Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=49798:gr-158132-2007&amp;catid=1494&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:45:04+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 158132 - Raycor Aircontrol System Inc. v. Mario San Pedro et al.
RAYCOR AIRCONTROL SYSTEMS, INC., Petitioner, v. MARIO SAN PEDRO and NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, Respondents.
The facts are as stated by the CA.
Raycor Aircontrol Systems, Inc. (petitioner) hired Mario San Pedro (respondent) as tinsmith operator subject to the condition that his employment shall commence "on August 24, 1995 and shall be effective only for the duration of the contract at Uniwide Las PiÃ±as after completion of which on November 18, 1995, it automatically terminates without necessity of further notice."5 As the Uniwide Las PiÃ±as project (first project) lasted for one year, petitioner extended respondent's contract beyond November 18, 1995. When this first project was finally completed, petitioner again extended respondent's employment by assigning him to its Olivarez Plaza, BiÃ±an, Laguna project (second project) until December 1996. Subsequently, petitioner rehired respondent as ducting man and assigned him to its Cabuyao, Laguna project (third project) until April 1997. Thereafter, petitioner transferred respondent to its Llanas, Alabang project (fourth project) and later, to its Uniwide Coastal project in Baclaran, Paranaque (fifth project).6 Petitioner did not anymore issue new contracts to respondent each time his employment was extended.
In a Memorandum7 dated October 30, 1997, petitioner declared that the contract of employment of respondent was set to expire on November 1, 1997, the same to take effect on November 3, 1997. Thus, when respondent reported for work on November 3, 1997, he was informed by the company timekeeper that he had been terminated.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Office finds and so rule that the complainant was illegally dismissed by the respondent without just cuase and without due process of law on November 3, 1997. As such he is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other benefits; and payment of full backwages from the time of his dismissal up to the time of his actual reinstatement which up to this date is in the amount of P105,534.00 (P198.00/day x 26 days x 20.5 mos.).
On appeal by petitioner, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) issued a Resolution10 dated September 18, 2000, affirming the July 15, 1999 LA Decision, and a Resolution11 dated December 15, 2000, denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari which the CA denied in the August 24, 2001 Decision impugned herein. Its Motion for Reconsideration was also denied by the CA in a Resolution dated April 30, 2003.
The Court denies the petition for lack of merit.
The concurrent findings of the CA and the labor tribunals on the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the parties in the present case are factual in nature and are accorded due deference16 for being well-founded.
For that matter, it seems self-evident to this Court that, even if the contracts presented by petitioner had been signed by the employees concerned, still, they would not constitute conclusive proof of petitioner's claim. After all, in the usual scheme of things, contract terms are normally dictated by the employer and simply acceded to and accepted by the employee, who may be desperate for work and therefore in no position to bargain freely or negotiate terms to his liking.
The same fate befalls petitioner once again.
Other than the 1995 employment contract it issued to respondent, which contract we have held to be insufficient evidence of project employment,20 petitioner utterly failed to adduce additional evidence which would have convinced us that: 1) each time it hired and rehired respondent, it intended for him to accomplish specific tasks in the particular project to which he was assigned; 2) it intended for respondent to carry out these specific tasks in accordance with the project plan it had drawn out and within the limited time it had to complete the same; and 3) it made such restrictions on each engagement known to respondent, and the same were freely accepted by him. Petitioner's failure to present such evidence is inexcusable, given its access to such documents as project contracts, payment remittances, employment records and payslips.21 Such lapse is dismaying, considering that in Raycor v. National Labor Relations Commission, the Court had signalled to petitioner that, given the peculiar nature of its business, it had a strong case against the regularization of some of its workers. The Court even enumerated the kind of evidence petitioner should present to establish the project employment of its workers.
Evidently, petitioner did not heed the Court's observations in Raycor v. National Labor Relations Commission, leaving us no option but to declare that it failed, yet again, to discharge its burden of proving that respondent was a project employee.
Consequently, the Court affirms the finding of the CA and the labor tribunals that respondent became a regular employee after 23 months of rehiring.
The next question then is whether respondent was validly dismissed on November 3, 1997.
It is readily apparent that petitioner did not comply with any of the foregoing requirements. There is no evidence that it complied with the one-month notice requirement. While petitioner claims that it issued to respondent an October 30, 1997 Memorandum of termination of employment, it failed to prove that such document was ever served upon respondent and the DOLE. Moreover, the notice is less than one month, for the memorandum states that respondent's contract of employment is to expire on November 3, 1997, or only three days later from the date of the Memorandum.
Again, for failure of petitioner to discharge its burden of proving business reverses as a ground for the lay-off of respondent, we uphold the CA in ruling that the latter's dismissal was illegal.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Eriberto U. Rosario, Jr., with the concurrence of Associate Justices Buenaventura J. Guerrero and Edgardo P. Cruz; rollo, p. 26.
3 Penned by Associate Justice Buenaventura J. Guerrero with the concurrence of Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. and Edgardo P. Cruz; id. at 36.
4 Entitled "Raycor Aircontrol Systems, Inc., Petitioner, v. National Labor Relations Commission and Mario San Pedro, Respondents."
5 Contract of Employment, CA rollo, p. 95.
6 CA Decision, rollo, p. 27.
7 CA rollo, p. 32.
12 Petition, rollo, p. 14.
13 CA Decision, rollo, pp. 30-31.
16 San Miguel Corporation v. SMC, G.R. No. 147566, December 6, 2006.
17 330 Phil. 306 (1996).
21 Poseidon Fishing v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 168052, February 20, 2006, 482 SCRA 717, 734.
24 Art. 283. Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. - The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the workers and the Department of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. x x x In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or to at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered one (1) whole year.
25 Espina v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 164582, March 28, 2007.
26 Galaxie Steel Workers Union v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 165757, October 17, 2006.
27 Filipinas Systems, Inc. v. Gatlabayan, G.R. No. 167959, April 19, 2006, 487 SCRA 673, 692; J.A.T. General Services v. National Labor Relations Commission, 465 Phil. 785, 795 (2004).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Art. 283
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.