Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 96078 January 9, 1992
HILRIO R!, petitioner,
vs.
NTIONL L"OR RELTIONS COMMISSION #S$%on& !'(')'on* an& PHILNOR
CONSULTNTS N! PLNNERS, INC., respondents.
Cabellero, Calub, Aumentado & Associates Law Offices for petitioner.

REGL!O, J.:
In this special civil action for certiorari, petitioner Rada sees to annul the decision of
respondent National !abor Relations Co""ission #N!RC$, dated Nove"ber %&, %&&',
reversin( the decision of the labor arbiter )hich ordered the reinstate"ent of petitioner
)ith bac)a(es and a)arded hi" overti"e pa*.
1
+he facts, as stated in the Co""ent of private respondent Philnor Consultants and
Planners, Inc. #Philnor$, are as follo)s,
Petitioner-s initial e"plo*"ent )ith this Respondent )as under a .Contract of
E"plo*"ent for a Definite Period. dated /ul* 0, %&00, cop* of )hich is hereto attached
and "ade an inte(ral part hereof as Annex A )hereb* Petitioner )as hired as .Driver.
for the construction supervision phase of the Manila North E1press)a* E1tension,
Second Sta(e #hereinafter referred to as MNEE Sta(e 2$ for a ter" of .about 23 "onths
effective /ul* %, %&00.
111 111 111
4i(hli(htin( the nature of Petitioner-s e"plo*"ent, Annex A specificall* provides as
follo)s,
It is hereb* understood that the E"plo*er does not have a continuin( need for the
services of the E"plo*ee be*ond the ter"ination date of this contract and that the
E"plo*ee-s services shall auto"aticall*, and )ithout notice, ter"inate upon the
co"pletion of the above specified phase of the pro5ect6 and that it is further understood
that the en(a(e"ent of his7her services is coter"inus )ith the sa"e and not )ith the
)hole pro5ect or other phases thereof )herein other e"plo*ees of si"ilar position as
he7she have been hired. #Par. 0, e"phasis supplied$
Petitioner-s first contract of e"plo*"ent e1pired on /une 8', %&0&. Mean)hile, the "ain
pro5ect, MNEE Sta(e 2, )as not finished on account of various constraints, not the least
of )hich )as inade9uate fundin(, and the sa"e )as e1tended and re"ained in
pro(ress be*ond the ori(inal period of 2.8 *ears. :ortunatel* for the Petitioner, at the
ti"e the first contract of e"plo*"ent e1pired, Respondent )as in need of Driver for the
e1tended pro5ect. Since Petitioner had the necessar* e1perience and his perfor"ance
under the first contract of e"plo*"ent )as found satisfactor*, the position of Driver )as
offered to Petitioner, )hich he accepted. 4ence a second Contract of E"plo*"ent for a
Definite Period of %' "onths, that is, fro" /ul* %, %&0& to ;pril 8', %&<' )as e1ecuted
bet)een Petitioner and Respondent on /ul* 0, %&0&. . . .
In March %&<' so"e of the areas or phases of the pro5ect )ere co"pleted, but the bul
of the pro5ect )as *et to be finished. =* that ti"e so"e of those pro5ect e"plo*ees
)hose contracts of e"plo*"ent e1pired or )ere about to e1pire because of the
co"pletion of portions of the pro5ect )ere offered another e"plo*"ent in the re"ainin(
portion of the pro5ect. Petitioner )as a"on( those )hose contract )as about to e1pire,
and since his service perfor"ance )as satisfactor*, respondent rene)ed his contract of
e"plo*"ent in ;pril %&<', after Petitioner a(reed to the offer. ;ccordin(l*, a third
contract of e"plo*"ent for a definite period )as e1ecuted b* and bet)een the
Petitioner and the Respondent )hereb* the Petitioner )as a(ain e"plo*ed as Driver for
%& "onths, fro" Ma* %, %&<' to Nove"ber 8', %&<%, . . .
