Hanjin Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals

A party aggrieved by a decision of the Court of Appeals must file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65; the two remedies are mutually exclusive, and Rule 65 cannot serve as a substitute for a lost appeal. The Court further held that factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC, when supported by substantial evidence and affirmed by the CA, are accorded finality and are not reviewable in a Rule 65 petition.

Hanjin Development Co., Ltd. is a South Korean construction corporation licensed to do business in the Philippines and contracted by the Philippine Government for various foreign-financed infrastructure projects. On October 18, 1991 and August 21, 1992, Hanjin and the National Irrigation Administration (NIA) executed contracts for the construction of the Malinao Dam at Pilar, Bohol, with a projected completion period of 1,050 calendar days for the main dam and 750 days for the main canal and lateral projects. From August 1995 to August 1996, Hanjin contracted the services of 712 workers—carpenters, masons, truck drivers, helpers, laborers, heavy equipment operators, leadmen, engineers, steelmen, mechanics, electricians, and others—for the Bohol Irrigation Project. Nam Hyum Kim was the officer-in-charge of the project.

Hanjin Development Co., Ltd., a South Korean construction corporation licensed to do business in the Philippines, had been contracted by the Philippine Government for various foreign-financed infrastructure projects, including road projects in Iligan-Aurora, Lanao del Norte, Bohol, Ilocos Sur, Pampanga, and the Bacolod Airport. On October 18, 1991 and August 21, 1992, Hanjin and the National Irrigation Administration (NIA) executed contracts for the construction of the Malinao Dam at Pilar, Bohol, with a projected completion period of 1,050 calendar days for the main dam and 750 days for the main canal and lateral projects. From August 1995 to August 1996, Hanjin contracted the services of 712 workers—carpenters, masons, truck drivers, helpers, laborers, heavy equipment operators, leadmen, engineers, steelmen, mechanics, electricians, and others—for the Bohol Irrigation Project. Nam Hyun Kim served as the officer-in-charge of the project.

In April 1998, the 712 employees filed complaints for illegal dismissal and for payment of benefits against Hanjin and Nam Hyun Kim before the NLRC, alleging they were regular employees separated from employment without any lawful or just cause. Only 521 of the complainants affixed their signatures to the complaints. Petitioners countered that the complainants were mere project employees hired for the Bohol Irrigation Project, which was officially completed in November 1996. Petitioners further alleged that some employees had been charged with qualified theft for siphoning diesel fuel from equipment, that some had migrated to the United States or had died, that 117 were still under Hanjin's employ, that some had voluntarily resigned, that 14 were absent without prior approved leave, that 15 had signed a motion to withdraw from the complaint, and that many were separated on account of project completion. Petitioners, however, failed to append any documentary support for these claims.

The Labor Arbiter, on May 12, 1998, rendered judgment in favor of 428 complainants, declaring them regular employees and granting separation pay and attorney's fees, with other monetary benefits to be computed upon submission of sufficient data. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed with modification on January 28, 2000, dismissing 34 complaints and awarding monetary benefits to the rest, including backwages, separation pay, holiday pay, and attorney's fees totaling over ₱66 million. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, appending machine copies of some employment contracts and resignation letters, and submitting 11 folders of payrolls. The NLRC partially granted the motion on July 20, 2001, deleting duplicate listings, 13th month pay for 1993, and awards to 7 additional complainants.

Petitioners then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition on March 18, 2004, affirming the NLRC's finding that respondents were regular employees and stressing petitioners' failure to refute that claim. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, which the CA denied. Petitioners received the CA's denial on October 20, 2004. Instead of filing a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 within 15 days, they filed the instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court on November 23, 2004—19 days beyond the reglementary period. The Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA were unanimous in finding that respondents were regular employees, based on the continuous employment from 1991 to 1996, the absence of employment contracts specifying project-based terms, the failure to report terminations to the DOLE, and the repeated re-hiring under piecemeal six-month "appointments" designed to preclude acquisition of tenurial security.

