FACTS:
- Pet. Rada, under a Contract of Employment (CoE) with respondent company, was hired as a driver for the
construction supervision phase of Manila North Expressway Extension, Second Stage (MNEE), for 24 months (2
years), effective 1 July 1977
- When his first CoE expired, the project was not yet done. So he was hired again for about 10 months
- He was re-hired again under a third CoE as the project was not finished when his second CoE expired. This CoE
was extended repeatedly until 1985, the last extension of the CoE
o Petitioner applied for "Personnel Clearance" with Respondent dated December 9, 1985 and
acknowledged having received the amount of P3,796.20 representing conversion to cash of unused
leave credits and financial assistance. Petitioner also released Respondent from all obligations and/or
claims, etc. in a "Release, Waiver and Quitclaim."
- On May 20 1987, Rada filed a complaint against Philnor before the NLRC for non-payment of separation pay and
overtime pay.
- Philnor submitted a position paper alleging
o Rada was not illegally terminated, his CoE was simply done since the project he was working on was
completed
o He did not do overtime work, hence is not entitled to overtime pay
- Petitioner submitted a position paper stating
o He was illegally dismissed because he was a regular employee entitled to security of tenure
o He was not a project employee since Philnor was not engaged in a construction business, covered by
Policy Instructions No. 20
o That the CoE was a circumvention of the law designed to evade any benefits or liabilities under the
statute
o That his position was essential, necessary, and desirable to the conduct of business of company
o That he rendered overtime work until 6:00 p.m. daily except Sundays and holidays and, therefore, he
was entitled to overtime pay.
- In a Reply to the respondent’s position paper, Petitioner claims that according to Art. 278(c) of the Labor Code,
he is classified as a regular employee and therefore only grounds stated in Art 280 would qualifiy as legal
termination
- In a Supplemental Position paper, respondents described the work that petitioner was supposedly doing in an
attempt to point out that he was not a company driver, and that he was not performing overtime work.
- LA Dominador Cruz rendered a decision for the petitioner, ordering Philnor to reinstate Rada with full
backwages and to pay overtime pay
- NLRC set aside the LA’s decision and dismissed the petitioner’s complaint
ISSUE + RULING:
1. Whether the NLRC had jurisdiction in this case. YES.
1
- Petitioner points out that the respondent failed to file a supersedeas bond within 10 from receipt of the LA's
decision, so the appeal should be deemed to have been filed out of time
- Court declares that while it is true that the payment of the supersedeas bond is an essential requirement in the
perfection of an appeal, however, where the fee had been paid although payment was delayed, the broader
interests of justice and the desired objective of resolving controversies on the merits demands that the appeal
be given due course
o To this, the Court cites Art 221 of the Labor Code: “in any proceeding before the Commission or any of
the Labor Arbiters, the rules of evidence prevailing in Courts of law or equity shall not be controlling and
it is the spirit and intention of this Code that the Commission and its members and the Labor Arbiters
shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively
without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process.”
DISPOSITION: Decision rendered MODIFIED as to overtime pay, but appealed decision is AFFIRMED in all other
respects.