II.

Project Employee

3. Quebral v. Angbus Construction

G.R. No. 221897, Nov. 07, 2016

FACTS:

Petitioners alleged that they were employed as construction workers by Angbus on various
dates from 2008 to 2011. They claimed to be regular employees since they were engaged to
perform tasks which are necessary and desirable to the usual business of Angbus, and
they have rendered services to the latter's construction business for several years al-
ready. They were dismissed from work without any just or authorized cause and due process.
They filed consolidated cases for illegal dismissal.

According to Respondents, petitioners were first employed by Angelfe for a one time project. 2
or 3 years after the completion of the Angelfe project, they were then hired by Angbus, which is
a separate and distinct business entity from the former. Angbus failed to present petitioners'
employment contracts, payrolls, and job application documents either at Angelfe or
Angbus. They claimed that these documents were completely damaged by the flood
caused by the "habagat" on August 6 to 12, 2012, as evinced by a Certification issued by
the Chairman of Barangay Rosario, Pasig City, (Brgy. Rosario Certification) where Angelfe and
later, Angbus purportedly held offices

NLRC ruled that petitioners were regular employees who were illegally dismissed. It stressed that Angbus had control
over the company records but failed to present the project employment contracts signed by the workers to rebut peti -
tioners' claim that they were regular employees. And the Brgy. Rosario Cert was not given credence since Angbus’
business address was in Quezon City and NOT Pasig, a certification from the barangay captain of the place where
their business address is located should have been presented. Angbus hired all the petitioners almost at the same
time in 2012, giving the impression that these workers were continuously hired in one project after another
and that their employment, first with Angelfe and then with Angbus, was uninterrupted . Angbus and Angelfe
were not a separate and distinct companies, they have the same business address, ss, where petitioners were con-
tinuously employed.

NLRC Motion for Recon - Respondents filed on time, mailed on May 20, 2013, the last day of the reglementary period.
Employer is required to keep employment records in its main office, not in the temporary project site or extension of -
fice. The real reason for petitioners' termination from work is retrenchment and not project completion

ISSUE:

1. WoN NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion

2. WoN petitioners' appeal before the NLRC was filed out of time

Quebral v. Angbus Construction Page 1 of 5

3. WoN petitioners are project employees of Angbus and consequently, holding their dismissal
to be valid

RULING:

1. NO. In labor cases, grave abuse of discretion may be ascribed to the NLRC when its findings and conclusions are
not supported by substantial evidence, which refers to that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. Thus, if the NLRC's ruling has basis in the evidence and the ap -
plicable law and jurisprudence, then no grave abuse of discretion exists and the CA should so declare and, accord-
ingly, dismiss the petition.
The Court finds that the NLRC's Decision in this case was supported by substantial evidence and is consis-
tent with law and jurisprudence as to the issues raised in the petition.

2. NO. Section 3, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court provides that where pleadings are filed by registered mail, the date of
mailing as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry receipt shall be considered as the
date of filing. Based on this provision, the date of filing is determinable from two sources: (1) from the post office
stamp on the envelope or (2) from the registry receipt, either of which may suffice to prove the timeliness of the fil -
ing of the pleadings.
Laureta's certification corroborates the date of filing specified in the registry receipt and on the envelope. The Court
recognizes that, ideally, the incumbent postmaster in the POEA Post Office should be the one to certify the date of
mailing based on the post office records, considering that he or she is the person duly authorized to do so. Never-
theless, the Court finds that Laureta's certification as the postmaster at the time of mailing, together with
the pieces of evidence earlier mentioned, constitutes substantial compliance with the authentication re-
quirement.

3. NO. A project-based employee is assigned to a project which begins and ends at determined
or determinable times. Unlike regular employees who may only be dismissed for just and/or
authorized causes under the Labor Code, the services of employees who are hired as
project-based employees may be lawfully terminated at the completion of the project.

To safeguard the rights of workers against the arbitrary use of the word "project" to pre-
clude them from attaining regular status, jurisprudence provides that employers claiming
that their workers are project-based employees have the burden to prove that these two req-
uisites concur: (a) the employees were assigned to carry out a specific project or un-
dertaking; and (b) the duration and scope of which were specified at the time they
were engaged for such project.

Angbus failed to discharge this burden. Notably, Angbus did not state the specific
project or undertaking assigned to petitioners. As to the second requisite, not only was
Angbus unable to produce petitioners' employment contracts, it also failed to present
other evidence to show that it informed petitioners of the duration and scope of their

Quebral v. Angbus Construction Page 2 of 5

work.