• Employment Status: Petitioners maintained that respondents were project employees hired for the specific Bohol Irrigation Project, which had a predetermined completion period of 1,050 calendar days for the main canal and 750 days for the lateral projects, as evidenced by machine copies of employment contracts appended to their motion for reconsideration before the NLRC.
• Absurdity of Regular Employment: Petitioners argued that it would be absurd to employ regular employees for each construction project, as this would result in thousands of regular employees across all their projects, which would be untenable for a construction firm that necessarily completes its projects at one time or another.
• Monetary Claims Already Paid: Petitioners alleged that the payrolls presented as exhibits uniformly showed that all monetary entitlements of the respondents had already been duly paid, and that respondents were not entitled to the awarded money claims because they were project, not regular, employees.
• Falsified Complaints: Petitioners asserted that the complaints were erroneous, perjurious, and falsified, submitted without proper verification, and that the NLRC should have discarded them outright given clear proofs of falsification and intentional deceit.
• Liability of Nam Hyum Kim: Petitioners argued that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in proceeding to hear the complaints against Nam Hyum Kim, he being a mere officer/manager of the corporation.
• Proper Remedy: Petitioners averred that their recourse under Rule 65 was proper, insisting that no procedural rule provides that the remedy of an aggrieved party in a labor case is to file a petition under Rule 45, and that St. Martin Funeral Home vs. NLRC held that judicial review of labor disputes is limited to certiorari under Rule 65.

• Improper Remedy: Respondents countered that petitioners' recourse to Rule 65 was inappropriate, citing St. Martin Funeral Home vs. NLRC, where the Court ruled that petitions for certiorari seeking to review NLRC decisions should initially be filed in the CA under the principle of hierarchy of courts, and that the proper remedy from a CA decision is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
• Factual Issues Not Proper Under Rule 65: Respondents pointed out that the only issues raised by petitioners were factual in nature, which are not proper in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
• Failure to Produce Original Documents: Respondents stressed that petitioners failed to adduce in evidence the original copies of the employment contracts and copies of the employment termination reports allegedly submitted to the DOLE, submitting only machine copies in their motion for reconsideration before the NLRC.

• Proper Remedy: Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to assail a decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the NLRC, or whether a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is the correct recourse.
• Timeliness: Whether the petition was filed within the reglementary period, given that petitioners received the CA's denial of their motion for reconsideration on October 20, 2004 but filed their Rule 65 petition only on November 23, 2004.
• Employment Status: Whether the respondents were project employees or regular employees of Hanjin.
• Money Claims: Whether the respondents were entitled to the awarded monetary benefits, and whether the payrolls showed that all such entitlements had already been paid.
• Validity of Complaints: Whether the complaints were perjurious, falsified, and improperly verified.
• Liability of Corporate Officer: Whether the NLRC properly proceeded against Nam Hyum Kim as a mere officer/manager of the corporation.

• Proper Remedy: No. The proper remedy from a CA decision is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, not a special civil action under Rule 65; the two remedies are mutually exclusive, and Rule 65 cannot substitute for a lost appeal.
• Timeliness: No. The petition was filed on November 23, 2004, beyond the 15-day reglementary period under Rule 45 which expired on November 4, 2004, rendering the CA decision final and executory.
• Employment Status: Not reached on the merits as a question of fact, but the Court noted that the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and CA were unanimous in finding respondents to be regular employees, supported by substantial evidence and accorded finality.
• Money Claims: Not reached, being a factual issue beyond the scope of a Rule 65 petition.
• Validity of Complaints: Not reached, being a factual issue beyond the scope of a Rule 65 petition.
• Liability of Corporate Officer: Not reached, as the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds.