+his third contract of e"plo*"ent )as subse9uentl* e1tended for a nu"ber of ti"es,
the last e1tension bein( for a period of 8 "onths, that is, fro" October %, %&<> to
Dece"ber 8%, %&<>, . . .
+he last e1tension, fro" October %, %&<> to Dece"ber 8%, %&<> #;nne1 E$ covered b*
an .;"end"ent to the Contract of E"plo*"ent )ith a Definite Period,. )as not
e1tended an* further because Petitioner had no "ore )or to do in the pro5ect. +his last
e1tension )as confir"ed b* a notice on Nove"ber 2<, %&<> dul* acno)led(ed b* the
Petitioner the ver* ne1t da*, . . .
So"eti"e in the 2nd )ee of Dece"ber %&<>, Petitioner applied for .Personnel
Clearance. )ith Respondent dated Dece"ber &, %&<> and acno)led(ed havin(
received the a"ount of P8,0&?.2' representin( conversion to cash of unused leave
1
credits and financial assistance. Petitioner also released Respondent fro" all
obli(ations and7or clai"s, etc. in a .Release, @aiver and Auitclai". . . .
2
Culled fro" the records, it appears that on Ma* 2', %&<0, petitioner filed before the
N!RC, National Capital Re(ion, Depart"ent of !abor and E"plo*"ent, a Co"plaint for
nonBpa*"ent of separation pa* and overti"e pa*. On /une 8, %&<0, Philnor filed its
Position Paper alle(in(, inter alia, that petitioner )as not ille(all* ter"inated since the
pro5ect for )hich he )as hired )as co"pleted6 that he )as hired under three distinct
contracts of e"plo*"ent, each of )hich )as for a definite period, all )ithin the
esti"ated period of MNEE Sta(e 2 Pro5ect, coverin( different phases or areas of the
said pro5ect6 that his )or )as strictl* confined to the MNEE Sta(e 2 Pro5ect and that he
)as never assi(ned to an* other pro5ect of Philnor6 that he did not render overti"e
services and that there )as no de"and or clai" for hi" for such overti"e pa*6 that he
si(ned a .Release, @aiver and Auitclai". releasin( Philnor fro" all obli(ations and
clai"s6 and that Philnor-s business is to provide en(ineerin( consultanc* services,
includin( supervision of construction services, such that it hires e"plo*ees accordin( to
the re9uire"ents of the pro5ect "annin( schedule of a particular contract.
+
On /ul* 2, %&<0, petitioner filed an ;"ended Co"plaint alle(in( that he )as ille(all*
dis"issed and that he )as not paid overti"e pa* althou(h he )as "ade to render three
hours overti"e )or for" Monda* to Saturda* for a period of three *ears.
On /ul* 0, %&<0, petitioner filed his Position Paper clai"in( that he )as ille(all*
dis"issed since he )as a re(ular e"plo*ee entitled to securit* of tenure6 that he )as
not a pro5ect e"plo*ee since Philnor is not en(a(ed in the construction business as to
be covered b* Polic* Instructions No. 2'6 that the contract of e"plo*"ent for a definite
period e1ecuted bet)een hi" and Philnor is a(ainst public polic* and a clear
circu"vention of the la) desi(ned "erel* to evade an* benefits or liabilities under the
statute6 that his position as driver )as essential, necessar* and desirable to the conduct
of the business of Philnor6 that he rendered overti"e )or until ?,'' p.". dail* e1cept
Sunda*s and holida*s and, therefore, he )as entitled to overti"e pa*.
,
In his Repl* to Respondent-s Position Paper, petitioner clai"ed that he )as a re(ular
e"plo*ee pursuant to ;rticle 20<#c$ of the !abor Code and, thus, he cannot be
ter"inated e1cept for a 5ust cause under ;rticle 2<' of the Code6 and that the public
respondent-s rulin( in Quiwa vs. Philnor Consultants and Planners, nc.
-
is not
applicable to his case since he )as an ad"inistrative e"plo*ee )orin( as a co"pan*
driver, )hich position still e1ists and is essential to the conduct of the business of
Philnor even after the co"pletion of his contract of e"plo*"ent.
