8/24/2016

Imbuido vs NLRC : 114734 : March 31, 2000 : J. Buena : Second Division

SECONDDIVISION
[G.R.No.114734.March31,2000]

VIVIANY.IMBUIDO,petitioner,vs.NATIONALLABORRELATIONSCOMMISSION,
INTERNATIONALINFORMATIONSERVICES,INC.andGABRIELLIBRANDO,
respondents.
DECISION
BUENA,J.:
ThisspecialcivilactionforcertiorariseekstosetasidetheDecision[1]oftheNationalLaborRelations
Commission(NLRC)promulgatedonSeptember27,1993anditsOrderdatedJanuary11,1994,
whichdeniedpetitionersmotionforreconsideration.Scslx
PetitionerwasemployedasadataencoderbyprivaterespondentInternationalInformationServices,
Inc.,adomesticcorporationengagedinthebusinessofdataencodingandkeypunching,fromAugust
26,1988untilOctober18,1991whenherserviceswereterminated.FromAugust26,1988until
October18,1991,petitionerenteredintothirteen(13)separateemploymentcontractswithprivate
respondent,eachcontractlastingonlyforaperiodofthree(3)months.Asidefromthebasichourly
rate,specificjobcontractnumberandperiodofemployment,eachcontractcontainsthefollowing
termsandconditions:Slxsc
"a.ThisContractisforaspecificproject/jobcontractonlyandshallbeeffectiveforthe
periodcoveredasabovementionedunlesssoonerterminatedwhenthejobcontractis
completedearlierorwithdrawnbyclient,orwhenemployeeisdismissedforjustand
lawfulcausesprovidedbylaw.Thehappeningofanyoftheseeventswillautomatically
terminatethiscontractofemployment.Slxmis
"b.SubjectshallabidewiththeCompanysrulesandregulationsforitsemployees
attachedhereintoformanintegralparthereof.
"c.Thenatureofyourjobmayrequireyoutorenderovertimeworkwithpaysoasnotto
disrupttheCompanyscommitmentofscheduleddeliverydatesmadeonsaidjob
contract."[2]
InSeptember1991,petitionerandtwelve(12)otheremployeesofprivaterespondentallegedlyagreed
tothefilingofapetitionforcertificationelectioninvolvingtherankandfileemployeesofprivate
respondent.[3]Thus,onOctober8,1991,LakasManggagawasaPilipinas(LAKAS)filedapetitionfor
certificationelectionwiththeBureauofLaborRelations(BLR),docketedasNCRODM9110128.[4]
Subsequently,onOctober18,1991,petitionerreceivedaterminationletterfromEdnaKasilag,
AdministrativeOfficerofprivaterespondent,allegedly"duetolowvolumeofwork."[5]
Thus,onMay25,1992,petitionerfiledacomplaintforillegaldismissalwithprayerforserviceincentive
leavepayand13thmonthdifferentialpay,withtheNationalLaborRelationsCommission,National
CapitalRegion,ArbitrationBranch,docketedasNLRCNCRCaseNo.050291292.[6]
InherpositionpaperdatedAugust3,1992andfiledbeforelaborarbiterRaulT.Aquino,petitioner
allegedthatheremploymentwasterminatednotduetotheallegedlowvolumeofworkbutbecause
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/mar2000/114734.html

