Saberola v. Suarez

NACHURA, J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision1 dated March 30, 2001 and the Resolution2 dated November 23, 2001 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 56503. The Facts The case stemmed from a Complaint3 for illegal dismissal with money claims filed on November 10, 1997 by respondents against petitioner before the Regional Arbitration Branch of Davao City. Petitioner is the owner and manager of G.S. Saberola Electrical Services, a firm engaged in the construction business specializing in installing electrical devices in subdivision homes and in commercial and non-commercial buildings.

Respondents were employed by petitioner as electricians. They worked from Monday to Saturday and, occasionally, on Sundays, with a daily wage of ₱110.00. Respondent Ronald Suarez (Suarez) was employed by petitioner from February 1995 until October 1997; while respondent Raymundo Lirasan, Jr. (Lirasan) worked from February 1995 until September 1997.4 Respondent Lirasan alleged that he was dismissed without cause and due process.

He was merely informed by petitioner that his services were no longer needed without any explanation why he was terminated. Both respondents claimed that they received compensation below the minimum wage. They were given a fixed rate of ₱110.00 while the mandated minimum wage was ₱135.00, per Wage Order No. 5 issued by the Regional Tripartite and Productivity Board of Region XI.

They also alleged that they did not receive 13th month pay for the entire period of their employment.5 Both likewise claimed payment of overtime and service incentive leave. In his defense, petitioner averred that respondents were part-time project employees and were employed only when there were electrical jobs to be done in a particular housing unit contracted by petitioner. He maintained that the services of respondents as project employees were coterminous with each project.

As project employees, the time of rendition of their services was not fixed. Thus, there was no practical way of determining the appropriate compensation of the value of respondents' accomplishment, as their work assignment varied depending on the needs of a specific project.6 On September 24, 1998, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision7 dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. The Labor Arbiter ruled that respondents were project employees and were not entitled to their monetary claims.

On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed with modification the findings of the Labor Arbiter in a Resolution8 dated July 9, 1999. It maintained that respondents were project employees of petitioner. However, it declared that respondent Suarez was illegally dismissed from employment.

It also awarded the monetary claims of respondents. The dispositive portion of the Resolution reads:

WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the decision on appeal is hereby MODIFIED declaring complainant RONALD SUAREZ illegally dismissed and directing respondent to pay the following A. RONALD SUAREZ 1. Separation Pay 2. Wage Differential 3. 13th Month pay 4. Service Incentive Leave Pay B. RAYMUNDO LIRASAN, JR. 1. Wage Differential 2. 13th Month Pay 3. Service Incentive Leave Pay C. Attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total award. SO ORDERED.9 Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. On October 29, 1999, the NLRC issued a Resolution10 denying the same. A detailed computation of the money claims awarded to respondents was incorporated in the Resolution, summarized as follows: 1) Ronald Suarez: 1. Separation Pay = ₱10,530.00 2. Wage Differential = ₱ 8,268.00 3. 13th Month Pay = ₱ 8,790.16 4. SILP = ₱ 1,350.00 TOTAL =