JOSE SONZA vs.
ABS-CBN BROADCASTING means and methods by which the work is
CORPORATION
G.R. No. 138051
June 10, 2004
Facts: In May 1994, ABS-CBN signed an
agreement with the Mel and Jay
Management and Development
Corporation (MJMDC). ABS-CBN was
represented by its corporate officers while
MJMDC was represented by Sonza, as
President and general manager, and
Tiangco as its EVP and treasurer. Referred to
in the agreement as agent, MJMDC agreed
to provide Sonza’s services exclusively to
ABS-CBN as talent for radio and television.
ABS-CBN agreed to pay Sonza a monthly
talent fee of P310, 000 for the first year and
P317, 000 for the second and third year.
On April 1996, Sonza wrote a letter to ABS-
CBN where he irrevocably resigned in view
of the recent events concerning his
program and career. After the said letter,
Sonza filed with the Department of Labor
and Employment a complaint alleging that
ABS-CBN did not pay his salaries, separation
pay, service incentive pay,13th month pay,
signing bonus, travel allowance and
amounts under the Employees Stock Option
Plan (ESOP). ABS-CBN contended that no
employee-employer relationship existed
between the parties. However, ABS-CBN
continued to remit Sonza’s monthly talent
fees but opened another account for the
same purpose.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint
and found that there is no employee-
employer relationship. NLRC affirmed the
decision of the Labor Arbiter. CA also
affirmed the decision of NLRC.
Issue: Whether or not there was employer-
employee relationship between the parties.
Ruling: NO. Case law has consistently held
that the elements of an employee-employer
relationship are selection and engagement
of the employee, the payment of wages,
the power of dismissal and the employer’s
power to control the employee on the
accomplished. The last element, the so-
called "control test", is the most important
element.
Sonza’s services to co-host its television and
radio programs are because of his peculiar
talents, skills and celebrity status.
Independent contractors often present
themselves to possess unique skills, expertise
or talent to distinguish them from ordinary
employees. The specific selection and hiring
of SONZA, because of his unique skills, talent
and celebrity status not possessed by
ordinary employees, is a circumstance
indicative, but not conclusive, of an
independent contractual relationship. All
the talent fees and benefits paid to SONZA
were the result of negotiations that led to
the Agreement. For violation of any
provision of the Agreement, either party
may terminate their relationship. Applying
the control test to the present case, we find
that SONZA is not an employee but an
independent contractor.
The control test is the most important test our
courts apply in distinguishing an employee
from an independent contractor. This test is
based on the extent of control the hirer
exercises over a worker. The greater the
supervision and control the hirer exercises,
the more likely the worker is deemed an
employee. The converse holds true as well –
the less control the hirer exercises, the more
likely the worker is considered an
independent contractor. To perform his
work, SONZA only needed his skills and
talent. How SONZA delivered his lines,
appeared on television, and sounded on
radio were outside ABS-CBN’s control. ABS-
CBN did not instruct SONZA how to perform
his job. ABS-CBN merely reserved the right to
modify the program format and airtime
schedule "for more effective programming."
ABS-CBN’s sole concern was the quality of
the shows and their standing in the ratings.
Clearly, ABS-CBN did not exercise control
over the means and methods of
performance of Sonza’s work. A radio
broadcast specialist who works under
minimal supervision is an independent
contractor. Sonza’s work as television and
radio program host required special skills
and talent, which SONZA admittedly
possesses.

