Rolando Roxas Surveying Company vs. NLRC and Leonardo

The governing principle is that an individual engaged to perform activities usually necessary or desirable in the employer’s usual business or trade is classified as a regular employee, regardless of the absence of a written apprenticeship or project-based contract. Where an employer terminates such an employee without establishing a just cause and fails to demonstrate that the employee obtained alternative employment during the lay-off, the award of backwages is legally and equitably proper, even if reinstatement is deemed impracticable.

Mathew Leonardo commenced work as a surveyman for Rolando Roxas Surveying Company in March 1976, leveraging fourteen years of prior experience with the Bureau of Lands. He was deployed to Surigao del Sur to direct a field crew of seven men. Upon returning from a fifteen-day authorized vacation leave in September 1976, the company’s engineer barred Leonardo’s re-entry pending the petitioner’s explicit consent. The petitioner subsequently informed Leonardo by telephone that he could no longer resume his duties due to alleged irregularities committed during his employment. The ensuing dispute triggered mutual administrative charges and the filing of an illegal dismissal complaint before the regional labor office.

• Mathew Leonardo applied for employment with Rolando Roxas Surveying Company on the basis of fourteen years of surveying experience with the Bureau of Lands. The company accepted him as a surveyman, and he commenced work on March 1, 1976.
• Leonardo was assigned to a cadastral survey project in Surigao del Sur, where he supervised a team of seven men and received a fixed monthly salary of P450.00.
• In September 1976, Leonardo requested and obtained a fifteen-day vacation leave. Upon expiration of the leave, he reported back to the project site but was barred from resuming duties by the engineer-in-charge, who required the petitioner’s prior consent.
• Leonardo sent a telegram to the petitioner but received no response. He subsequently traveled to Manila and contacted the petitioner by telephone. The petitioner informed him that he could no longer return to work due to alleged irregularities committed during his employment.
• Leonardo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, unpaid wages, and unpaid per diems before the Regional Office No. IV, Ministry of Labor. The Labor Arbiter ordered reinstatement with back salaries and emergency allowance, but denied the wage and per diem claims.
• The petitioner appealed to the NLRC, which modified the monetary award to two years’ backwages and one month separation pay. The petitioner subsequently filed a petition for certiorari, arguing that the NLRC’s finding of reinstatement impracticability contradicted the backwages award, and that Leonardo was merely an apprentice or project-based employee terminable at will.

• Petitioner maintained that Leonardo’s dismissal was justified by his anomalous conduct, specifically the unauthorized collection of money from landowners whose properties were being surveyed.
• Petitioner argued that Leonardo’s continued employment was inimical to company interests, emphasizing his failure to disclose a prior conviction for malversation of public funds carrying perpetual disqualification from government service.
• Petitioner contended that the NLRC’s observation that reinstatement was imprudent and impracticable logically precluded an award of backwages, asserting that granting monetary compensation would violate the requirement that conclusions must align with factual findings.
• Petitioner asserted that Leonardo was engaged solely for a specific cadastral survey project without a fixed employment period, thereby granting the company the right to terminate him at any time without cause.

• Respondent countered that the allegations of anomalous conduct lacked evidentiary support, as the sole testimony was uncorroborated and the witness never confronted the respondent or identified the alleged victims.
• Respondent argued that the absence of a written apprenticeship agreement, coupled with Leonardo’s supervisory duties and fixed salary, established his status as a regular employee under the Labor Code.
• The Solicitor General submitted that the petitioner’s dismissal of Leonardo was executed in bad faith, and that equity and justice warranted the backwages award, particularly given the respondent’s demonstrated financial hardship and the lack of proof that he secured alternative livelihood during the lay-off period.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues: Whether the private respondent was classified as a regular employee or merely an apprentice/project-based worker; whether the petitioner established a just cause for dismissal; whether the award of backwages was legally and equitably justified despite the NLRC’s finding that reinstatement was impracticable.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive: The Court ruled that the private respondent was a regular employee. Because he performed core surveying and supervisory functions integral to the petitioner’s business, and because no written apprenticeship contract existed, his employment fell squarely within the statutory definition of regular employment. The Court found the petitioner’s allegations of misconduct legally insufficient, as they rested solely on uncorroborated testimony without confrontation or documentary proof. Consequently, the dismissal was illegal. The Court upheld the backwages award, holding that the employer’s apparent bad faith and the respondent’s unproven alternative livelihood rendered the monetary compensation consistent with justice, reason, and equity, notwithstanding the impracticability of reinstatement.

• Regular Employment under the Labor Code — An employee engaged to perform activities that are usually necessary or desirable in the employer’s usual business or trade is deemed a regular employee, regardless of the duration or nomenclature of the engagement. The Court applied this doctrine to classify the respondent as regular, emphasizing that his field supervision and technical surveying duties were indispensable to the company’s operations and that the absence of a written apprenticeship agreement precluded any contrary classification.
• Equitable Award of Backwages — When an employee is illegally dismissed and the employer acts in bad faith, the award of backwages is justified by principles of justice and equity, particularly where the employee suffers financial hardship and no evidence demonstrates the procurement of alternative employment. The Court relied on this doctrine to sustain the NLRC’s monetary award, reasoning that compensation was necessary to mitigate the hardships endured during the period of unlawful termination.

• "For all intents and purposes, he comes within the meaning of a regular employee 'to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employees.'" — The Court invoked this statutory language to establish that the respondent’s core surveying and supervisory functions inherently conferred regular employment status, irrespective of the employer’s unilateral characterization or the absence of a fixed-term contract.
• "Considering the circumstances of the case and the seeming bad faith of petitioner in dismissing private respondent, it is in consonance with justice, reason and equity that respondent NLRC awarded back wages to private respondent." — This passage underscores the Court’s equitable approach to labor disputes, holding that financial compensation is warranted to offset the economic deprivation suffered by an illegally dismissed worker when the employer fails to prove just cause or alternative livelihood.

• National Shipyards and Steel Corporation vs. CIR — The Court cited this precedent to support the equitable principle that backwages are proper when an illegally dismissed employee and their family endure financial hardship during the period of lay-off, and no evidence demonstrates that the employee secured alternative means of livelihood.

• Article 281 of the Labor Code — Defines regular employment by reference to the necessity or desirability of the activities performed relative to the employer’s usual business. The Court applied this provision to classify the respondent as a regular employee, noting that his duties were integral to the company’s surveying operations.
• Article 283 of the Labor Code (corresponds to the present Article 297 of the Labor Code) — Enumerates the just causes for termination by an employer. The Court invoked this provision to demonstrate that the petitioner failed to establish any of the statutory grounds for a valid dismissal, as the alleged misconduct remained unsubstantiated.

• Associate Justice Melencio-Herrera (Acting Chairperson), Associate Justice Abad Santos, Associate Justice Plana, and Associate Justice Escolin — Concurred with the ponencia without issuing separate opinions, affirming the dismissal of the petition and the lifting of the temporary restraining order.