Imbuido v. National Labor Relations Commission

BUENA, J.:

This special civil action for certiorari seeks to set aside the Decision1 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) promulgated on September 27, 1993 and its Order dated January 11, 1994, which denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Petitioner was employed as a data encoder by private respondent International Information Services, Inc., a domestic corporation engaged in the business of data encoding and keypunching, from August 26, 1988 until October 18, 1991 when her services were terminated. From August 26, 1988 until October 18, 1991, petitioner entered into thirteen (13) separate employment contracts with private respondent, each contract lasting only far a period of three (3) months.

Aside from the basic hourly rate, specific job contract number and period of employment, each contract contains the following terms and conditions: a. This Contract is for a specific project/job contract only and shall be effective for the period covered as above-mentioned unless sooner terminated when the job contract is completed earlier or withdrawn by client, or when employee is dismissed for just and lawful causes provided by law. The happening of any of these events will automatically terminate this contract of employment.

b. Subject shall abide with the Company's rules and regulations for its employees attached herein to form an integral part hereof. c.

The nature of your job may require you to render overtime work with pay so as not to disrupt the Company's commitment of scheduled delivery dates made on said job contract.2 In September 1991, petitioner and twelve (12) other, employees of private respondent allegedly agreed to the filing of a petition for certification election involving the rank-and-file employees of private respondent.3 Thus, on October 8, 1991, Lakas Manggagawa sa Pilipinas (LAKAS) filed a petition for certification election with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), docketed as NCR-OD-M-9110-128.4 Subsequently, on October 18, 1991, petitioner received a termination letter from Edna Kasilag, Administrative Officer of private respondent, allegedly "due to low volume of work."5 Thus, on May 25, 1992, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for service incentive leave pay and 13th month differential pay, with the National Labor Relations Commission, National Capital Region, Arbitration Branch, docketed as NLRC-NCR Case No. 05-02912-92.6 In her position paper dated August 3, 1992 and filed before labor arbiter Raul T. Aquino, petitioner alleged that her employment was terminated not due to the alleged low volume of work but because she "signed a petition for certification election among the rank and file employees of respondents,"

thus charging private respondent with committing unfair labor practices. Petitioner further complained of non-payment of service incentive leave benefits and underpayment of 13th month pay.7 On the other hand, private respondent, in its position paper filed on July 16, 1992, maintained that it had valid reasons to terminate petitioner's employment and disclaimed any knowledge of the existence or formation of a union among its rank-and-file employees at the time petitioner's services were terminated.8 Private respondent stressed that its business ". .

. relies heavily on companies availing of its services. Its retention by client companies with particular emphasis on data encoding is on a project to project basis,"9 usually lasting for a period of "two (2) to five (5) months."

Private respondent further argued that petitioner's employment was for a "specific project with a specified period of engagement." According to private respondent, ". .

.

the certainty of the expiration of complainant's engagement has been determined at the time of their (sic) engagement (until 27 November 1991) or when the project is earlier completed or when the client withdraws," as provided in the contract. 10 "The happening of the second event [completion of the project] has materialized, thus, her contract of employment is deemed terminated per the Brent School ruling."

11 Finally, private respondent averred that petitioner's "claims for non-payment of overtime time (sic) and service incentive leave [pay] are without factual and legal basis." 12 In a decision dated August 25, 1992, labor arbiter Raul T. Aquino, ruled in favor of petitioner, and accordingly ordered her reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and privileges, and the payment of backwages and service incentive leave pay. The dispositive part of the said decision reads:

WHEREFORE, responsive to the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered ordering respondents to immediately reinstate complainant [petitioner herein] as a regular employee to her former position without loss of seniority rights and privileges and to pay backwages from the time of dismissal up to the date of this decision, the same to continue until complainant ['s] [petitioner herein] actual reinstatement from (sic) the service. Respondents are likewise ordered to pay complainant [petitioner herein] service incentive leave pay computed as follows: Backwages : 10/18/91 - 8/25/92 = 10.23 mos. P118.00 x 26 x 10.23 mos. = P31, 385.64 Service Incentive Leave Pay 1989 = P89.00 x 5 days = P445.00 1990 = 106 x 5 days = P530.00 1991 = 118 x 5 days = P590.00