• Proper Remedy: Under the Constitution and the Revised Rules of Court, judicial review of NLRC decisions is filed with the CA under Section 5 of Rule 65 on the ground of grave abuse of discretion. The remedy of the aggrieved party from the CA's decision, in turn, is a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 45. A party is proscribed from assailing a CA decision via Rule 65 because such recourse is proper only if the party has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the course of law. Petitioners had an adequate remedy—Rule 45—and the remedies of appeal under Rule 45 and certiorari under Rule 65 are mutually exclusive and not alternative or cumulative. The Court in Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals stated that a cert writ will not issue where the remedy of appeal is available. While the Court has occasionally treated a Rule 65 petition as one under Rule 45, this requires filing within the prescribed period and special circumstances, neither of which was present here.
• Timeliness: Petitioners received the CA decision on March 24, 2004 and filed their motion for reconsideration on April 6, 2004. They received the CA's denial of reconsideration on October 20, 2004. Under Rule 45, they had 15 days—or until November 4, 2004—to file a petition for review on certiorari. Instead, they filed a Rule 65 petition on November 23, 2004, indubitably beyond the reglementary period. The CA decision had already become final and executory, beyond the Court's power to act upon. Since the CA had jurisdiction over the original Rule 65 petition against the NLRC, any errors it committed in exercising that jurisdiction would be errors of judgment reviewable by timely appeal, not by a special civil action of certiorari. A party who fails to appeal within the reglementary period cannot avail of the writ of certiorari, his predicament being the effect of his own deliberate inaction. None of the recognized exceptions—public welfare, broader interest of justice, null and void writs, or oppressive exercise of judicial authority—were present.
• Employment Status: The question of whether respondents were project or regular employees is a question of fact, requiring the Court to delve into, weigh, and calibrate documentary and testimonial evidence. The Court is proscribed from re-examining evidence in a Rule 65 petition, where the only issue is whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion. The Labor Arbiter found that complainants were engaged in activities usually necessary or desirable in the employer's trade, that no employment contracts were presented, that respondents gave benefits due only to regular employees, and that repeated hiring indicated a "work pool." The NLRC affirmed, noting the absence of employment contracts in the record, the failure to report terminations to the DOLE as required by Department Order No. 19, Series of 1993, the lack of predetermination of project duration, and the continuous employment from 1991 to 1995 overcoming the piecemeal six-month "appointments." The CA agreed, holding that repeated re-hiring and continuing need for services over a long span made the employees regular, and that the belatedly submitted "appointments" were insufficient. Factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC, when supported by substantial evidence and affirmed by the CA, are accorded not only respect but finality.
• Money Claims: This is a factual issue not reviewable in a Rule 65 petition. The Court noted that the NLRC found the machine copies of payrolls and employment contracts barren of probative weight, and that petitioners' belated submission of evidence—only after adverse decisions—raised the presumption that the evidence, if produced, would operate to their prejudice.
• Validity of Complaints: This is a factual issue not reviewable in a Rule 65 petition, and the Court did not reach it.
• Liability of Corporate Officer: This issue was not reached because the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds.

• Mutually Exclusive Remedies Doctrine — The remedies of appeal under Rule 45 and an original action for certiorari under Rule 65 are mutually exclusive and not alternative or cumulative. A special civil action under Rule 65 cannot serve as a substitute for a lost appeal, especially when the loss was occasioned by a party's neglect or error in the choice of remedies. Exceptions apply only when (a) public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictates; (b) the broader interest of justice so requires; (c) the writs issued are null and void; or (d) the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority. None of these exceptions was found present.
• Hierarchy of Courts in Labor Cases — Judicial review of NLRC decisions should be filed with the CA under Rule 65 on the ground of grave abuse of discretion. The remedy from a CA decision, in turn, is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court. A party cannot bypass the CA and directly file with the Supreme Court, nor can the party assail a CA decision via Rule 65 when Rule 45 is available.
• Finality of Quasi-Judicial Findings — Factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC, if supported by substantial evidence, are accorded not only great respect but even finality, and are binding upon the Supreme Court, unless the petitioner clearly demonstrates that the agency arbitrarily disregarded evidence, misapprehended evidence to the extent as to compel a contrary conclusion, or where the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are contrary to each other.
• Project vs. Regular Employment Test — The principal test for determining whether employees are project employees is whether they were assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking, the duration of which was specified at the time they were engaged. Predetermination of the duration of project employment is essential. Under Department Order No. 19, Series of 1993, six indicators of project employment are enumerated, including the requirement that termination of employment in a particular project be reported to the DOLE Regional Office within 30 days from separation. Failure to report is proof that the employees were not project employees. Where employment is extended long after the supposed project appointments have finished, employees are removed from the scope of project employment and considered regular employees. Repeated short-term appointments imposed to preclude acquisition of tenurial security should be disregarded as contrary to public policy.
• Presumption from Non-Production of Evidence — When evidence tends to prove a material fact imposing liability on a party, and that party has the power to produce evidence which from its nature must overthrow the case against him if it is not founded on fact, but refuses to produce it, the presumption arises that the evidence, if produced, would operate to his prejudice and support the adversary's case.

