ROGELIO CARAMOL, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ATLANTIC GULF and PACIFIC CO. OF MANILA, INC..
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 102973
- Promulgated: 1993-08-24
- Ponente: Bellosillo, J.
Doctrine
Determination of regular employment depends on the reasonable connection between the activity performed and the employer's usual business; nature of work and relation to the business scheme are key, and one year of performance (continuous or broken) may deem employment regular.
Whether employment is regular or casual is determined by the nature of activities in relation to the business, not by the employer's label or mere contract terms; party autonomy cannot override law and jurisprudence.
An adverse party may challenge an NLRC decision by an original action for certiorari under Rule 65 within a reasonable time; the ten-day finality for execution does not preclude such challenge or provisional relief.
Facts
The central controversy was whether petitioner was a regular or casual employee under Article 280 of the Labor Code, as amended.
Article 280 deems employment casual unless covered by the preceding paragraph but provides that any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, continuous or broken, shall be considered regular with respect to the activity in which he is employed.
The NLRC treated petitioner as a project employee falling under the exception of Art. 280 and relied on party autonomy and the contracts fixing services for a specific project.
The Labor Arbiter found otherwise; the NLRC reversed that decision, which prompted the present certiorari petition to the Court.
Issues
Whether petitioner is a regular employee or a casual/project employee under Article 280 of the Labor Code.
Whether filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is barred because the NLRC decision becomes final and executory after ten days.
Ruling
The petition was granted: the NLRC decision dated 31 October 1991 was reversed and set aside; the Labor Arbiter's decision dated 29 November 1989 was affirmed and reinstated.
The Court held that certiorari under Rule 65 may be filed within a reasonable time (three months is considered reasonable) despite the ten-day period after which an NLRC decision becomes final and executory.
Keywords
G.R. No. 102973, Article 280 of the Labor Code, regular employee, casual employee, project-to-project basis, unfair labor practice, constructive dismissal, reinstatement, back wages, project employee, party autonomy, Pakistan International Airlines Corp. v. Ople, Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora, validity of contracts, fixed period of employment, tenurial security, public policy, Magante v. NLRC, illegal dismissal, employee