1/7

8/24/2016

Imbuido vs NLRC : 114734 : March 31, 2000 : J. Buena : Second Division

she"signedapetitionforcertificationelectionamongtherankandfileemployeesofrespondents,"
thuschargingprivaterespondentwithcommittingunfairlaborpractices.Petitionerfurthercomplained
ofnonpaymentofserviceincentiveleavebenefitsandunderpaymentof13thmonthpay.[7]
Ontheotherhand,privaterespondent,initspositionpaperfiledonJuly16,1992,maintainedthatit
hadvalidreasonstoterminatepetitionersemploymentanddisclaimedanyknowledgeoftheexistence
orformationofaunionamongitsrankandfileemployeesatthetimepetitionersserviceswere
terminated.[8]Privaterespondentstressedthatitsbusiness"reliesheavilyoncompaniesavailingofits
services.Itsretentionbyclientcompanieswithparticularemphasisondataencodingisonaprojectto
projectbasis,"[9]usuallylastingforaperiodof"two(2)tofive(5)months."Privaterespondentfurther
arguedthatpetitionersemploymentwasfora"specificprojectwithaspecifiedperiodofengagement."
Accordingtoprivaterespondent,"thecertaintyoftheexpirationofcomplainantsengagementhas
beendeterminedatthetimeoftheir(sic)engagement(until27November1991)orwhentheprojectis
earliercompletedorwhentheclientwithdraws,"asprovidedinthecontract.[10]"Thehappeningofthe
secondevent[completionoftheproject]hasmaterialized,thus,hercontractofemploymentisdeemed
terminatedpertheBrentSchoolruling."[11]Finally,privaterespondentaverredthatpetitioners"claims
fornonpaymentofovertimetime(sic)andserviceincentiveleave[pay]arewithoutfactualandlegal
basis."[12]
InadecisiondatedAugust25,1992,laborarbiterRaulT.Aquino,ruledinfavorofpetitioner,and
accordinglyorderedherreinstatementwithoutlossofseniorityrightsandprivileges,andthepayment
ofbackwagesandserviceincentiveleavepay.Thedispositivepartofthesaiddecisionreads:Missdaa
"WHEREFORE,responsivetotheforegoing,judgmentisherebyrenderedordering
respondentstoimmediatelyreinstatecomplainant[petitionerherein]asaregular
employeetoherformerpositionwithoutlossofseniorityrightsandprivilegesandtopay
backwagesfromthetimeofdismissaluptothedateofthisdecision,thesameto
continueuntilcomplainant[s][petitionerherein]actualreinstatementfrom(sic)the
service.Respondentsarelikewiseorderedtopaycomplainant[petitionerherein]service
incentiveleavepaycomputedasfollows:Sdaadsc
Backwages:
10/18/918/25/92=10.23mos.
P118.00x26x10.23mos.=P31,385.64
ServiceIncentiveLeavePay
1989=P89.00x5days=P445.00
1990=106x5days=P530.00
1991=118x5days=P590.00
P1,565.00
TotalP32,950.64
SOORDERED."[13]
Inhisdecision,thelaborarbiterfoundpetitionertobearegularemployee,rulingthat"[e]venifherein
complainant[petitionerherein]hadbeenobstensively(sic)hiredforafixedperiodorforaspecific
undertaking,sheshouldbeconsideredas[a]regularemployeeoftherespondentsinconformitywith
theprovisions(sic)laiddownunderArticle280oftheLaborCode,"[14]afterfindingthat"[i]tiscrystal
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/mar2000/114734.html