• "The general rule is that a cert writ will not issue where the remedy of appeal is available to the aggrieved party. The remedies of appeal in the ordinary course of law and that of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court are mutually exclusive and not alternative or cumulative. Hence, the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is not and cannot be a substitute for an appeal, where the latter remedy is available." — This passage articulates the canonical formulation of the mutually exclusive remedies doctrine, frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence on proper remedy selection.
• "A special civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court cannot cure a party's failure to timely file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. Rule 65 is an independent action that cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal, including that under Rule 45, especially if such loss or lapse was occasioned by a party's neglect or error in the choice of remedies." — This passage defines the boundaries between Rule 45 and Rule 65 and the consequences of procedural misstep, serving as a key statement on the finality of judgments.
• "The actual continuous employment of complainants by respondent Hanjin since 1991 until 1995 overcomes the piecemeal 'appointments' covering for periods of six (6) months or less. From these short term but repeated 'appointments,' it is apparent that the periods have been imposed to preclude the acquisition of tenurial security by the employee and which kind of employment contracts should be disregarded for being contrary to public policy." — This passage, drawn from the NLRC decision quoted and affirmed by the Court, articulates the rule against repeated short-term appointments designed to evade security of tenure, a key doctrine in project vs. regular employment analysis.
• "Well-settled is the rule that findings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies, like the NLRC, are accorded not only respect but at times even finality if such findings are supported by substantial evidence. Such findings of facts can only be set aside upon showing of grave abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law." — This passage states the standard of review for NLRC factual findings, a foundational principle in Philippine labor jurisprudence.

• St. Martin Funeral Home vs. NLRC, 356 Phil. 811 (1998) — Cited by respondents for the proposition that petitions for certiorari seeking to review NLRC decisions should initially be filed in the CA, conformably with the principle of hierarchy of courts. Petitioners cited the same case but argued it supported Rule 65 as the proper remedy; the Court agreed with respondents' reading.
• Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, 456 Phil. 755 (2003) — Cited as controlling authority for the doctrine that the remedies of appeal and certiorari under Rule 65 are mutually exclusive and that Rule 65 cannot substitute for an available appeal.
• Fortich vs. Corona — Cited for the distinction between error of judgment (reviewable by appeal) and error of jurisdiction (correctible by certiorari), and for the principle that certiorari cannot be used to review the intrinsic correctness of a lower court's judgment on the law or facts.
• Asian Transmission Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 144664, March 15, 2004, 425 SCRA 478 — Cited for the proposition that the proper recourse from a CA decision is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, and that Rule 65 requires the petitioner to show no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.
• Chua vs. Santos, G.R. No. 132467, October 18, 2004, 440 SCRA 365 — Cited for the recognized exceptions to the rule that Rule 65 cannot substitute for a lost appeal: (a) public welfare, (b) broader interest of justice, (c) null and void writs, and (d) oppressive exercise of judicial authority.
• Caromol vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 102973, August 23, 1993 — Cited by the Labor Arbiter for the proposition that repeated hiring and assignment of workers to a "work pool" indicates regular employment.
• Ochoco vs. National Labor Relations Commission — Cited for the rule that failure of the employer to report termination of workers to the DOLE upon project completion is proof that the dismissed employees were not project employees but regular employees.
• Felix vs. Enertech Systems Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 142007, March 28, 2001, 355 SCRA 680 — Cited for the principle that findings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies supported by substantial evidence can only be set aside upon showing of grave abuse of discretion, fraud, or error of law.

• Section 1, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution — Vests judicial power in the Supreme Court and other courts established by law, including the duty to determine whether there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Applied to establish the Court's jurisdiction over certiorari and the framework for judicial review.
• Section 1, Rule 45, Revised Rules of Court — Provides that a party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order of the CA may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari raising only questions of law. Applied to determine the proper remedy from the CA decision.
• Section 2, Rule 45, Revised Rules of Court — Requires the petition to be filed within 15 days from notice of the judgment or denial of motion for reconsideration, with a possible 30-day extension for justifiable reasons. Applied to determine that the petition was filed out of time.
• Rule 65, Revised Rules of Court — Governs the special civil action of certiorari, available only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Applied to hold that Rule 65 was improper because petitioners had an adequate remedy under Rule 45.
• Department Order No. 19, Series of 1993 — Enumerates six indicators of project employment, including the requirement that termination of employment in a particular project be reported to the DOLE Regional Office within 30 days from separation. Applied by the NLRC to find that Hanjin's failure to report terminations proved respondents were not project employees.
• Policy Instruction No. 20, Series of 1993 — Requires that in case of project employees, termination of employment must be reported to the DOLE Regional Office within 30 days from separation. Applied by the CA to the same effect as Department Order No. 19.

Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban (Chairperson), Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Associate Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, and Associate Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario concurred.