ABS-CBN claims that there exists a prevailing

practice in the broadcast and
entertainment industries to treat talents like
Sonza as independent contractors. The right
of labor to security of tenure as guaranteed
in the Constitution arises only if there is an
employer-employee relationship under labor
laws. Individuals with special skills, expertise
or talent enjoy the freedom to offer their
services as independent contractors. The
right to life and livelihood guarantees this
freedom to contract as independent
contractors. The right of labor to security of
tenure cannot operate to deprive an
individual, possessed with special skills,
expertise and talent, of his right to contract
as an independent contractor.
G.R. No. 80383 September 26, 1988
REV. FR. EMMANUEL LABAJO, personally and
in his capacity as Director of San Andres
High School, Maramag, Bukidnon, and, SAN
ANDRES HIGH SCHOOL OF MARAMAG,
INCORPORATED, petitioners,
vs.
PUREZA V. ALEJANDRO, ZENAIDA S. DAHILAN,
JOSEPHINE A. CHAN, HERNANI C. MIAGUE,
OPHELIA M. MIAGUE, ROLANDO T. AMAR and
The HON. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, respondents.
FACTS:
The six (6) private respondents had all been
contracted by petitioners to work as
classroom teachers at the San Andres High
School, a private learning institution situated
in Maramag, Bukidnon. Private respondents
Pureza V. Alejandro and Rolando T. Amar
were assigned to handle petitioner High
School's regular day classes; private
respondents Zenaida S. Dahilan, Josephine
A. Chan, Hernani C. Miague and Ophelia M.
Miague upon the other hand, were
assigned to handle the school's special
evening classes.
On 3 June 1985, private respondents filed a
Complaint (docketed as NRLRC RAB X Case
No. 5-0410-85) with Regional Arbitration
Branch No. 10 (Cagayan de Oro City) of the
then Ministry of Labor and Employment,
alleging that they had each received on 29
March 1985 from petitioner Fr. Emmanuel
Labajo, Director of the San Andres High
School, a letter dated March 13, 1985
stating that they are terminated effective
March 31, 1985.
Private respondents alleged that their
dismissal by petitioner High School was
without justifiable cause and in violation of
their rights to due process and security of
tenure. It was also alleged that petitioners
had failed to pay private respondents the
full amounts corresponding to certain
employment benefits (i.e., daily wages,
basic pay, service incentive leave, sick
leave, and cost of living allowance) granted
to the latter under labor laws.
Petitioners admitted that private
respondents had not been paid in full the
employment benefits enumerated by the
latter in their complaint. Petitioners alleged,
however, that private respondents, prior to
their acceptance of teaching jobs at the
San Andres High School, "were already
made aware that the school could not give
them everything due them under existing
laws" and, hence, were estopped from
claiming such benefits. Petitioners, further,
denied having dismissed illegally any of the
six (6) private respondents and, in turn,
alleged that each of the latter were, at the
time of their dismissal, merely probationary
employees of the San Andres High School
whose services thereat were terminated for
just cause i.e., upon expiration on 31 March
1985 of their respective contracts of
employment with petitioner High School and
before any of them had achieved regular or
permanent status in their jobs.
LABOR ARBITER’S RULING
The Labor Arbiter held that dismissal of the
six (6) private respondents in this case "was
violative of the Constitution which
guarantees security of tenure of
employment and a provision of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 130 which requires notice
and investigation before outright
termination from the service." The Labor
Arbiter also held that, contrary to the claim
of petitioners, private respondents were not
under probation at the time of their
dismissal; even assuming that private
respondents were then merely probationary
employees of and under contract with
petitioner High School, nevertheless, they
could only be dismissed for cause and only
after having been accorded due process.
NLRC’s RULING
In a Resolution dated 8 May 1987, public
respondent National Labor Relations
Commission, affirmed on appeal the
decision of the Labor Arbiter. A Motion for
Reconsideration filed by petitioners was
denied by the Commissions.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE
whether or not the private respondents
were illegally dismissed by petitioners
RULING
case, at the time of their separation, had
achieved permanent status in their
employment as teachers at the San Andres
High School. As probationary and
contractual employees, private respondents
enjoyed security of tenure, but only to a
limited extent — i.e., they remained secure
in their employment during the period of
time their respective contracts of
employment remained in effect. That
temporary security of tenure, however,
ended the moment their employment
contracts expired on 31 March 1985 and
petitioners declined to renew the same for
the next succeeding school year.
Consequently, as petitioners were not under
obligation to renew those contracts of
employment, the separation of private
respondents in this case cannot be said to
have been without justifiable cause, much
less illegal.