6
Petitioner lie)ise
avers that the contract of e"plo*"ent for a definite period entered into bet)een hi"
and Philnor )as a plo* to defeat the intent of ;rticle 2<' of the !abor Code.
On /ul* 2<, %&<0, Philnor filed its Respondent-s Supple"ental Position Paper, alle(in(
therein that petitioner )as not a co"pan* driver since his 5ob )as to drive the
e"plo*ees hired to )or at the MNEE Sta(e 2 Pro5ect to and fro" the filed office at Sto.
Do"in(o Interchan(e, Pa"pan(a6 that the office hours observed in the pro5ect )ere
fro" 0,'' a.". to 3,'' p.". Monda*s throu(h Saturda*s6 that Philnor adopted the polic*
of allo)in( certain e"plo*ees, not necessaril* the pro5ect driver, to brin( ho"e pro5ect
vehicles to afford fast and free transportation to and fro" the pro5ect field office
considerin( the distance bet)een the pro5ect site and the e"plo*ees- residence, to
avoid pro5ect dela*s and inefficienc* due to e"plo*ee tardiness caused b*
transportation proble"6 that petitioner )as allo)ed to use a pro5ect vehicle )hich he
used to pic up and drop off so"e ten e"plo*ees alon( Epifanio de los Santos ;venue
#EDS;$, on his )a* ho"e to Mariina, Metro Manila6 that )hen he )as absent or on
leave, another e"plo*ee livin( in Metro Manila used the sa"e vehicle in transportin(
the sa"e e"plo*ees6 that the ti"e used b* petitioner to and fro" his residence to the
pro5ect site fro" >,8' a.". to 0,'' a.". and fro" 3,'' p.". to ?,'' p."., or about three
hours dail*, )as not overti"e )or as he )as "erel* en5o*in( the benefit and
convenience of free transportation provided b* Philnor, other)ise )ithout such vehicle
he )ould have used at least four hours b* usin( public transportation and spent P%2.''
dail* fare6 that in the case of Quiwa vs. Philnor Consultants and Planners, nc., supra,
the N!RC upheld Philnor-s position that Aui)a )as a pro5ect e"plo*ee and he )as not
entitled to ter"ination pa* under Polic* Instructions No. 2' since his e"plo*"ent )as
coter"inous )ith the co"pletion of the pro5ect.
On ;u(ust 2>, %&<0, Philnor filed its Respondent-s Repl*7Co""ents to Co"plainant-s
Re5oinder and Repl*, sub"ittin( there)ith t)o letters dated /anuar* >, %&<> and
:ebruar* ?, %&<>, si(ned b* MNEE Sta(e 2 Pro5ect e"plo*ees, includin( herein
petitioner, )here the* ased )hat ter"ination benefits could be (iven to the" as the
MNEE Sta(e 2 Pro5ect )as nearin( co"pletion, and Philnor-s letterBrepl* dated
:ebruar* 22, %&<> infor"in( the" that the* are not entitled to ter"ination benefits as
the* are contractual7pro5ect e"plo*ees.
On ;u(ust 8%, %&<&, !abor ;rbiter Do"inador M. CruC rendered a decision
7
)ith the
follo)in( dispositive portion,
@4ERE:ORE, in vie) of all the fore(oin( considerations, 5ud("ent is hereb* rendered,
#%$ Orderin( the respondent co"pan* to reinstate the co"plainant to his for"er position
)ithout loss of seniorit* ri(hts and other privile(es )ith full bac)a(es fro" the ti"e of
his dis"issal to his actual reinstate"ent6
#2$ Directin( the respondent co"pan* to pa* the co"plainant overti"e pa* for the three
e1cess hours of )or perfor"ed durin( )orin( da*s fro" /anuar* %&<8 to Dece"ber
%&<>6 and
2
#8$ Dis"issin( all other clai"s for lac of "erit.
SO ORDERED.