The Court previously ruled that although the absence of a written contract does not by
itself grant regular status to the employees, it is evidence that they were informed of
the duration and scope of their work and their status as project employees at the
start of their engagement. When no other evidence is offered, the absence of employ-
ment contracts raises a serious question of whether the employees were sufficiently
apprised at the start of their employment of their status as project employees. Absent
such proof, it is presumed that they are regular employees, thus, can only be dismissed for
just or authorized causes upon compliance with procedural due process.

The Court agrees with the NLRC that the Brgy. Rosario Certification cannot be given cre-
dence as it was issued by the barangay captain in Rosario, Pasig City rather than in Quezon
City.

In the present case, Angbus has consistently declared in its pleadings, in its General
Information Sheet, and the DOLE Reports that its main office is located at 16 Pratt
Street, Filinvest 2, Batasan Hills, Quezon City. As aptly ruled by the NLRC, the exten-
sion office in the project site in Brgy. Rosario, Pasig City is not a branch office con -
templated by the Rules where employees' records may be kept but merely a tempo-
rary office. Hence, the Brgy. Rosario Certification, stating that petitioners' employment
records were destroyed by flood, does not justify the non-presentation of the employment
contracts. Besides, Angbus could still have presented other evidence to prove project em-
ployment but it did not do so, relying on the convenient excuse that the documents were
destroyed by flood.

It is clear that the submission of the termination report to the DOLE "may be considered"
only as an indicator of project employment. By the provision's tenor, the submission of this
report, by and of itself, is therefore not conclusive to confirm the status of the terminated
employees as project employees, especially in this case where there is a glaring absence of
evidence to prove that petitioners were assigned to carry out a specific project or undertak-
ing, and that they were informed of the duration and scope of their supposed project en-
gagement, which are, in fact, attendant to the first two (2) indicators of project employment
in the same DOLE issuance above-cited.

Quebral v. Angbus Construction Page 3 of 5

LA - Not illegally dismissed; gave credence to
the Establishment Employment Reports sub-
mitted to DOLE which showed that the cause
for petitioners' termination was project com-
pletion
NLRC - Regular EEs who are illegally dis-
missed; Angbus hired all the petitioners al-
most at the same time in 2012, giving the
impression that these workers were continu-
ously hired in one project after another and
that their employment was uninterrupted.
Angbus and Angelfe were not separate and
distinct companies
CA - project employee; absence of a project
employment contract does not automatically
confer regular status to the employees; NLRC
erred in treating Angelfe and Angbus as one
and the same entity just because the two
companies have the same business address,
the same owner, and were engaged in the
same construction business.
Art. 295 of LC - Regular and casual employ-
ment. - The provisions of written agreement
to the contrary notwithstanding and regard-
less of the oral agreement of the parties, an
employment shall be deemed to be regular
where the employee has been engaged to per-
form activities which are usually necessary
or desirable in the usual business or trade of
the employer, except where the employ-
ment has been fixed for a specific project
or undertaking the completion or termi-
nation of which has been determined at
Quebral v. Angbus Construction
the time of the engagement of the em-
ployee or where the work or services to be
performed is seasonal in nature and the em-
ployment is for the duration of the season.
Project-based employee - assigned to a
project which begins and ends at determined
or determinable times.
Project-based employees requisites:
a. The employees were assigned to carry out
a specific project or undertaking; and
b. The duration and scope of which were
specified at the time they were engaged
for such project.
Sec. 11, Rule X, Book III of the Omnibus
Rules Implementing the Labor Code:
- Requires the employer to keep all employ-
ment records in the main or branch office
where the employees are assigned. It also
prohibits the keeping of employees' records
elsewhere.
Guidelines Governing the Employment of
Workers in the Construction industry:
2.2 Indicators of project employment. - Ei-
ther one or more of the following circum-
stances, among others, may be considered
as indicators that an employee is a
project employee.
a. The duration of the specific/identified un-
dertaking for which the worker is engaged
is reasonably determinable.
Page 4 of 5
b. Such duration, as well as the specific
work/service to be performed, is defined
in an employment agreement and is made
clear to the employee at the time of hir-
ing.

c. The work/service performed by the em-

ployee is in connection with the particu-
lar project/undertaking for which he is
engaged.

d. The employee, while not employed and

awaiting engagement, is free to offer his
services to any other employer.

e. The termination of his employment in the

particular project/undertaking is re-
ported to the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) Regional Office hav-
ing jurisdiction over the workplace within
30 days following the date of his separa-
tion from work, using the prescribed form
on employees' terminations/dismissals/
suspensions.

f. An undertaking in the employment con-

tract by the employer to pay completion
bonus to the project employee as prac-
ticed by most construction companies.

Quebral v. Angbus Construction Page 5 of 5