANDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 109614-15 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADRONICO GREGORIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112346 March 29, 1996 - EVELYN YONAHA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112457-58 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO CARTUANO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 112678 March 29, 1996 - EDUARDO M . ESPEJO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112708-09 March 29, 1996 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112718 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VLADIMIR L. CANUZO

  • G.R. Nos. 113519-20 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO F. PANLILIO

  • G.R. Nos. 114263-64 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHN JENN PORRAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115988 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEO V. LIAN

  • G.R. No. 116734 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LARRY B. LAURENTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116792 March 29, 1996 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117055 March 29, 1996 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 117618 March 29, 1996 - VIRGINIA MALINAO v. LUISITO REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118509 March 29, 1996 - LIMKETKAI SONS MILLING INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118870 March 29, 1996 - NERISSA Z. PEREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119193 March 29, 1996 - NEMENCIO GALVEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120715 March 29, 1996 - FERNANDO R. SAZON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121527 March 29, 1996 - MARCELO L. ONGSITCO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. 106600   March 29, 1996 - COSMOS BOTTLING CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 106600. March 29, 1996.]

    COSMOS BOTTLING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and GIL C. CASTRO, Respondents.

    M . V . Ampil, Jr. & Associates for Petitioner.

    The Solicitor General for public Respondent.

    Public Attorney’s Office for Private Respondent.


    SYLLABUS


    LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT; PROJECT EMPLOYEES; THE MERE FACT THAT A PROJECT EMPLOYEE HAS WORKED ON THE SPECIAL PROJECT FOR MORE THAN ONE (1) YEAR DOES NOT NECESSARY CHANGE HIS STATUS AS PROJECT EMPLOYEE. — The mere fact that a project employee has worked on the specific project for more than one (1) year, does not necessary change his status as project employee and convert it to regular or permanent employment. For it is obvious that the second paragraph of Article 280 of the Labor Code, quoted above, providing that an employee who has served for at least one (1) year, shall be considered a regular employee, relates only to casual employees, not to project employees. Consequently, private respondent’s protestation that his period of employment had exceeded one year and hence must be converted into regular employment is completely baseless because being a project employee, he does not fall within the ambit of the pertinent provision above-stated. Clearly, therefore, private respondent being a project employee, or to use the correct term, seasonal employee, considering that his employment was limited to the installation and dismantling of petitioner’s annex plant machines after which there was no more work to do, his employment legally ended upon completion of the project. That being so, the termination of his employment cannot and should not constitute an illegal dismissal. Neither should it constitute retrenchment as private respondent was a seasonal employee whose services were already terminated on May 21, 1990 prior to the termination of the other regular employees of Cosmos by reason of retrenchment.


    D E C I S I O N


    KAPUNAN, J.:


    Gil C Castro was employed by Cosmos Bottling Corporation for a specific period from September 51 1988 to October 41 1988. He was re-hired for another specific period from May 30, 1989 to November 6, 1989. 1

    Having satisfactorily served the company for two (2) terms, Castro was recommended for reemployment with the company’s Maintenance Team for the Davao Project on November 22, 1989. 2 On December 22, 1989, he was re-hired and assigned to the Maintenance Division of the Davao Project tasked to install the private respondent’s annex plant machines in its Davao plant. 3

    On May 21, 1990, Castro’s employment was terminated due to the completion of the special project.

    Meanwhile, on May 27, 1990, Cosmos Bottling Corporation in valid exercise of its management prerogative terminated the services of some 228 regular employees by reason of retrenchment. 4 For obvious reasons, 5 Castro was not among the list of those regular employees whose services were terminated by reason of retrenchment or those who voluntarily resigned.

    On May 25, 1990, Castro filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Cosmos Bottling Corporation with the Labor Arbiter contending that being a regular employee, he could not be dismissed without a just and valid cause. The case was docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 00-05-02902-90.

    On its part, the company alleged that Castro was a mere project employee whose employment was coterminous with the project for which he was hired.

    After the parties submitted their respective position papers, reply and rejoinder thereto, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on March 13, 1991 finding Castro a regular employee but ruling that his employment was validly terminated because of retrenchment. Hence, Castro was awarded 45-day separation pay, one (1) month salary as financial assistance and proportionate 13th month pay. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Premises considered, COSMOS is hereby directed to pay complainant’s compensation package in the total amount of P11,231.83 by reason of the retrenchment.

    The charge of illegal dismissal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

    SO ORDERED. 6

    Both parties appealed the decision to the National Labor Relation Commission (NLRC) which rendered the assailed decision dated June 10, 1992, the decretal portion of which reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    ACCORDINGLY, the decision appealed from is hereby modified to the effect that respondent is declared guilty of illegal dismissal and is hereby ordered to reinstate complainant to his former position as equivalent one without loss of seniority and other benefits and to pay him backwages computed from the time of his dismissal up to the time of his reinstatement.