2/7

8/24/2016

Imbuido vs NLRC : 114734 : March 31, 2000 : J. Buena : Second Division

clearthathereincomplainant[petitionerherein]performedajobwhichare(sic)usuallynecessaryor
desirableintheusualbusinessofrespondent[s]."[15]Thelaborarbiterfurtherdenounced"thepurpose
behindtheseriesofcontractswhichrespondentsrequiredcomplainanttoexecuteasaconditionof
employmentwastoevadethetrueintentandspiritofthelaborlawsfortheworkingmen."[16]
Furthermore,thelaborarbiterconcludedthatpetitionerwasillegallydismissedbecausethealleged
reasonforhertermination,thatis,lowvolumeofwork,is"notamongthejustcausesfortermination
recognizedbylaw,"[17]hence,heorderedherimmediatereinstatementwithoutlossofseniorityrights
andwithfullbackwages.Withregardtotheserviceincentiveleavepay,thelaborarbiterdecided"to
grantthesameforfailureoftherespondentstofullycontrovertsaidclaims."[18]Lastly,thelaborarbiter
rejectedpetitionersclaimfor13thmonthpay"sincecomplainant[petitionerherein]failedtofully
substantiateandargued(sic)thesame."[19]
Onappeal,theNLRCreversedthedecisionofthelaborarbiterinadecision[20]promulgatedon
September27,1993,thedispositivepartofwhichreads:
"WHEREFORE,theappealeddecisionisherebysetaside.Thecomplaintforillegal
dismissalisherebydismissedforbeingwithoutmerit.Complainants[petitionerherein]
claimforserviceincentiveleavepayisherebyremandedforfurtherarbitration.
SOORDERED."[21]
TheNLRCruledthat"[t]hereisnoquestionthatthecomplainant[petitionerherein],viewedinrelation
tosaidArticle280ofthe[Labor]Code,isaregularemployeejudgingfromthefunctionand/orworkfor
whichshewashired.xxxxxx.Butthisdoesnotnecessarilymeanthatthecomplainant[petitioner
herein]hastobeguaranteedatenurialsecuritybeyondtheperiodforwhichshewashired."[22]The
NLRCheldthatthecomplainant[petitionerherein],whilehiredasaregularworker,isstatutorily
guaranteed,inhertenurialsecurity,onlyuptothetimethespecificprojectforwhichshewashiredis
completed."[23]Hence,theNLRCconcludedthat"[w]iththespecificproject"atRCBC014"admittedly
completed,thecomplainant[petitionerherein]hasthereforenovalidbasisinchargingillegaldismissal
forherconcomittant(sic)dislocation."[24]
InanOrderdatedJanuary11,1994,theNLRCdeniedpetitionersmotionforreconsideration.[25]
Inthispetitionforcertiorari,petitioner,forandinherbehalf,arguesthat(1)thepublicrespondent
"committedgraveabuseofdiscretionwhenitignoredthefindingsofLaborArbiterRaulAquinobased
ontheevidencepresenteddirectlybeforehim,andwhenitmadefindingsoffactthatarecontrarytoor
notsupportedbyevidence,"[26](2)"[p]etitionerwasa"regularemployee,"NOTa"projectemployee"as
foundbypublicrespondentNLRC,"[27](3)"[t]heterminationofpetition(sic)wastaintedwithunfair
laborpractice,"[28]and(4)thepublicrespondent"committedgraveabuseofdiscretioninremanding
theawardedserviceincentiveleavepayforfurtherarbitration."[29]
Thepetitionisimpressedwithmerit.Sdaadsc
WeagreewiththefindingsoftheNLRCthatpetitionerisaprojectemployee.Theprincipaltestfor
determiningwhetheranemployeeisaprojectemployeeoraregularemployeeiswhethertheproject
employeewasassignedtocarryoutaspecificprojectorundertaking,thedurationandscopeofwhich
werespecifiedatthetimetheemployeewasengagedforthatproject.[30]Aprojectemployeeisone
whoseemploymenthasbeenfixedforaspecificprojectorundertaking,thecompletionortermination
ofwhichhasbeendeterminedatthetimeoftheengagementoftheemployeeorwheretheworkor
servicetobeperformedisseasonalinnatureandtheemploymentisforthedurationoftheseason.[31]
Intheinstantcase,petitionerwasengagedtoperformactivitieswhichwereusuallynecessaryor
desirableintheusualbusinessortradeoftheemployer,asadmittedly,petitionerworkedasadata
encoderforprivaterespondent,acorporationengagedinthebusinessofdataencodingand
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/mar2000/114734.html

3/7

8/24/2016

Imbuido vs NLRC : 114734 : March 31, 2000 : J. Buena : Second Division

keypunching,andheremploymentwasfixedforaspecificprojectorundertakingthecompletionor
terminationofwhichhadbeendeterminedatthetimeofherengagement,asmaybeobservedfrom
theseriesofemploymentcontracts[32]betweenpetitionerandprivaterespondent,allofwhich
containedadesignationofthespecificjobcontractandaspecificperiodofemployment.
However,evenasweconcurwiththeNLRCsfindingsthatpetitionerisaprojectemployee,wehave
reachedadifferentconclusion.IntherecentcaseofMaraguinot,Jr.vs.NLRC,[33]weheldthat"[a]
projectemployeeoramemberofaworkpoolmayacquirethestatusofaregularemployeewhenthe
followingconcur:Rtcspped
1)Thereisacontinuousrehiringofprojectemployeesevenafter[the]cessationofa
project[34]and
2)Thetasksperformedbythealleged"projectemployee"arevital,necessaryand
indispensabletotheusualbusinessortradeoftheemployer.[35]"
Theevidenceonrecordrevealsthatpetitionerwasemployedbyprivaterespondentasadata
encoder,performingactivitieswhichareusuallynecessaryordesirableintheusualbusinessortrade
ofheremployer,continuouslyforaperiodofmorethanthree(3)years,fromAugust26,1988to
October18,1991[36]andcontractedforatotalofthirteen(13)successiveprojects.Wehavepreviously
ruledthat"[h]owever,thelengthoftimeduringwhichtheemployeewascontinuouslyrehiredisnot
controlling,butmerelyservesasabadgeofregularemployment."[37]Basedontheforegoing,we
concludethatpetitionerhasattainedthestatusofaregularemployeeofprivaterespondent.
Atthispoint,wereiteratewithemphasisthat:Korte
"xxxxxx
"Atthistime,wewishtoallayanyfearsthatthisdecisionundulyburdensanemployerby
imposingadutytorehireaprojectemployeeevenaftercompletionoftheprojectfor
whichhewashired.Theimportofthisdecisionisnottoimposeapositiveandsweeping
obligationupontheemployertorehireprojectemployees.Whatthisdecisionmerely
accomplishesisajudicialrecognitionoftheemploymentstatusofaprojector
workpoolemployeeinaccordancewithwhatisfaitaccompli,i.e.,thecontinuous
rehiringbytheemployerofprojectorworkpoolemployeeswhoperformtasks
necessaryordesirabletotheemployer'susualbusinessortrade.Letitnotbesaid
thatthisdecision"coddles"labor,forasLao[38]hasruled,projectorworkpool
employeeswhohavegainedthestatusofregularemployeesaresubjecttothe"no
worknopay"principle,torepeat:
"Aworkpoolmayexistalthoughtheworkersinthepooldonotreceivesalariesandare
freetoseekotheremploymentduringtemporarybreaksinthebusiness,providedthat
theworkershallbeavailablewhencalledtoreportforaproject.Althoughprimarily
applicabletoregularseasonalworkers,thissetupcanlikewisebeappliedtoproject
workersinsofarastheeffectoftemporarycessationofworkisconcerned.Thisis
beneficialtoboththeemployerandemployeeforitpreventstheunjustsituationof
"coddlinglaborattheexpenseofcapital"andatthesametimeenablestheworkersto
attainthestatusofregularemployees.Sclaw
"TheCourt'srulinghereismeantpreciselytogivelifetotheconstitutionalpolicyof
strengtheningthelaborsector,but,westress,notattheexpenseofmanagement.Lestit
bemisunderstood,thisrulingdoesnotmeanthatsimplybecauseanemployeeisa
projectorworkpoolemployeeevenoutsidetheconstructionindustry,heisdeemed,ipso
jure,aregularemployee.Allthatweholdtodayisthatonceaprojectorworkpool
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/mar2000/114734.html