NO. The Supreme Court cited the Biboso vs.

Victorias Milling Company Inc., case which
also involved the separation of private
school teachers, probationary employees
who had been covered similarly by
corresponding contracts of employment.
The Court, speaking through then Mr. Justice
Fernando, stated in that case:

2. This is by no means to assert that the

security of tenure protection of the
Constitution does not apply to probationary
employees. The Labor Code has wisely,
provided for such a case thus: 'The
termination of employment of probationary
employees and those employed with a fixed
period shall be subject to such regulations
as the Secretary of Labor may prescribe to
prevent the circumvention of the right of the
employees to be secured in their
employment as provided herein.

In view of all the foregoing, we hold that

none of the six (6) private respondents in this
SKILLWORD MANAGEMENT AND MARKETING
CORPORATION V NLRC (MANUEL)
186 SCRA 465 June 13, 1990
NATURE
Petition for certiorari
FACTS
- On June 24, 1983, Francisco Manuel was
deployed to Saudi Arabia to work as driver
by petitioner Skillworld Management and
Marketing, a duly licensed recruitment
agency operated by petitioners-spouses
Serafin and Alicia Ramos. Upon his arrival in
Jeddah, Manuel signed a 2-year
employment contract with his foreign
employer, petitioner Shary Limousine for a
monthly basic salary of $300. 2 months later,
Manuel was repatriated to the Philippines.
Upon his arrival in the Philippines, Manuel
confronted the Ramoses who promised to
deploy him to other projects.
- After the lapse of more than one year
without being deployed to other projects of
petitioners, Manuel filed a complaint with
the POEA against petitioners for illegal
dismissal. He alleged that while he was
employed as driver of Shary Limousine in its
branch at Jeddah he was stopped, and his
driver's license sought for inspection, by
Saudi Arabian police. He showed the police
two documents given to him by his
employer, Shary Limousine who made him
believe that these pertained to a driver's
temporary license. However, Manuel was
informed that the documents were not valid
for a driver’s license. Together with eleven
other drivers, they brought the matter
before their superiors. Three days after
bringing the matter to his superior,
respondent was ordered to pack his things.
He was taken to Riyadh and from there,
repatriated to the Philippines. Upon
respondent's arrival in the Philippines, he
requested the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for a
translation of what purported to be his
driver's license. When translated it was only
a certification of employment with Shary
Limousine in its branch at Jeddah.
- Petitioners alleged that Manuel’s dismissal
was for a valid and just cause. Petitioners
alleged that Manuel was dismissed because
of disobedience, absenteeism, refusal to
work and banding together to engage in
concerted activities against the employer.
- POEA rendered judgment in favor of
Manuel, directing petitioners to pay him
$6,900.00 or its peso equivalent. Upon
appeal, the NLRC affirmed said decision.
- According to petitioners, because of the
probationary status of the employment of
Manuel, he may be dismissed at any time.
Furthermore, this agreement was contained
in paragraph four (4) of the employment
contract signed by Manuel.
ISSUE
WON Manuel was illegally dismissed
HELD
YES
- There is no dispute that as a probationary
employee, Manuel had but a limited tenure.
Although on probationary basis, however,
he still enjoys the constitutional protection
on security of tenure. During his tenure of
employment therefore, or before his
contract expires, he cannot be removed
except for cause as provided for by law.
- The alleged causes for which private
respondent was dismissed (disobedience,
absenteeism, refusal to work, etc.) were not
established. Respondent NLRC found that
the purported temporary licenses to drive
issued to Manuel and his co-drivers by their
employer-the Shary Rent a Car/Limousine,
turned out to be mere certifications to the
effect that they are Filipino citizens who are
holders of given passport numbers and that
they were sent to work with the Shary
Limousine Branch in Jeddah. It is for this
reason that after being accosted twice at
checkpoints by Saudi police, who informed
complainant and his co-drivers that the
alleged temporary licenses were not valid,
they brought the matter first to their