    SO ORDERED. 7

    Cosmos Bottling Corporation’s motion for reconsideration of the above decision having been denied, the instant petition for certiorari was filed.

    Petitioner argues that private respondent was a mere project employee and that his services were coterminous with the project, hence, may be terminated upon the end or completion of the project for which he was hired. Respondent NLRC and private respondent, on the other hand, maintain that private respondent is a regular employee of petitioner company because his job is necessary and desirable to the petitioner’s main business. The Office of the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation in Lieu of Comment and supported petitioner’s contention that private respondent is not a regular employee.

    The pivotal issue therefore is whether or not private respondent Gil C. Castro is a regular employee or was a mere project employee of petitioner Cosmos Bottling Corporation.

    After a careful examination of the records of the case, we find merit in the petition and hold that respondent NLRC gravely abused its discretion when it rendered the challenged decision finding private respondent a regular employee.

    Article 280 of the Labor Code which defines regular, project and casual employment is applicable here. The same reads in full:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Article 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 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 actually exists.

    The first paragraph provides that regardless of any written or oral agreement to the contrary, an employee is deemed regular where he is engaged in necessary or desirable activities in the usual trade or business of the employer.

    A project employee, on the other hand, has been defined to be 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.

    The second paragraph of the provision defines casual employees as those who do not fall under the definition of the first paragraph.

    However, with respect to the first two kinds of employees, the principal test for determining whether an employee is a project employee or a regular employee is whether or not the project 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 period.

    In a recent case 8 decided by this Court, the nature of project employment was explained,. We noted that in the realm of business and industry, "project" could refer to at least two (2) distinguishable types of activities. First, 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. Second, a project could also refer to a particular job or undertaking that is not within the regular business of the corporation. Such a job or undertaking must also be identifiably separate and distinct from the ordinary or regular business operations of the employer. The job or undertaking also begins and ends at determined or determinable times. 9

    The case at bar presents what appears, to our mind, as a typical example of the first type. Petitioner Cosmos Bottling Corporation is a duly organized corporation engaged in the manufacture, production, bottling, sale and distribution of beverage. In the course of its business, it undertakes distinct identifiable projects as it did in the instant case when it formed special teams assigned to install and dismantle its annex plant machines in various plants all over the country. These projects are distinct and separate, and are identifiable as such, from its usual business of bottling beverage. Their duration and scope are made known prior to their undertaking and their specified goal and purpose are fulfilled once the projects are completed. When private respondent was initially hired for a period of one month and re-hired for another five months, and then subsequently re-hired for another five months, he was assigned to the petitioner’s Maintenance Division tasked with the- installation and dismantling of its annex plant machines. 10 Evidently, these projects or undertakings, the duration and scope of which had been determined and made known to private respondent at the time of his employment, can properly be treated as "projects" within the meaning of the "first" kind. Considered as such, the services rendered by private respondent hired therein for the duration of the projects may lawfully be terminated at the end or completion of the same. In the recent case of Archbuild Masters and Construction, Inc. v. NLRC, 11 we ruled accordingly:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    It is not disputed that private respondent was a project employee of ARMACON. As such he was employed in connection with a particular project the completion of which had been determined at the time of his employment. Consequently, as a project employee of ARMACON, his employment may be terminated upon the completion of the project as there would be no further need for his services. Since a project employee’s work depends on the availability of projects, necessarily the duration of his employment is not permanent but coterminous with the work to which he is assigned. It would be extremely burdensome for the employer, who depends on the availability of projects, to carry him as a permanent employee and pay him wages even if there are no projects for him to work on. The rationale behind this is that once the project is completed it would be unjust to require the employer to maintain these employees in their payroll. To do so would make the employee a privileged retainer who collects payment from his employer for work not done. This is extremely unfair and amounts to labor coddling at the expense of management

    Another observation worthwhile noting were the appreciable gaps between the periods of time private respondent was hired and re-hired. He was hired on September 5, 1988 for a period of one (1) month. He was re-hired on May 30, 1989 or almost seven (7) months after the termination of his first job. His second reemployment was no different. He was re-hired almost two (2) months after his first reemployment. 12 Certainly, the lengthy gaps between his employments, together with the fact that his services were contracted for specific undertakings, convincingly show that the services of private respondent were terminated upon completion of a particular project and were sought only when another one was undertaken

    Moreover, the mere fact that a project employee has worked on the specific project for more than one (1) year, does not necessary change his status as project employee 13 and convert it to regular or permanent employment. For it is obvious that the second paragraph of Article 280 of the Labor Code, quoted above, providing that an employee who has served for at least one (1) year, shall be considered a regular employee, relates only to casual employees, not to project employees. 14 Consequently, private respondent’s protestation that his period of employment had exceeded one year 15 and hence must be converted into regular employment is completely baseless because being a project employee, he does not fall within the ambit of the pertinent provision above-stated.

