Samson v. NLRC

G.R. No. 113166 (February 1, 1996)

Supreme Court declared Ismael Samson a regular employee, stressing labor protections' importance.

Facts:

Petitioner Ismael Samson was employed by Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co., Manila, Inc. (AG & P) since April 1965, primarily working as a rigger. His employment included various construction projects, both locally and overseas, particularly in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, from 1977 to 1985. On November 5, 1989, he filed a complaint seeking to have his employment status changed from project employee to regular employee, claiming underpayment, non-payment of premium pay for holidays and rest days, and other benefits associated with regular employment.

The labor arbiter, Felipe T. Garduque II, ruled in favor of Samson on June 30, 1993, declaring him a regular employee. The arbiter based this decision on the lack of evidence that AG & P had reported the termination of Samson's employment to the nearest Public Employment Office after each project, as required by Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Policy Instruction No. 20. The arbiter also noted that Samson was not free to leave and offer his services to other employers, indicating that he was part of a work pool for AG & P.

AG & P appealed the decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which reversed the labor arbiter's ruling on November 29, 1993. The NLRC concluded that Samson was a project employee, asserting that he was engaged for a fixed and determinable period and that the evidence did not support the claim that he was not free to seek other employment. The NLRC also stated that the previous policy had been superseded by Department Order No. 19, which allowed for the re-hiring of project workers without them being considered regular employees.

Legal Issues:

The primary legal issue was whether Ismael Samson should be classified as a project employee or a regular employee of AG & P. This classification would determine his entitlement to various employment benefits and protections under the Labor Code.

Arguments:

  • Petitioner’s Arguments:

    • Samson argued that he was a regular employee based on his long tenure and continuous re-hiring for similar work. He cited the case of Caramol vs. NLRC to support his claim that his work was necessary and desirable to AG & P's business.
    • He contended that the NLRC erred in its interpretation of the employment relationship and that the previous policy (Policy Instruction No. 20) should apply since it was in effect when he filed his complaint.

  • Respondent’s Arguments:

    • AG & P contended that the NLRC's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that Samson was a project employee due to the nature of his employment contracts, which were for specific projects.
    • They argued that Department Order No. 19, which superseded Policy Instruction No. 20, allowed for the re-hiring of project employees without granting them regular status, and that the notice of termination requirement was no longer applicable.

Court’s Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Supreme Court reversed the NLRC's decision, reinstating the labor arbiter's ruling that Samson was a regular employee. The Court emphasized that the failure of AG & P to report the termination of Samson's employment after each project was a significant factor indicating that he was not a project employee. The Court noted that the employment relationship should be interpreted in favor of the employee, as mandated by Article 4 of the Labor Code.

The Court also clarified that Department Order No. 19 could not be applied retroactively to Samson's case, as it would be prejudicial to his rights. The Court highlighted that the continuous nature of Samson's employment and the necessity of his work as a rigger for AG & P's operations supported his classification as a regular employee.

Furthermore, the Court ruled that the exhaustion of administrative remedies was not a strict requirement in this case, as the issue was purely legal. The Court underscored the importance of protecting workers' rights and ensuring that procedural lapses do not hinder the pursuit of justice.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  1. Classification of Employment: The case reinforces the principle that the classification of employees as regular or project employees depends on the nature of their work and the employer's compliance with reporting requirements upon project completion.

  2. Retroactivity of Labor Policies: The ruling establishes that new labor policies cannot be applied retroactively if doing so would adversely affect employees' rights.

  3. Interpretation in Favor of Labor: The decision reiterates the principle that any ambiguity in labor laws and regulations should be resolved in favor of the employee, reflecting the constitutional mandate for social justice and protection of labor.