Lebanese superior and then to the Philippine
Embassy. - - Further, records show that
Manuel reported for work regularly and
even rendered regular overtime services;
that he did not even attempt to join a strike
or any other form of mass action while
working in Jeddah, because he knew that
the laws in Jeddah are very strict and being
a foreigner he did not have the courage to
join much less lead a strike which is
prohibited there; that he and his co-workers
merely inquired from the Philippine Embassy
why they were allowed to drive without
licenses; and that their action prompted the
Philippine Embassy to write their employer,
which is perfectly in order as it was designed
to protect them in foreign soil.
MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEE
INTERORIENT MARITIME ENTERPRISES INC V
NLRC (TAYONG)
235 SCRA 268 August 11, 1994
NATURE
PETITION for review of a decision of the
National Labor Relations Commission
FACTS
- Captain Rizalino Tayong, a licensed Master
Mariner with experience in commanding
ocean-going vessels, was employed on
1989 by petitioners for 1 yr as stated in his
employment contract. He assumed
command of petitioners’ vessel at the port
of Hongkong. His instructions were to
replenish bunker and diesel fuel, to sail to
South Africa and there to load 120,000
metric tons of coal. However, while in HK
and unwarding cargo, he received a
weather report that a storm would hit HK, so
precautionary measures were taken to
secure the safety of the vessel and its crew,
considering that the vessel’s turbo-charger
was leaking and the vessel was 14 yrs old.
He also followed-up the requisition by the
former captain for supplies of oxygen and
acetylene necessary for the welding-repair
of the turbo-charger and the economizer.
-The vessel then sailed from HK for
Singapore. Captain Tayong reported a
water leak from M.E. Turbo Chapter No. 2
Exhaust gas casing so he was instructed to
black off the cooling water and maintain
reduced RPM unless authorized by the
owners. However, the vessel stopped in mid-
ocean for 6 hrs and 45 minutes due to a
leaking economizer. He was instructed to
shut down the economizer and use the
auxiliary boiler instead.
- The Chief Engineer reminded Captain
Tayong that the oxygen and acetylene
supplies had not been delivered. He then
informed the shipowner that the departure
of the vessel for South Africa may be
affected because of the delay in the
delivery of the supplies. The shipowner
advised Captain Tayong to contact its
technical director who would provide a
solution for the supply of said oxygen and
acetylene. The technical director
recommended to Captain Tayong that by
shutting off the water to the turbo charger
and using the auxiliary boiler, there should
be no further problem. Captain Tayong
agreed to the recommendation of the
technical director, but communicated his
reservations regarding proceeding to South
Africa without the requested supplies. So the
shipowner advised him to wait for the
supplies.
- Finally, the vessel arrived at South Africa.
However, Captain Tayong was instructed to
turn-over his post to the new captain, and
was repatriated to the Philippines after
serving petitioners for around 2 wks. He was
not informed of the charges against him,
and was just sent a letter after arriving in the
Philippines. He therefore instituted a
complaint for illegal dismissal before the
POEA, claiming his unpaid salary for the
unexpired portion of the written
employment contract, plus attorney’s fees.
- POEA: dismissed complaint, there was valid
cause for his untimely repatriation (the
company alleged that due to Captain
Tayong’s refusal to sail immediately to South
Africa, the vessel was placed “off-hire” by
the charterers, and the charterers refused to
pay the charter hire or compensation
corresponding to 12 hours, amounting to US
$15,500.00.They fired Captain Tayong for lost
of confidence; POEA believed that the
Captain’s concern for the oxygen and
acetylene was not legitimate as these
supplies were not necessary or
indispensable for running the vessel.)
- NLRC: reversed and set aside POEA
decision because Captain Tayong had not
been afforded an opportunity to be heard
and that no substantial evidenced was
adduced to establish the basis for
petitioners’ loss of trust or confidence.
Captain had acted in accordance with his
duties to maintain the seaworthiness of the
vessel and to insure the safety of the ship
and crew.
ISSUE
WON Captain Tayong was arbitrarily