;ctin( on Philnor-s appeal, the N!RC rendered its assailed decision dated Nove"ber
%&, %&&', settin( aside the labor arbiter-s afore9uoted decision and dis"issin(
petitioner-s co"plaint.
4ence this petition )herein petitioner char(es respondent N!RC )ith (rave abuse of
discretion a"ountin( to lac of 5urisdiction for the follo)in( reasons,
%. +he decision of the labor arbiter, dated ;u(ust 8%, %&<&, has alread* beco"e final
and e1ecutor*6
2. +he case of Quiwa vs. Philnor Consultants and Planners, nc. is not bindin( nor is it
applicable to this case6
8. +he petitioner is a re(ular e"plo*ee )ith ei(ht *ears and five "onths of continuous
services for his e"plo*er, private respondent Philnor6
3. +he clai"s for overti"e services, reinstate"ent and full bac)a(es are valid and
"eritorious and should have been sustained6 and
>. +he decision of the labor arbiter should be reinstated as it is "ore in accord )ith the
facts, the la) and evidence.
+he petition is devoid of "erit.
%. Petitioner 9uestions the 5urisdiction of respondent N!RC in tain( co(niCance of the
appeal filed b* Philnor in spite of the latter-s failure to file a supersedeas bond )ithin ten
da*s fro" receipt of the labor arbiter-s decision, b* reason of )hich the appeal should
be dee"ed to have been filed out of ti"e. It )ill be noted, ho)ever, that Philnor )as
able to file a bond althou(h it )as "ade be*ond the %'Bda* re(le"entar* period.
@hile it is true that the pa*"ent of the supersedeas bond is an essential re9uire"ent in
the perfection of an appeal, ho)ever, )here the fee had been paid althou(h pa*"ent
)as dela*ed, the broader interests of 5ustice and the desired ob5ective of resolvin(
controversies on the "erits de"ands that the appeal be (iven due course. =esides, it
)as )ithin the inherent po)er of the N!RC to have allo)ed late pa*"ent of the bond,
considerin( that the aforesaid decision of the labor arbiter )as received b* private
respondent on October 8, %&<& and its appeal )as dul* filed on October %8, %&<&.
4o)ever, said decision did not state the a"ount a)arded as bac)a(es and overti"e
pa*, hence the a"ount of the supersedeas bond could not be deter"ined. It )as onl* in
the order of the N!RC of :ebruar* %?, %&&' that the a"ount of the supersedeas bond
)as specified and )hich bond, after an e1tension (ranted b* the N!RC, )as ti"el* filed
b* private respondent.
Moreover, as provided b* ;rticle 22% of the !abor Code, .in an* proceedin( before the
Co""ission or an* of the !abor ;rbiters, the rules of evidence prevailin( in Courts of
la) or e9uit* shall not be controllin( and it is the spirit and intention of this Code that the
Co""ission and its "e"bers and the !abor ;rbiters shall use ever* and all reasonable
"eans to ascertain the facts in each case speedil* and ob5ectivel* )ithout re(ard to
technicalities of la) or procedure, all in the interest of due process. 8 :inall*, the issue
of ti"eliness of the appeal bein( an entirel* ne) and unpleaded "atter in the
proceedin(s belo) it "a* not no) be raised for the first ti"e before this Court.
9
2. Petitioner postulates that as a re(ular e"plo*ee, he is entitled to securit* of tenure,
hence he cannot be ter"inated )ithout cause. Private respondent Philnor believes
other)ise and asserts that petitioner is "erel* a pro5ect e"plo*ee )ho )as ter"inated
upon the co"pletion of the pro5ect for )hich he )as e"plo*ed.
