LABOR

RADA v. NLRC and PhilNor

| B2015
CASES

3. The contract of employment for a definite period

executed between him and Philnor is against public
February 15, 2012
policy and a clear circumvention of the law designed
Mendoza, J
merely to evade any benefits or liabilities under the
Patrick
statute
4. His position as driver was essential, necessary and
SUMMARY: Rada, who worked as a project driver, claims illegal dismissal
and
overtime
from
PhilNor
despite
desirable
to the
conductpay
of the
business
of Philnor
his signing of quitclaim.
5. He rendered overtime work until 6:00 p.m. daily
except Sundays and holidays for a period of three
DOCTRINE: Project employees are those employed in connection with
particular
project.
Project
yearsaand
therefore,construction
he was entitled
to overtime
pay
employees are not entitled to termination pay if they are terminated as a result of the completion of the project
or any phase thereof in which they are employed, regardlessARGUMENT/S
of the number
projects
in which they have been
OFof
THE
RESPONDENT:
employed by a particular construction company. Moreover, the
company
is
not
required
to
obtainClearance"
clearance form
from for
Rada already signed the "Personnel
the Secretary of Labor in connection with such termination. P3,796.20 representing conversion to cash of unused leave
credits and financial assistance and also a "Release, Waiver
and Quitclaim" which also released Philnor from all
obligations and/or claims. He did not render overtime work
and neither did he demand for overtime pay. He was not a
regular employee, as he was merely employed during the
PETITIONER: Hilario Rada
duration of the phase of the construction contract PhilNor was
finishing.
RESPONDENT: National Labor Relations Commission and
Philnor Consultants And Planners, Inc.
RULING OF THE LOWER COURTS:
Labor Arbiter for Rada reinstatement with overtime pay.
FACTS: Hilaro Rada was employed by PhilNor in three
His assigned task as driver was necessary and desirable in
separate renewals of Contract of Employment for a Definite
the usual trade/business of the respondent employer, and
Period from 1977 to 1985, the third and last Contract having
having so worked for 8 years more or less, he is entitled to
been extended for four years. He worked as a driver for a
tenure.
North Luzon Extension construction project, which was
NLRC for PhilNor- reversed LAs decision
repeatedly extended as well due to lack in budgets (hence
the renewals and extensions of his contract). In 1985, the
phase of the project for which he was hired having been
ISSUES:
finished, his employment was terminated. Now he claims
1. WON the NLRC erred in accepting the appeal of PhilNor
illegal dismissal from Philnor and claims separation pay as
despite its failure to post a supersedeas bond within
well as overtime pay.
ten days of receipt of the LAs decision -NO
2. WON the NLRC erred in upholding the termination of
ARGUMENT/S OF THE PETITIONER:
Rada -NO
1. He was a regular employee entitled to security of
3. WON Rada was entitled to overtime pay -YES
tenure
2. He was not a project employee since Philnor is not
engaged in the construction business as to be covered
RATIO:
by Policy Instructions No. 20

LABOR

1. Despite being late, what was important was PhilNor

did pay. The broader interests of justice and the
desired objective of resolving controversies on the
merits demands that the appeal be given due course.
Art 221, Labor Code: "In any proceeding before the
Commission or any of the Labor Arbiters, the rules of
evidence prevailing in Courts of law or equity shall not be
controlling and it is the spirit and intention of this Code that
the Commission and its members and the Labor Arbiters shall
use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in
each case speedily and objectively without regard to
technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due
process
2. Quiwa v. PhilNor- upheld workers as project employees
Cartagenas, et al. vs. Romago Electric Companyupheld electrical contractors as project employees
Project employees, as distinguished from regular or
non-project employees, are mentioned in section 281 of the
Labor Code as those "where the 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."
Project employees are those employed in connection
with a particular construction project. Project employees are
not entitled to termination pay if they are terminated as a
result of the completion of the project or any phase thereof in

| B2015
CASES

which they are employed, regardless of the number of

projects in which they have been employed by a particular
construction company. Moreover, the company is not required
to obtain clearance from the Secretary of Labor in connection
with such termination.
The fact that Rada does not belong to a "work pool" from
which the company would draw workers for assignment to
other projects at its discretion (as opposed to in-company
groups of carpenters, laborers and masons) means that he is
merely a project worker.
3.

It is usually the project driver who is tasked with

picking up or dropping off his fellow employees. If
driving these employees to and from the project site is
not really part of petitioner's job, then there would
have been no need to find a replacement driver to
fetch these employees. But since the assigned task of
fetching and delivering employees is indispensable
and consequently mandatory, then he is doing
overtime work and should be paid for such

RULING: NLRC decision upheld, except PhilNor ordered

to pay Rada overtime pay.