4/7

8/24/2016

Imbuido vs NLRC : 114734 : March 31, 2000 : J. Buena : Second Division

employeehasbeen:(1)continuously,asopposedtointermittently,rehiredbythe
sameemployerforthesametasksornatureoftasksand(2)thesetasksarevital,
necessaryandindispensabletotheusualbusinessortradeoftheemployer,then
theemployeemustbedeemedaregularemployee,pursuanttoArticle280ofthe
LaborCodeandjurisprudence.Toruleotherwisewouldallowcircumventionof
laborlawsinindustriesnotfallingwithintheambitofPolicyInstructionNo.
20/DepartmentOrderNo.19,henceallowingthepreventionofacquisitionof
tenurialsecuritybyprojectorworkpoolemployeeswhohavealreadygainedthe
statusofregularemployeesbytheemployer'sconduct."[39](emphasissupplied)
Beingaregularemployee,petitionerisentitledtosecurityoftenureandcouldonlybedismissedfora
justorauthorizedcause,asprovidedinArticle279oftheLaborCode,asamended:Sclex
"Art.279.SecurityofTenureIncasesofregularemployment,theemployershallnot
terminatetheservicesofanemployeeexceptforajustcauseorwhenauthorizedbythis
Title.Anemployeewhoisunjustlydismissedfromworkshallbeentitledtoreinstatement
withoutlossofseniorityrightsandotherprivilegesandtohisfullbackwages,inclusiveof
allowances,andtohisotherbenefitsortheirmonetaryequivalentcomputedfromthe
timehiscompensationwaswithheldfromhimuptothetimeofhisactualreinstatement."
Theallegedcausesofpetitionersdismissal(lowvolumeofworkandbelatedly,completionofproject)
arenotvalidcausesfordismissalunderArticles282and283oftheLaborCode.Thus,petitioneris
entitledtoreinstatementwithoutlossofseniorityrightsandotherprivileges,andtoherfullbackwages,
inclusiveofallowances,andtoherotherbenefitsortheirmonetaryequivalentcomputedfromthetime
hercompensationwaswithheldfromheruptothetimeofheractualreinstatement.However,
complyingwiththeprinciplesof"suspensionofwork"and"nowork,nopay"betweentheendofone
projectandthestartofanewone,incomputingpetitionersbackwages,theamountscorrespondingto
whatcouldhavebeenearnedduringtheperiodsfromthedatepetitionerwasdismisseduntilher
reinstatementwhenprivaterespondentwasnotundertakinganyproject,shouldbededucted.Xlaw
Withregardtopetitionersclaimforserviceincentiveleavepay,weagreewiththelaborarbiterthat
petitionerisentitledtoserviceincentiveleavepay,asprovidedinArticle95oftheLaborCode,which
reads:
"Article95Righttoserviceincentiveleave
(a)Everyemployeewhohasrenderedatleastoneyearofserviceshallbeentitledtoa
yearlyserviceincentiveleaveoffivedayswithpay.
xxxxxxxxx."
Havingalreadyworkedformorethanthree(3)yearsatthetimeofherunwarranteddismissal,
petitionerisundoubtedlyentitledtoserviceincentiveleavebenefits,computedfrom1989untilthedate
ofheractualreinstatement.AsweruledintherecentcaseofFernandezvs.NLRC,[40]"[s]incea
serviceincentiveleaveisclearlydemandableafteroneyearofservicewhethercontinuousorbroken
oritsequivalentperiod,anditisoneofthe"benefits"whichwouldhaveaccruedifanemployeewas
nototherwiseillegallydismissed,itisfairandlegalthatitscomputationshouldbeuptothedateof
reinstatementasprovidedunderSection[Article]279oftheLaborCode,asamended,whichreads:
Xsc