In holdin( that petitioner is a re(ular e"plo*ee, the labor arbiter found that,
. . . +here is no 9uestion that the co"plainant )as e"plo*ed as driver in the respondent
co"pan* continuousl* fro" /ul* %, %&00 to Dece"ber 8%, %&<> under various contracts
of e"plo*"ent. Si"ilarl*, there is no dispute that respondent Philnor Consultant D
Planner, Inc., as its business na"e connotes, has been en(a(ed in providin( to its
client#e$le en(ineerin( consultanc* services. +he record sho)s that )hile the different
labor contracts e1ecuted b* the parties stipulated definite periods of en(a(in( the
services of the co"plainant, *et the latter )as suffered to continue perfor"in( his 5ob
upon the e1piration of one contract and the rene)al of another. Ender these
circu"stances, the co"plaint has obtained the status of re(ular e"plo*ee, it appearin(
that he has )ored )ithout fail for al"ost ei(ht *ears, a fraction of si1 "onths
considered as one )hole *ear, and that his assi(ned tas as driver )as necessar* and
desirable in the usual trade7business of the respondent e"plo*er. ;ssu"in( to be true,
as spelled out in the e"plo*"ent contract, that the E"plo*er has no .continuin( need
for the services of the E"plo*e#e$ be*ond the ter"ination date of this contract and that
the E"plo*ee-s services shall auto"aticall*, and )ithout notice, ter"inate upon
co"pletion of the above specified phase of the pro5ect,. still )e cannot see our )a*
clear )h* the co"plainant )as hired and his services en(a(ed contract after contract
strai(ht fro" %&00 to %&<> )hich, to our considered vie), lends credence to the
contention that he )ored as re(ular driver ferr*in( earl* in the "ornin( office personnel
to the co"pan* "ain office in Pa"pan(a and brin(in( bac late in the afternoon to
Manila, and drivin( co"pan* e1ecutives for inspection of construction )orers to the
3
5obsites. ;ll told, )e believe that the co"plainant, under the environ"ental facts
obtainin( in the case at bar, is a re(ular e"plo*ee, the provisions of )ritten a(ree"ent
to the
contrar* not)ithstandin( and re(ardless of the oral understandin( of the parties . . .
10
On the other hand, respondent N!RC declared that, as bet)een the uncorroborated
and unsupported assertions of petitioners and those of private respondent )hich are
supported b* docu"ents, (reater credence should be (iven the latter. It further held
that,
Co"plainant )as hired in a specific pro5ect or undertain( as driver. @hile such pro5ect
)as still onB(oin( he )as hired several ti"es )ith his e"plo*"ent period fi1ed ever*
ti"e his contract )as rene)ed. ;t the co"pletion of the specific pro5ect or undertain(
his e"plo*"ent contract )as not rene)ed.
@e reiterate our rulin( in the case of !Quiwa" vs. Philnor Consultants and Planners,
nc., N!RC R;= III >B%08<B<3, it is bein( applicable in this case, vi#.,
. . . @hile it is true that the activities perfor"ed b* hi" )ere necessar* or desirable in
the usual business or trade of the respondent as consultants, planners, contractor and
)hile it is also true that the duration of his e"plo*"ent )as for a period of about seven
*ears, these circu"stances did not "ae hi" a
re(ular e"plo*ee in conte"plation of ;rticle 2<% of #the$ !abor Code. . . .
11
Our rulin( in $andoval $hip%ards, nc. vs. &ational Labor 'elations Commission, et al.
12
is applicable to the case at bar. +hus,
@e hold that private respondents )ere pro5ect e"plo*ees )hose )or )as coter"inous
)ith the pro5ect or )hich the* )ere hired. Pro5ect e"plo*ees, as distin(uished fro"
re(ular or nonBpro5ect e"plo*ees, are "entioned in section 2<% of the !abor Code as
those .)here the e"plo*"ent has been fi1ed for a specific pro5ect or undertain( the
co"pletion or ter"ination of )hich has been deter"ined at the ti"e of the en(a(e"ent
of the e"plo*ee..
Polic* Instructions No. 2' of the Secretar* of !abor, )hich )as issued to stabiliCe
e"plo*erBe"plo*ee relations in the construction industr*, provides,
Pro5ect e"plo*ees are those e"plo*ed in connection )ith a particular construction
pro5ect. NonBpro5ect #re(ular$ e"plo*ees are those e"plo*ed b* a construction
co"pan* )ithout reference to an* particular pro5ect.
