THIRD DIVISION

Agenda of July 24, 2017

Item No.

“G.R. No. 231180 (Ana Portia B. Carza vs. Court of Appeals and
Positive Action Foundation Philippines, Inc.). – This is a Petition for
Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which seek to reverse and set
aside the Resolution1 dated January 27, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA)
in CA-G.R. SP No. 148690. There, the CA ruled that there was no grave
abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
the Labor Arbiter (LA) and the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) when they ruled that Ana Portia B. Carza (Carza) was not illegally
dismissed by Positive Action Foundation Philippines, Inc. (PAFPI).

The facts, as found by the CA2, are as follows:

Briefly, the petitioner Ana Portia Carza commenced the suit by

filing a complaint for illegal dismissal; underpayment of salaries; non-
payment of service incentive leaves and 13th month pay; moral and
exemplary damages; and attorney’s fees against the private respondent
Positive Action Foundation Phils., Inc., (“PAFPI”) an organization
devoted to helping people with HIV/ AIDS and their families. The
petitioner was hired as an Administrative Support Officer in September
2010.

On 02 January 2014, PAFPI, with herein private respondent Rodel

Navarra as representative, entered into a service contract with herein
petitioner for the position of SR2 Project Aide for a project called “Global
Fund Transitional Funding Mechanism HIV Project” “GF-TFM”) which
was to be supported by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and
Malaria (GF-ATM). In the said contract, the period was specified to be
from January 2014 to 30 June 2015.

On 01 June 2015, a GF-TFM End of project advisory was issued

by PAFPI requesting everyone involved in the project to submit all their

1
Penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Concurred in by Associate Justice
Danton Q. Bueser and Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco
2
Rollo, pp. 97-103

pjv/kmc
Resolution 2 G.R. No. 231180

programmatic reports before the scheduled termination of the project on

30 June 2015.

When petitioner reported for work on 01 July 2015, she was no

longer given her usual daily time card upon the orders of private
respondent Rosemari Barrientos, the administrative and finance officer of
PAFPI. Hence, petitioner filed the case below.

After the submission of the parties’ position papers, the labor

arbiter dismissed the complaint via a decision dated 29 January 2015 for
lack of merit.

On appeal, the challenged NLRC decision affirmed the labor arbiter’s

ruling and dismissed the appeal as it found no reversible error on the part of
the labor arbiter in rendering the decision. The petitioner sought
reconsideration of the decision but the same was denied in the resolution
dated 30 September 2016.

Aggrieved by the NLRC decision, the petitioner filed a petition for

certiorari before the CA maintaining that the NLRC committed grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it affirmed the
findings of the labor arbiter that the petitioner was not illegally dismissed.

In imputing grave abuse of discretion, Carza raised that she was

illegally dismissed when she was no longer given her usual time card and
was no longer allowed to work. She also stressed that her employment was
not limited to the GF-TFM project as she in fact holds a vital position with
PAFPI.

PAFPI, on the other hand, maintained that its set up as a foundation

relies on volunteerism and training of project-based employees in
accordance with the specifications made by their donors and funders.
Moreover, it only retains an administrative work force of about five (5)
personnel mostly involved in finance, and two (2) to three (3) personnel to
conduct training for the volunteers. Carza was hired specifically for the GF-
TFM project and, upon termination of the project, was expected to turn over
all her reports and office provisions.

The Ruling of the CA

The CA dismissed the petition3 and ruled that the decision of the
NLRC has not been attended by grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction. Carza failed to show that there were particular
pieces of evidence or undisputed facts that either the NLRC or the LA had
completely ignored, misapprehended or absolutely disregarded in ruling
against her. Notably, both the NLRC and the LA concurred in finding that

3
Rollo p. 103
Resolution 3 G.R. No. 231180

Carza was not dismissed from work. This factual finding, being supported
by substantial evidence, is entitled not only to great respect but even to
finality.

The CA furthered that Carza was only a project employee and that at
the termination of the project, her services were automatically terminated as
well. This was strengthened by the fact that she knowingly and voluntarily
entered into a fixed-term agreement as project aide on September 2010
under the funding of the Australian People for Health Education and
Development Abroad, Inc. (APHEDA), for a project with a specified period.

The Motion for Reconsideration was denied in a Resolution4 dated

April 19, 2017. Carza thus filed a petition for review on certiorari before
this Court.5

The Issue

Carza proffers the issue of the case in this wise: Whether or not her
dismissal by PAFPI was legal and made with a just or valid cause.6

The Ruling of the Court

The petition is without merit.

In a catena of cases, the Court has recognized a fixed-term type of

employment embodied in a contract specifying that the services of the
employee shall be engaged only for a definite period. Its termination occurs
upon the expiration of said period irrespective of the existence of just or
authorized cause and regardless of the activity the employee is called upon
to perform.7 The Court’s rulings are anchored on the proviso in Article 280
of the Labor Code, which recognizes project or fixed-term employees, viz:

Art. 280:

xxx, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or
undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined
at the time of the engagement of the employee xxx.

A project employee is assigned to a project which begins and ends at

determined or determinable times.8 Such fixed term agreement, to be valid,
must be clearly stipulated at the time the employee is engaged and must be
knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties, without any force,
duress or improper pressure being brought upon the employee. 9 In Dacuital,

4
Rollo p. 108-111
5
Rollo p. 9-12
6
Rollo (G.R. Nos. 230500), p. 23
7
Basan, et al. vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, G.R. No. 174365-66, February 4, 2015
8
Dacles vs. Millenium Erectors Corporation and/or Ragas Tiu, G.R. No. 209822, July 8, 2015
9
Brent School, Inc. vs. Zamora, G.R. No. L-48494, February 5, 1990
Resolution 4 G.R. No. 231180

et al. vs. L.M. Camus Engineering Corporation and/or Luis M. Camus 10 this
Court has ruled that length of service is not a controlling factor in
determining the nature of one’s employment. An employee’s rehiring is only
a natural consequence of the fact that she is preferred by the employer. Still,
the principal test to determine whether an employee is a project employee is
whether or not the employee was assigned to carry out a specific
undertaking, the duration of which was specified at the time of their
engagement.
Here, Carza voluntarily entered into a fixed term agreement, that is
from January 2014 to 30 June 2015 as a S02 Project Aide for the GF-TFM
project.11 It was on 1 July 2015 that she was no longer given her usual daily
time card,12 for the reason that her contract with PAFPA already expired.
The Court do not wish to disturb the factual findings of the NLRC and the
LA as this Court is not a trier of facts.13 Hence, under the contemplation of
the law, Carza is a project employee whose service can be terminated upon
the expiration of her contract, irrespective of the presence of just or
authorized causes of termination. Given this, she was not illegally dismissed,
and is thus not entitled to money claims appurtenant thereto.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. The
January 27, 2017 Resolution issued by the Court of Appeals is hereby
AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.”

10
G.R. No. 176748, September 1, 2010
11
Rollo p. 81
12
Rollo p. 12
13
Co vs. Vargas, G.R. No. 195167, November 16, 2011