dismissed and without cause as reasonably
established in an appropriate investigation
(whether or not Captain Tayong had
reasonable grounds to believe that the
safety of the vessel and the crew under his
command or the possibility of substantial
delay at sea required him to wait for the
delivery of the supplies needed for the
repair of the turbo-charger and the
economizer before embarking on the long
voyage from Singapore to South Africa)
HELD
YES
Ratio It is well settled in this jurisdiction that
confidential and managerial employees
cannot be arbitrarily dismissed at any time,
and without cause as reasonably
established in an appropriate investigation.
Such employees, too, are entitled to security
of tenure, fair standards of employment and
the protection of labor laws.
Reasoning
- Captain Tayong was denied any
opportunity to defend himself. Petitioners
curtly dismissed him from his command and
summarily ordered his repatriation to the
Philippines without informing him of the
charge or charges against him, and much
less giving him a chance to refute any such
charge. In fact, it was only 2 months after his
repatriation that Captain Tayong received a
telegram dated 24 October 1989 from Inter-
Orient requiring him to explain why he
delayed sailing to South Africa.
- NLRC’s conclusion was supported by
substantial evidence: The official report of
the technical director, which stated that a
disruption in the normal functioning of the
vessel’s turbo charger and economizer had
prevented the full or regular operation of
the vessel and that he was the one who
recommended the reduction of RPM during
the voyage to South Africa instead of
waiting in Singapore for the supplies that
would permit shipboard repair of the
malfunctioning machinery and equipment,
supported NLRC’s conclusion that Captain
Tayong did not arbitrarily and maliciously
delay the voyage to South Africa.
- Captain Tayong's decision (arrived at after
consultation with the vessel's Chief Engineer)
to wait seven (7) hours in Singapore for the
delivery on board the Oceanic Mindoro of
the requisitioned supplies needed for the
welding-repair, on board the ship, of the
turbo-charger and the economizer
equipment of the vessel, did not constitute
merely arbitrary, capricious or grossly
insubordinate behavior on his part. In the
view of the NLRC, that decision of Captain
Tayong did not constitute a legal basis for
the summary dismissal of Captain Tayong
and for termination of his contract with
petitioners prior to the expiration of the term
thereof.
Obiter
- The captain of a vessel is a confidential
and managerial employee within the
meaning of the above doctrine. A master or
captain, for purposes of maritime
commerce, is one who has command of a
vessel. A captain commonly performs three
(3) distinct roles: (1) he is a general agent of
the shipowner; (2) he is also commander
and technical director of the vessel; and (3)
he is a representative of the country under
whose flag he navigates. Of these roles, by
far the most important is the role performed
by the captain as commander of the vessel;
for such role (which, to our mind, is
analogous to that of "Chief Executive
Officer" [CEO] of a present-day corporate
enterprise) has to do with the operation and
preservation of the vessel during its voyage
and the protection of the passengers (if
any) and crew and cargo. In his role as
general agent of the shipowner, the captain
has authority to sign bills of lading, carry
goods aboard and deal with the freight
earned, agree upon rates and decide
whether to take cargo. The ship captain, as
agent of the shipowner, has legal authority
to enter into contracts with respect to the
vessel and the trading of the vessel, subject
to applicable limitations established by
statute, contract or instructions and
regulations of the shipowner. To the captain
is committed the governance, care and
management of the vessel. Clearly, the
captain is vested with both management
and fiduciary functions.
- Indeed, if the ship captain is convinced, as
a reasonably prudent and competent
mariner acting in good faith that the
shipowner's or ship agent's instructions
(insisted upon by radio or telefax from their
officers thousand of miles away) will result, in
the very specific circumstances facing him,
in imposing unacceptable risks of loss or
serious danger to ship or crew, he cannot
casually seek absolution from his
responsibility, if a marine casualty occurs, in
such instructions. 23