"ART.279.SecurityofTenure.Anemployeewhoisunjustlydismissedfromworkshallbe
entitledtoreinstatementwithoutlossofseniorityrightsandotherprivilegesandtohisfull
backwages,inclusiveofallowances,andtohisotherbenefitsortheirmonetary
equivalentcomputedfromthetimehiscompensationiswithheldfromhimuptothetime
ofhisactualreinstatement."(emphasissupplied).
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/mar2000/114734.html

5/7

8/24/2016

Imbuido vs NLRC : 114734 : March 31, 2000 : J. Buena : Second Division

WHEREFORE,theinstantpetitionisGRANTED.TheassaileddecisionoftheNationalLabor
RelationsCommissioninNLRCNCRCANo.00384592datedSeptember27,1993,aswellasits
OrderdatedJanuary11,1994,areherebyANNULLEDandSETASIDEforhavingbeenrenderedwith
graveabuseofdiscretion,andthedecisionoftheLaborArbiterinNLRCNCRCaseNo.050291292
isREINSTATEDwithMODIFICATIONasabovestated,withregardtothecomputationofbackwages
andserviceincentiveleavepay.Sc
SOORDERED.
Bellosillo,(Chairman),Mendoza,Quisumbing,andDeLeon,Jr.,JJ.,concur.

[1]PennedbyCommissionerVicenteS.E.Veloso,andconcurredinbyCommissionersBartolomeS.CaraleandAlbertoR.Quimpo.
[2]Rollo,pp.4456.
[3]Ibid.,p.117.
[4]Ibid.
[5]Ibid.,p.118.
[6]Ibid.,p.26.
[7]Ibid,pp.2627.
[8]Ibid.,pp.2728.
[9]Ibid.,p.28.
[10]Ibid.,p.32.
[11]Ibid.
[12]Ibid.
[13]Ibid.,pp.2425.
[14]Ibid.,p.22.
[15]Ibid.
[16]Ibid.,p.23.
[17]Ibid.
[18]Ibid.,p.24.
[19]Ibid.
[20]Ibid.,p.26.
[21]Ibid.,p.40.
[22]Ibid.,p.38.
[23]Ibid.,p.39.
[24]Ibid.
[25]Ibid.,p.42.
[26]Ibid.,p.158.
[27]Ibid.,p.161.
[28]Ibid.,p.162.
[29]Ibid.,p.163.
[30]Nagusara,etal.vs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,G.R.Nos.11793637,May20,1998.
[31]BrahmIndustries,Inc.vs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,280SCRA828,834(1997).SeealsoArticle280oftheLabor

Code.
[32]TheCourtobservesthatofthethirteen(13)employmentcontractsinvolved,onlythesecondandthelastcontractscontainthe
signatureofpetitioner.
[33]Maraguinot,Jr.vs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,284SCRA539,556(1998),pennedbyJustice(nowChiefJustice)
Davide,Jr.andconcurredinbyJusticesBellosillo,VitugandKapunan.
[34]PhilippineNationalConstructionCorp.vs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,174SCRA191,193(1989).
[35]CapitolIndustrialConstructionGroupsvs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,221SCRA469,473474(1993).
[36]Rollo,pp.4456.
[37]Maraguinot,Jr.vs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,284SCRA539,556(1998).
[38]TomasLaoConstructionvs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,278SCRA716(1997).
[39]Maraguinot,Jr.vs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,284SCRA539,560561(1998).
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/mar2000/114734.html

6/7

8/24/2016

Imbuido vs NLRC : 114734 : March 31, 2000 : J. Buena : Second Division

[40]Fernandezvs.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,285SCRA149,176(1998).

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/mar2000/114734.html

7/7