Scribd
Upload
393 views1 page

Caramol vs. NLRC

Rogelio Caramol was hired by Atlantic Gulf and Pacific CO. of Manila, Inc. on a project-to-project basis and was renewed 44 times. After his involvement in a union strike, he was not re-admitted. The Labor Arbiter ruled Atlantic Gulf guilty of unfair labor practice and ordered Caramol's reinstatement with back wages. However, the NLRC reversed this, declaring Caramol a project employee. The Supreme Court affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision, finding that Caramol performing the same work in successive contracts made him a regular employee, entitled to reinstatement and full back wages. Atlantic Gulf also failed to file termination reports between projects as required.

Uploaded by

Pamela Denise
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
393 views1 page

Caramol vs. NLRC

Rogelio Caramol was hired by Atlantic Gulf and Pacific CO. of Manila, Inc. on a project-to-project basis and was renewed 44 times. After his involvement in a union strike, he was not re-admitted. The Labor Arbiter ruled Atlantic Gulf guilty of unfair labor practice and ordered Caramol's reinstatement with back wages. However, the NLRC reversed this, declaring Caramol a project employee. The Supreme Court affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision, finding that Caramol performing the same work in successive contracts made him a regular employee, entitled to reinstatement and full back wages. Atlantic Gulf also failed to file termination reports between projects as required.

Uploaded by

Pamela Denise
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. No.

102973 August 24, 1993


Caramol vs. NLRC

Facts: Petitioner Rogelio Caramol, a worker hired by respondent Atlantic Gulf
and Pacific CO. of Manila, Inc., (ATLANTIC GULF), on a project to project basis
and whose employment was renewed 44 times by the latter. The petitioner
claims he was not re-admitted by the latter after his involvement in a union strike,
and now seeks for the reversal of the decision of public respondent National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

The Labor Arbiter ruled that the respondent Atlantic Gulf is guilty of unfair labor
practice, declared illegal the constructive dismissal of the petitioner, and directed
for the immediate reinstatement of the petitioner with full backwages and without
loss of seniority rights.

However, public respondent NLRC reversed the said decision and declared that
the petitioner is a project employee. In consequence, the petitioner asserts that
NLRC has gravely abused its discretion and committed serious errors of law in its
decision.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is a regular employee or a project employee,
and if he is entitled to payment of full back wages

Held: The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter, and
reversed that of NLRC. It found that the successive contracts of employment
where petitioner continued to perform the same kind of work as rigger by way of
a project-to-project contracts has precluded the acquisition of security of tenure
by petitioner and such repeated hiring and continuing need for his service is
sufficient evidence that his service is indispensable to the respondents business
or trade. Furthermore, the respondent failed to present any report of termination,
required by Policy Instruction No. 2 to be filed every time an employment is
terminated due to completion of each construction project. Thus, the petitioner is
an employee of Atlantic Gulf, entitled to reinstatement and full payment of back
wages.

You might also like