    Clearly, therefore, private respondent being a project employee, or to use the correct term, seasonal employee, considering that his employment was limited to the installation and dismantling of petitioners annex plant machines after which there was no more work to do, his employment legally ended upon completion of the project. 16 That being so, the termination of his employment cannot and should not constitute an illegal dismissal. Neither should it constitute retrenchment as private respondent was a seasonal employee whose services were already terminated on May 21, 1990 prior to the termination of the other regular employees of Cosmos by reason of retrenchment

    WHEREFORE, premises considered the instant petition is given DUE COURSE and is hereby GRANTED. The judgment of respondent NLRC appealed from is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Consequently, the complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner Cosmos Bottling Corporation is hereby DISMISSED.

    SO ORDERED

    Padilla, Bellosillo, Vitug and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. During these separate periods of employment, Castro contends that his duties included the following, viz: (a) filling of softdrinks in the "paleta" ; (b) feeding bottles to empty conveyor; (c) inspecting softdrinks from the filler to the conveyor, (d) taking out reject softdrinks in the final inspection line; (e) taking out all dirt, broken bottles, rusted bottles, half-filled bottles and bottles filled to the brim in the final inspection line; (f) inspecting broken boxes in the roller conveyor and changing them with useful ones, (g) operating the "encaser case packer and top washer" ; and (h) sweeping the dirt and broken bottles and disposing them in a big drum. (Original Records, pp. 31-32; Complainant’s Reply to Respondents Position Paper, pp. 1-2). Cosmos, on the other hand, contends that Castro’s work with the Maintenance Department involved only installation and dismantling of annex plant machines (Id., at 95; Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration of the NLRC’s decision dated June 10, 1992).

    2. Id., al 24.

    3. Ibid.

    4. Actually, as early as April 26, 1990, the new management of Cosmos decided to retrench a number of its employees and filed the required notice with the Department of Labor and Employment on April 27, 1990 stating that they are implementing the plan on May 27, 1990 (Records, p. 37), and attached thereto a list of some thirty (30) employees in the Motorpool (Records, p. 38), thirty-three (33) from the Advertising (Records, p. 39), thirteen (13) from the Refrigeration (Records, p. 40), twenty-five (25) from the Production (Records, p. 41), eight (8) from the Shipping (Records, p. 42), sixteen (16) from the Sabs (Records, p. 43) & five (5) from the Personnel (Records, p. 44)

    Because of such retrenchment plan, the certified bargaining agent of the rank and file employees in the company the NAGKAKAISANG LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWA SA COSMOS (NAFLU), filed a notice of strike before the NATIONAL CONCILIATION & MEDIATION BOARD. During the conciliation conferences, Cosmos and the union arrived at an agreement (Records, pp. 25-26) whereby Cosmos will undertake (1) to phase out three departments and some positions in line with the streamlining of the organizational structure of the company for reason of efficiency and business exigencies, (2) to separate employees who voluntarily resigned numbering to about two hundred twenty eight (228), (3) to pay compensation package to those who were not included in the list but voluntarily resign in the amount equivalent to 45 days pay per year of service plus one month’s pay by way of finance a computed at 26 days, and (4) to recognize the cooperative to be organized by the retrenched employees in a bid to contract job that may be needed by the company (Records, pp. 25 to 26/ Memorandum of Agreement dated June 8, 1990). Being a project employee, Castro’s employment was terminated on May 21, 1990 due to the completion of the special project.

    5. Even as records show that he was only employed for 11 months and 1 week which is clearly 3 weeks short of the one-year period required by the second paragraph of Article 280 of the Labor Code.

    6. Rollo, p. 73.

    7. Id., at 77-78.

    8. ALU-TUCP v. National Labor Relations Commission, 234 SCRA 678 [1994].

    9. Id., at 685-686.

    10. Rollo, p. 25.

    11. G.R. No. 108142, December 26, 1995.

    12. Please see pp 1-2.

    13. Rada v. National Labor Relations Commission, 205 SCRA 69 [1992].

    14. Mercado, Sr. V. National Labor Relations Commission, 201 SCRA 332 [1991].

    15. Even as records show that he was only employed for 11 months and 1 week which is clearly 3 weeks short of the one-year period required by the second paragraph of Article 280 of the Labor Code.

    16. See Note 11, supra, p. 343

    G.R. No. 106600   March 29, 1996 - COSMOS BOTTLING CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.




    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED