Rada v. NLRC | G.R. No. 96078 | 9 January 1992 | PONENTE: Regalado, J.

Petitioner/s: Hilario Rada

Respondent/s: NLRC (Second Division) and Philnor Consultants and Planners Inc
Nature of the Case: special civil action on certiorari
SUMMARY: Petitioner Rada filed a complaint against respondent company for nonpayment of separation pay and
overtime pay, as he was a regular employee, employed as a driver, and worked for more than the required number
of working hours everyday since he was hired. Respondent company Philnor claims that he was not a regular
employee but a project employee. The Court agrees that petitioner is a project employee since he was only hired in
one particular construction project, and that his termination resulted from the completion of that project. This,
therefore, does not entitle him to separation pay. He is however entitled to overtime pay, as he was rendering
essential work 3 hrs more than he should.
TOPIC in SYLLABUS: Travel time; Conditions of Work

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.”

2. Whether petitioner was a regular employee. NO.

- Petitioner claims he was a regular employee and therefore entitled to security of tenure
- Respondent claims he was only a project employee
- Court agrees with NLRC’s position that petitioner’s claim was uncorroborated evidence, whereas responent’s
claim was supported by documentary evidence
- Petitioner is in fact a project employee
o A project employee, according to Policy Instructions No 20, is one who is employed in a particular
construction project. They are not entitled to termination pay if they are terminated because of the
completion of the project or any phase thereof in which they are employed, regardless of the number
of projects in which they have been employed by a particular construction company.
 Moreover, the company is not required to obtain clearance from the Secretary of Labor in
connection with such termination.
- Court points out that although petitioner worked with Philnor as a driver for eight years, the fact that his
services were rendered only for a particular project which took that same period of time to complete
categorizes him as a project employee. Petitioner was employed for one specific project.
o Pet. is a project employee considering that he does not belong to a "work pool" from which the
company would draw workers for assignment to other projects at its discretion.
- petitioner was utilized only for one particular project, the MNEE Stage 2 Project of respondent company. Hence,
the termination of herein petitioner is valid because of the completion of the project and the expiration of his
employment contract.

3. Whether petitioner is entitled to overtime pay. YES.

- The Court ratiocinates that the work that petitioner was doing (picking up employees in EDSA in going to the
project site and drops them off at the same point on the way home) is not incidental to his work as a driver and
is beneficial mainly for the employer, respondent company.
- Since the assigned task of fetching and delivering employees is indispensable and consequently mandatory, then
the time required of and used by petitioner in going from his residence to the field office and back (from 5:30
a.m. to 7:00 a.m. and from 4:00 p.m. to around 6:00 p.m.) which the LA rounded off as averaging 3hrs each
working day, he should be paid as overtime work.
- Court rules that petitioner should be given overtime pay for the three excess hours of work performed during
working days from January, 1983 to December, 1985

DISPOSITION: Decision rendered MODIFIED as to overtime pay, but appealed decision is AFFIRMED in all other
respects.