AI-generated
Updated 21st February 2025
Fernandez vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Ricardo Fernandez, a welder employed by construction firm D.M. Consunji, Inc., claimed illegal dismissal after his termination due to project completion. The Supreme Court upheld the NLRC’s reversal of the Labor Arbiter’s decision, ruling Fernandez was a project employee without entitlement to reinstatement or backwages.

Primary Holding

Project employees in the construction industry are terminated lawfully upon project completion, even after years of intermittent service. The petition was dismissed for being filed unreasonably late and lacking merit.

Background

Fernandez worked for D.M. Consunji from 1974 to 1986 across multiple projects. The company argued his termination resulted from project completion, while Fernandez alleged indefinite employment. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled for Fernandez, but the NLRC reversed the decision.

History

  • March 23, 1986: Fernandez terminated.

  • 1988: Labor Arbiter ruled for Fernandez, ordering reinstatement and backwages.

  • September 29, 1989: NLRC reversed the decision, dismissing complaints.

  • July 19, 1991: NLRC denied reconsideration.

  • July 21, 1992: Fernandez filed a Supreme Court petition.

  • February 28, 1994: Supreme Court upheld NLRC’s decision.

Facts

  • 1. Fernandez was hired as a laborer in 1974, promoted to welder, and worked intermittently on various projects until 1986. Gaps in employment and termination reports filed with the Ministry of Labor demonstrated project-specific hiring.

Arguments of the Petitioners

  • 1. Argued continuous employment via Article 280 of the Labor Code, claiming regular status after years of service. Cited Policy Instruction No. 20’s “work pool” doctrine and alleged gaps in employment were illusory.

Arguments of the Respondents

  • 1. Argued continuous employment via Article 280 of the Labor Code, claiming regular status after years of service. Cited Policy Instruction No. 20’s “work pool” doctrine and alleged gaps in employment were illusory.

Issues

  • 1. Whether Fernandez was a regular or project employee under Article 280 of the Labor Code.
  • 2. Whether the petition for certiorari was filed within a reasonable time.

Ruling

  • 1. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition: (1) Filed unreasonably late (over two years post-NLRC decision). (2) Fernandez was a project employee due to gaps in employment, project-specific contracts, and compliance with termination reporting. Policy Instruction No. 20 exempts project employees from termination pay.

Doctrines

  • 1. Project Employees Exception: Article 280’s regular employment rules exclude project-specific workers.
  • 2. Policy Instruction No. 20: Construction firms need not provide termination pay for project employees if compliant with reporting.
  • 3. Timeliness of Certiorari: Petitions must be filed within a “reasonable time”; delays render decisions final.

Precedents Cited

  • 1. Mercado v. NLRC (1991): Clarified Article 280’s inapplicability to project employees.
  • 2. Ochoco v. NLRC (1983), PNCC v. NLRC (1989), Magante v. NLRC (1990): Distinguished for employers’ failure to submit termination reports.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

  • 1. Labor Code, Article 280: Defines regular, casual, and project employment.
  • 2. Policy Instruction No. 20 (Ministry of Labor): Guidelines for project employees in construction.