Pro5ect e"plo*ees are not entitled to ter"ination pa* if the* are ter"inated as a result
of the co"pletion of the pro5ect or an* phase thereof in )hich the* are e"plo*ed,
re(ardless of the nu"ber of pro5ects in )hich the* have been e"plo*ed b* a particular
construction co"pan*. Moreover, the co"pan* is not re9uired to obtain clearance fro"
the Secretar* of !abor in connection )ith such ter"ination.
+he petitioner cited three of its o)n cases )herein the National !abor Relations
Co""ission, Deput* Minister of !abor and E"plo*"ent Incion( and the Director of the
National Capital Re(ion held that the la*off of its pro5ect e"plo*ees )as la)ful. Deput*
Minister Incion( in +:E Case No. %>8', In Re Sandoval Ship*ards, Inc. ;pplication for
Clearance to +er"inate E"plo*ees, rendered the follo)in( rulin( on :ebruar* 2?, %&0&6
@e feel that there is "erit in the contention of the applicant corporation. +o our "ind,
the e"plo*"ent of the e"plo*ees concerned )ere fi1ed for a specific pro5ect or
undertain(. (or the nature of the business the corporation is en)a)ed into is one which
will not allow it to emplo% wor*ers for an indefinite period.
It is si(nificant to note that the corporation does not construct vessels for sale or
other)ise )hich )ill de"and continuous productions of ships and )ill need per"anent
or re(ular )orers. It "erel* accepts contracts for shipbuildin( or for repair of vessels
for" third parties and, onl*, on occasion )hen it has )or contract of this nature that it
hires )orers to do the 5ob )hich, needless to sa*, lasts onl* for less than a *ear or
lon(er.
+he co"pletion of their )or or pro5ect auto"aticall* ter"inates their e"plo*"ent, in
)hich case, the e"plo*er is, under the la), onl* obli(ed to render a report on the
ter"ination of the e"plo*"ent. #%8&B%3', 'ollo of F.R. No. ?>?<&$ #E"phasis supplied$
In Carta)enas, et al. vs. 'oma)o +lectric Compan%, nc., et al.,
1+
)e lie)ise held that,
;s an electrical contractor, the private respondent depends for its business on the
contracts it is able to obtain fro" real estate developers and builders of buildin(s. Since
its )or depends on the availabilit* of such contracts or .pro5ects,. necessaril* the
duration of the e"plo*"ent-s of this )or force is not per"anent but coBter"inus )ith
the pro5ects to )hich the* are assi(ned and fro" )hose pa*rolls the* are paid. t would
be extremel% burdensome for their emplo%er who, li*e them, depends on the availabilit%
of pro,ects, if it would have to carr% them as permanent emplo%ees and pa% them
wa)es even if there are no pro,ects for them to wor* on. #E"phasis supplied.$
It "ust be stressed herein that althou(h petitioner )ored )ith Philnor as a driver for
ei(ht *ears, the fact that his services )ere rendered onl* for a particular pro5ect )hich
4
too that sa"e period of ti"e to co"plete cate(oriCes hi" as a pro5ect e"plo*ee.
Petitioner )as e"plo*ed for one specific pro5ect.
; nonBpro5ect e"plo*ee is different in that the e"plo*ee is hired for "ore than one
pro5ect. ; nonBpro5ect e"plo*ee, vis-a-vis a pro5ect e"plo*ee, is best e1e"plified in the
case of (e)urin, et al. vs. &ational Labor 'elations Commission, et al.
1,
)herein four of
the petitioners had been )orin( )ith the co"pan* for nine *ears, one for ei(ht *ears,
another for si1 *ears, the shortest ter" bein( three *ears. In holdin( that petitioners are
re(ular e"plo*ees, this Court therein e1plained,
Considerin( the nature of the )or of petitioners, that of carpenter, laborer or "ason,
their respective 5obs )ould actuall* be continuous and onB(oin(. @hen a pro5ect to
)hich the* are individuall* assi(ned is co"pleted, the* )ould be assi(ned to the ne1t
pro5ect or a phase thereof. In other )ords, the* belon(ed to a .)or pool. fro" )hich
the co"pan* )ould dra) )orers for assi(n"ent to other pro5ects at its discretion. +he*
are, therefore, actuall* .nonBpro5ect e"plo*ees..