- Compagnie de Commerce v. Hamburg:

xxx where by the force of circumstances, a
man has the duty cast upon him of taking
some action for another, and under that
obligation adopts a course which, to the
judgment of a wise and prudent man, is
apparently the best for the interest of the
persons for whom he acts in a given
emergency, it may properly be said of the
course so taken that it was in a mercantile
sense necessary to take it."

- ON management prerogative: that

prerogative is nevertheless not to be
exercised, in the case at bar, at the cost of
loss of Captain Tayong's rights under his
contract with petitioner's and under
Philippine law.

Disposition petitioners having failed to show

grave abuse of discretion amounting to loss
or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the
NLRC in rendering its assailed decision, the
Petition for Certiorari is hereby DISMISSED, for
lack of merit. Costs against petitioners.
MARAGUINOT VS. NLRC
Davide, Jr., J. | January 22, 1998
FACTS:
Alejandro Maraguinot (Maraguinot) alleges
that he was employed by Viva Films (Viva)
as part of the filming crew. He was later
designated as Assistant Electrician and then
later promoted to Electrician.
while Enero was hired for the movie “Sigaw
ng Puso”.
LABOR ARBITER: ruled in favor of Maraguinot
and Enero and held that they were
employees of Viva and as such were
illegally dismissed by the latter.
NLRC: reversed the LA and ruled that the
circumstances of the case showed that they
were only project employees of Viva.
ISSUES:

Paulino Enero (Enero) likewise claims that - WON Maraguinot and Enero are
Viva hired him as a member of the shooting employees of Viva.
crew.
- WON they were illegally
Maraguinot and Enero’s tasks consisted of dismissed.
loading, unloading and arranging movie
equipment in the shooting area. HELD:

They later asked the company that their - They were regular employees.
salaries be adjusted in accordance with the
minimum wage law. In response, the - They were illegally dismissed.
company said that they would grant the
RATIO:
adjustment provided they signed a blank
employment contract. When they refused, ISSUE 1
they were forced to go on leave. Upon his
return, the company refused to take Enero - Viva claims that the producers
back. As regards Maraguinot, he was were job contractors.
dropped from the company payroll, but was
o However, under Section 8
later returned. When again he refused to
of Rule VIII, Book III of the
sign the blank contract, his services were
Omnibus Rules
terminated.
Implementing the Labor
Maraguinot and Enero then sued for illegal Code, to be considered
dismissal. a job contractor, such
associate producers must
VIVA CLAIMS that they contract persons have tools, equipment,
called “producers/assistant producers” to machinery, work premises
make movies and contend that Maraguinot and other materials
and Enero are project employees of these necessary to make
producers who act as independent motion picture. The
contractors. Hence there is no employer- associate producers had
employee relationship between them. In none of these, and that in
addition, Viva claims that Maraguinot was fact, the movie making
hired for the movie “Mahirap Maging Pogi”,
 equipment is owned by
Viva.
o Given that, these
producers can be
considered only as labor-
only contractors. As such
is prohibited, the law
considers the person or
entity engaged in the
same a mere agent or
intermediary of the direct
employer.
ISSUE 2
- BUT EVEN GIVEN THAT, these
producers cannot be considered
as job contractors, much less
labor-only contractors as they
did not supply, recruit nor hire the
workers. In this case, it was Viva
who recruited the crew members
from an available groups of
freelance workers which include
the complainants.
- The relationship between Viva
and its producers seem to be
that of agency as the latter
makes movies on behalf of Viva
whose business is that of making
movies.
- The existence of an employer-
employee relationship between
Maraguinot & Enero and Viva is
further supported by the
following:
o The four elements under
4-fold test are present.
o CONTROL: Viva has a
Supervising Producer that
monitors the progress of
the producers. Viva, in
effect, controls the
outcome of the film and
the means through which
it is produced.
o SELECTION AND
SUPERVISION: Viva issued
appointment slips with
their corporate name as
the heading.
o SALARIES: It was likewise
Viva who paid the
employee’s salaries.
- While Maraguinot and Enero
were possibly initially hired as
project employees, they had
attained the status of regular
employees.
- A project employee or a
member of a work pool may
acquire the status of a regular
employee when the ff. concur:
o There is a continuous
rehiring of project
employees even after
cessation of the project.
o The tasks performed are
vital, necessary and
indispensable to the usual
business or trade of the
employer.
- The length of time during which
the employee was continuously
rehired is not controlling, but
merely serves as a badge of
regular employment.
- In this case, Enero was employed
for 2 years and engaged in at
least 18 projects; while
Maragunot was employed for 3
 years and worked on at least 23
projects.

