Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50712:gr-172409-2008&amp;catid=1502&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 21:54:29+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 172409 - ROOS INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.
ROOS INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION, INC. and OSCAR TOCMO, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and JOSE MARTILLOS, Respondents.
The following are the antecedents.
On 9 April 2002, private respondent Jose Martillos (respondent) filed a complaint against petitioners for illegal dismissal and money claims such as the payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement plus full backwages, service incentive leave, 13th month pay, litigation expenses, underpayment of holiday pay and other equitable reliefs before the National Capital Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), docketed as NLRC NCR South Sector Case No. 30-04-01856-02.
x x x If it were true that complainant was hired as project employee, then there should have been project employment contracts specifying the project for which complainant's services were hired, as well as the duration of the project as required in Art. 280 of the Labor Code. As there were four (4) projects where complainant was allegedly assigned, there should have been the equal number of project employment contracts executed by the complainant. Further, for every project termination, there should have been the equal number of termination report submitted to the Department of Labor and Employment. However, the record shows that there is only one termination [report] submitted to DOLE pertaining to the last project assignment of complainant in Carmona, Cavite.
In the absence of said project employment contracts and the corresponding Termination Report to DOLE at every project termination, the inevitable conclusion is that the complainant was a regular employee of the respondents.
In the case of Maraguinot, Jr. v. NLRC, 284 SCRA 539, 556 , citing capital Industrial Construction Group v. NLRC, 221 SCRA 469, 473-474 , it was ruled therein that a project employee may acquire the status of a regular employee when the following concurs: (1) there is a continuous rehiring of project employees even after the cessation of a project; and (2) the tasks performed by the alleged "project employee" are vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer. Both factors are present in the instant case. Thus, even granting that complainant was hired as a project employee, he eventually became a regular employee as there was a continuous rehiring of this services.
Petitioners elevated the dismissal of their appeal to the Court of Appeals by way of a special civil action of certiorari . They argued that the filing of the appeal bond evinced their willingness to comply and was in fact substantial compliance with the Rules. They likewise maintained that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in failing to consider the meritorious grounds for their motion for extension of time to file the appeal bond. Lastly, petitioners contended that the NLRC gravely erred in issuing an entry of judgment as the assailed resolution is still open for review.18 On 12 January 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed the challenged resolution of the NLRC. Hence, the instant petition.
Evidently, the NLRC did not acquire jurisdiction over petitioners' appeal within the ten (10)-day reglementary period to perfect the appeal as the appeal bond was filed eight (8) days after the last day thereof. Thus, the Court cannot ascribe grave abuse of discretion to the NLRC or error to the Court of Appeals in refusing to take cognizance of petitioners' belated appeal.
Moreover, no exceptional circumstances obtain in the case at bar which would warrant a relaxation of the bond requirement as a condition for perfecting the appeal. It is only in highly meritorious cases that this Court opts not to strictly apply the rules and thus prevent a grave injustice from being done30 and this is not one of those cases.
Moreover, the reference in Star Angel to the distinction between the period to file the appeal and to perfect the appeal has been pointedly made only once by this Court in Gensoli v. NLRC thus, it has not acquired the sheen of venerability reserved for repeatedly-cited cases. The distinction, if any, is not particularly evident or material in the Labor Code; hence, the reluctance of the Court to adopt such doctrine. Moreover, the present provision in the NLRC Rules of Procedure, that "the filing of a motion to reduce bond shall not stop the running of the period to perfect appeal" flatly contradicts the notion expressed in Star Angel that there is a distinction between filing an appeal and perfecting an appeal.
At all events, the decision of the Labor Arbiter appears to be well-founded and petitioners' ill-starred appeal untenable.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioners.
1 Rollo, pp. 12-49; dated 8 June 2006.
2 Id. at 51-62; penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid with the concurrence of Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe.
7 Id. at 53; NLRC Decision dated 30 October 2003.
10 Id. at 173-188; dated 22 December 2003.
15 Id. at 214-220; dated 13 August 2004.
16 Id. at 121; Dated 31 August 2004.
19 G.R. No. 108914, 20 September 1994, 236 SCRA 580.
20 G.R. No. 152550, 8 June 2005, 459 SCRA 657.
22 Borja Estate v. Ballad, supra note 20 at 667.
23 Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Levantino, G.R. No. 153942, 29 June 2005, 462 SCRA 231, 235.
24 Computer Innovations Center v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 152410, 29 June 2005, 462 SCRA 193.
26 See Borja Estate v. Ballad, supra note 20 at 669-670.
27 Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Levantino, supra note 23 at 236.
29 Borja Estate v. Ballad, supra note 20 at 667-669.
30 Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Levantino, supra note 23 at 240.
31 G.R. No. 152410, 29 June 2005, 462 SCRA 183.
33 Borja Estate v. Ballad, supra note 19 at 667, citing Catubay v. National Labor Relations Commission, 386 Phil. 648, 657; 330 SCRA 440, 447 (2000); Taberrah v. National Labor Relations Commission, 342 Phil. 394, 404; 276 SCRA 431, 440 (1997); Italian Village Restaurant v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 95594, 11 March 1992, 207 SCRA 204, 208 (1992); Cabalan Pastulan Negrito Labor Association v. National Labor Relations Commission, 311 Phil. 744; 241 SCRA 643 (1995); Rosewood Processing, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 352 Phil. 1013, 1028; 290 SCRA 408, 420 (1998).
34 100 Phil. 501, 504 (1956).
35 Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 329 Phil. 875, 907-908.

References: v. 
 v. 
 Art. 280
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.