:ro" the fore(oin(, it is clear that petitioner is a pro5ect e"plo*ee considerin( that he
does not belon( to a .)or pool. fro" )hich the co"pan* )ould dra) )orers for
assi(n"ent to other pro5ects at its discretion. It is lie)ise apparent fro" the facts
obtainin( herein that petitioner )as utiliCed onl* for one particular pro5ect, the MNEE
Sta(e 2 Pro5ect of respondent co"pan*. 4ence, the ter"ination of herein petitioner is
valid b* reason of the co"pletion of the pro5ect and the e1piration of his e"plo*"ent
contract.
8. ;nent the clai" for overti"e co"pensation, )e hold that petitioner is entitled to the
sa"e. +he fact that he pics up e"plo*ees of Philnor at certain specified points alon(
EDS; in (oin( to the pro5ect site and drops the" off at the sa"e points on his )a* bac
fro" the field office (oin( ho"e to Mariina, Metro Manila is not "erel* incidental to
petitioner-s 5ob as a driver. On the contrar*, said transportation arran(e"ent had been
adopted, not so "uch for the convenience of the e"plo*ees, but pri"aril* for the benefit
of the e"plo*er, herein private respondent. +his fact is inevitabl* deducible fro" the
Me"orandu" of respondent co"pan*,
+he herein Respondent resorted to the above transport arran(e"ent because fro" its
previous pro5ect construction supervision e1periences, Respondent found out that
pro5ect dela*s and inefficiencies resulted fro" e"plo*ees- tardiness6 and that the
proble" of tardiness, in turn, )as a((ravated b* transportation proble"s, )hich varied
in de(rees in proportion to the distance bet)een the pro5ect site and the e"plo*ees-
residence. In vie) of this lesson fro" e1perience, and as a practical, if e1pensive,
solution to e"plo*ees- tardiness and its conco"itant proble"s, Respondent adopted
the polic* of allo)in( certain e"plo*ees G not necessaril* pro5ect drivers G to brin(
ho"e pro5ect vehicles, so that e"plo*ees could be afforded fast, convenient and free
transportation to and fro" the pro5ect field office. . . .
1-
Private respondent does not hesitate to ad"it that it is usuall* the pro5ect driver )ho is
tased )ith picin( up or droppin( off his fello) e"plo*ees. Proof thereof is the
undisputed fact that )hen petitioner is absent, another driver is supposed to replace hi"
and drive the vehicle and lie)ise pic up and7or drop off the other e"plo*ees at the
desi(nated points on EDS;. If drivin( these e"plo*ees to and fro" the pro5ect site is
not reall* part of petitioner-s 5ob, then there )ould have been no need to find a
replace"ent driver to fetch these e"plo*ees. =ut since the assi(ned tas of fetchin(
and deliverin( e"plo*ees is indispensable and conse9uentl* "andator*, then the ti"e
re9uired of and used b* petitioner in (oin( fro" his residence to the field office and
bac, that is, fro" >,8' a.". to 0,'' a.". and fro" 3,'' p.". to around ?,'' p."., )hich
the labor arbiter rounded off as avera(in( three hours each )orin( da*, should be paid
as overti"e )or. Auintessentiall*, petitioner should be (iven overti"e pa* for the three
e1cess hours of )or perfor"ed durin( )orin( da*s fro" /anuar*, %&<8 to Dece"ber,
%&<>.
@4ERE:ORE, sub5ect to the "odification re(ardin( the a)ard of overti"e pa* to
herein petitioner, the decision appealed fro" is ;::IRMED in all other respects.
SO ORDERED.
.elencio-/errera, Paras and Padilla, 00., concur.
&ocon, 0., too* no part.
5