- Citing Lao vs. NLRC, the could

held that “a work pool may exist
although the workers in the pool
do not receive salaries and are
free to seek other employment
during temporary breaks in the
business, provided that the
workers shall be available when
called to report for a project.
Although primarily applicable to
regular seasonal workers, this
setup can likewise be applied to
project workers in so far as the
effect of temporary cessation of
work is concerned.”

- Once a project or work pool

employee has been (a)
continuously, as opposed to
intermittently, rehired by the
same employer for the same
tasks or nature of tasks; (b) these
tasks are vital, necessary, and
indispensable to the usual
business or trade of the
employer, then the employee
must be deemed a regular
employee, pursuant to Article
280 of the Labor Code and
jurisprudence.

- As Maraguinot and Enero have

already gained the status of
regular employees, their dismissal
was unwarranted since the
cause invoked for their dismissal
(completion of the project) is not
one of the valid causes for
termination under Article 282 of
the Labor Code.
Audion Electric vs NLRC
308 SCRA 340
Hiring Extend Period
FACTS
From the position paper and affidavit
corroborated by oral testimony, it appears
that complainant was employed by
respondent Audion Electric Company on
June 30, 1976 as fabricator and continuously
rendered service assigned in different offices
or projects as helper electrician, stockman
and timekeeper. He as rendered thirteen
(13) years of continuous, loyal and
dedicated service with a clean record.
On August 3, complainant was surprised to
receive a letter informing him that he will be
considered terminated after the turnover of
materials, including respondents, tools and
equipment not later than August 15, 1989.
Complainant claims that he was dismissed
without justifiable cause and due process
and that his dismissed was done in bad faith
which renders the dismissal illegal. For this
reason, he claims that he is entitled to
reinstatement with full backwages. He also
claims that he is entitled to moral and
exemplary damages. He includes payment
of his overtime pay, project allowance,
minimum wage increase adjustment,
proportionate 13th month pay and
attorney's fees.
ISSUE
Whether the extended hiring of an
employee after the termination of the
project makes said employee a regular and
no longer a project employee.
RULING
We have held that where the employment
of project employees is extended long after
the supposed project has been finished, the
employees are removed from the scope of
project employees and considered regular
employees.
Private respondent had presented
substantial evidence to support his position,
while petitioner merely presented an
unverified position paper merely stating
therein that private respondent has no
cause to complain since the employment
contract signed by private respondent with
petitioner was co-terminus with the project.
Notably, petitioner failed to present such
employment contract for a specific project
signed by private respondent that would
show that his employment with the
petitioner was for the duration of a
particular project. Moreover,
notwithstanding petitioner's claim in its reply
that in taking interest in the welfare of its
workers, petitioner would strive to provide
them with more continuous work by
successively employing its workers, in this
case, private respondent, petitioner failed
to present any report of termination.
As stated earlier, the rule in our jurisdiction is
that findings of facts of the NLRC affirming
those of the Labor Arbiter are entitled to
great weight and will not be disturbed if
they are supported by substantial evidence.
Substantial evidence is an amount of
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to justify a
conclusion. We find no grave abuse of
discretion committed by NLRC in finding
that private respondent was not a project
employee.

WHEREFORE, the challenged resolutions of

the respondent NLRC are hereby AFFIRMED
with the MODIFICATION that the awards of
moral and exemplary damages and
attorney's fees are DELETED.