Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83861:58461&catid=1589&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 02:06:28+00:00

Document:
JEANETTE V. MANALO, VILMA P. BARRIOS, LOURDES LYNN MICHELLE FERNANDEZ AND LEILA B. TAIÑO, Petitioners, v. TNS PHILIPPINES INC., AND GARY OCAMPO, Respondents.
This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the January 29, 2013 Decision1 and the August 7, 2013 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. SP No. 117637, which set aside the July 23, 2010 Decision3 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and its October 28, 2010 Resolution4 and reinstated the May 29, 2009 Decision5 of the Labor Arbiter’s finding that petitioners were project employees.
On October 20, 2008, petitioners and TNS were required to file their respective position papers. On October 21, 2008, petitioners were advised by TNS not to report for work anymore because they were being pulled out from their current assignments and that they were not being lined up for any continuing or incoming projects because it no longer needed their services. They were also asked to surrender their company IDs.12 Petitioners, thereafter, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, overtime pay, damages, and attorney’s fees against TNS. Later, the labor cases for regularization and illegal dismissal were consolidated.
As to the claim for overtime pay and damages, the LA held that petitioners were not entitled to them.Field personnel were excluded from the coverage of the minimum requirements on hours of work and overtime pay.
TNS moved for reconsideration, but its motion was denied. Thus, it filed a petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order before the CA.
Not in conformity, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but it was eventually denied.
WITH DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONERS ARE NOT REGULAR EMPLOYEES OF THE RESPONDENT COMPANY.
Upon review of the records, the evidence failed to clearly, accurately, consistently, and convincingly show that petitioners were still project employees of TNS.
Article 280 of the Labor Code, as amended, clearly defined a project employee as 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.Additionally, a project employee is one whose termination of his employment contract is reported to the DOLE everytime the project for which he was engaged has been completed.
In Maraguinot, Jr. v. NLRC,33 the Court held 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.
Although it is true that the length of time of the employee’s service is not a controlling determinant of project employment, it is vital in determining whether he was hired for a specific undertaking or in fact tasked to perform functions vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer.34 Petitioners’ successive re-engagement in order to perform the same kind of work firmly manifested the necessity and desirability of their work in the usual business of TNS as a market research facility.35 Undisputed also is the fact that the petitioners were assigned office-based tasks from 9:00 o’clock in the morning up to 6:00 o’clock in the evening, at the earliest, without any corresponding remuneration.
The project employment scheme used by TNS easily circumvented the law and precluded its employees from attaining regular employment status in the subtlest way possible.Petitioners were rehired not intermittently, but continuously,contract after contract, month after month, involving the very same tasks. They practically performed exactly the same functions over several years. Ultimately,without a doubt, the functions they performed were indeed vital and necessary to the very business or trade of TNS.
The need for your services being determinable and for a specific project starting ____________ your employment will be for the duration of said project of the Company, namely Project ___________ which is expected to be finished on _____________. The Company shall have the option of renewing or extending the period of this agreement for such time as it may be necessary to complete the project or because we need further time to determine your competence on the job.
For said reason, at the outset, the supposed project employment contract was highly doubtful. In determining the true nature of an employment, the entirety of the contract, not merely its designation or by which it was denominated, is controlling.Though there is a rule that conflicting provisions in a contract should be harmonized to give effect to all,36in this case, however, harmonization is impossible because project employment and probationary employment are distinct from one another and cannot co-exist with each other.Hence, should there be ambiguity in the provisions of the contract, the rule is that all doubts, uncertainties, ambiguities and insufficiencies should be resolved in favor of labor.37 This is in consonance with the constitutional policy of providing full protection to labor.
In sum, petitioners are deemed to have become regular employees. As such, the burden of proving the legality of their dismissal rests upon TNS.Having failed to discharge such burden of proving a just or authorized cause, TNS is liable for illegal dismissal.
October 21, 2008 to May 29, 2009 = 7.27 mos.
P382.00 x 26 days x 7.27 mos.
December 1, 2008 to May 29, 2009 = 5.93 mos.
Finally,nowhere in the NLRC resolution denying TNS’ motion for reconsideration can it be found it outrightly denied the said motion for belatedly submitting the lacking termination reports. In resolving the motion, the NLRC also took into consideration the records of the case, meaning, including those belatedly submitted, and despite review of these records, it still found the evidence insufficient to overturn its decision against TNS.
To reiterate,the technical rules of evidence are not binding on labor tribunals.Such a rule, however, is not a license for parties to a case to be remiss in their duty to present every and all proofs, at the earliest opportunity, that will best support their claim and help the courts to fully, exhaustively and speedily resolve the controversy.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The January 29, 2013 Decision and the August 7, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 117637 are SET ASIDE. The July 23, 2010 Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission is hereby REINSTATED.
Carpio, (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Reyes,* and Leonen, JJ., concur.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Leoncia Real-Dimagiba, with Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang and Ricardo R. Rosario, concurring; rollo, pp. 55-73.
3 NLRC Decision, id. at 347-357.
10 Petition for Review, id. at 35.
11 Petition for Review, id. at 35-36.
25R and E Transport v. Latag, 467 Phil. 355, 360 (2004).
28 CA records, pp. 325-354.
30F.F. Marine Corporation v. The 2nd Division, NLRC, 495 Phil. 140, 156 (2005), citing Matugas v. COMELEC, 465 Phil. 299 (2004).
33 348 Phil. 580 (1998).
34Liganza v. RBL Shipyard, 535 Phil. 662, 673 (2006).
35 D.M. Consunji Corporation v. Bello, G.R. No. 159371, July 29, 2013, 702 SCRA 347.
36TSPIC Corp. v. TSPIC Employees Union (FFW), et al., 568 Phil. 774, 785 (2008).
37 Price v. Innodata Phils., Inc./Innodata Corp., et al., 588 Phil. 568, 586 2008.

References: V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.