WHEREAS, the period of existence of the JCPC is ten (10) years from the effectivity of the EPIRA, or only until June 26, 2011; WHEREAS, up to the present, certain key structural changes introduced in the EPIRA have yet to be carried out such as, but not limited to: (8) Determining the weaknesses in the EPIRA and recommending legislative or executive action to make adjustments. WHEREAS, under Section 34 of Republic Act No. 9513, otherwise known as the "Renewable Energy Act of 2008", the JCPC has likewise been tasked to exercise (1) Ensuring transparency by checking oversight powers over the implementation reports from agencies concerned on the conduct of public bidding procedures regarding the privatization of the remaining NPC generation assets and IPP contracts; (2) The implementation of retail competition and open access on distribution wires; of the said law, which is currently under implementation; WHEREAS, there is a need to oversee the implementation of the Renewable Energy Act which entails, among others, the formulation or establishment of: (1) The Feed-in-Tariff (FiT) System, or (3) The formation of the Independent the scheme that involves the obligation on Market Operator (IMO); (4) The determination, fixing and approval by the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) of a Universal Charge (UC) for the following purposes: (a) the payment of stranded debts of NPC and stranded contracts costs of NPC as well as the distribution utilities; (b) the equalization of taxes and royalties applied to indigenous or renewable energy sources vis-à-vis imported energy fuels; and (c) a charge to account for all forms of cross-subsidies for a period not exceeding three (3) years; (5) The verification by the ERC of the reasonable amounts, including its determination of the manner and duration of the full recovery by the NPC of its stranded debts and by the NPC and the distribution utilities of their stranded contract costs; (6) The reduction of the royalties, returns and taxes collected for the exploitation of all indigenous sources of energy to effect parity of tax treatment with existing rates for imported coal, crude oil and other imported fuels and the corresponding reduction of the power rates from all indigenous sources of energy; (7) The performance by the National Power Corporation-Small Power Utilities Group (NPC-SPUG) of the missionary electrification function; and the part of electric power industry participants to source electricity from Renewable Energy (RE) generation at a guaranteed fixed price applicable for a given period of time, which shall be no less than twelve (12) years, to be determined by the ERC; (2) The Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), which refers to a market-based policy that requires electric power industry participants, including suppliers, to source an agreed portion of their energy supply from eligible RE sources; (3) The Renewable Energy Market (REM), which is the market where the trading of RE certificates equivalent to an amount of power generated from RE resources is made; (4) The Green Energy Option, which is the mechanism that empowers end-users to choose RE in meeting their energy requirements; and (5) Net-metering for RE, which refers to a system, appropriate for distributed generation, wherein a distribution grid user having a two (2)-way connection to the grid is only charged for his net electricity consumption while being credited for any overall contribution to the electricity grid: Now, therefore, in view of the foregoing, be it Resolved, as it is hereby resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives, That the existence of the Joint Congressional Power Commission be extended for another period of ten (10) years from June 26, 2011 to ensure that the goals and objectives of the EPIRA and the Renewable energy Act of 2008 are fully achieved. Approved: June 21, 2011 MGA HATOL NG KATAAS-TAASANG HUKUMAN [DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT] ATTY. EDNA BILOG CAMBA [G.R. No.169170. July 13, 2010] SECOND DIVISION D.M. CONSUNJI, INC., Petitioner, vs. ANTONIO GOBRES, MAGELLAN DALISAY, GODOFREDO PARAGSA, EMILIO ALETA and GENEROSO MELO, Respondents. SYLLABUS of the Ruling of the Court 1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; LABOR CODE; KINDS OF EMPLOYEES; PROJECT EMPLOYEE; DEFINED. A project employee is defined under Article 280 of the Labor Code as one whose "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 or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season." 2. ID.; ID.; TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT; PRIOR NOTICE OF TERMINATION; NOT REQUIRED IN THE TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT OF PROJECT EMPLOYEES IF THE TERMINATION IS BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE COMPLETION OF THE CONTRACT OR PHASE THEREOF.- As project employees, respondents' termination is governed by section 1 (c) and Section 2 (III), Rule XXIII (Termination of Employment), Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code. Section 1 (c), rule XXIII of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor code states: "Section 1. security of Tenure.-"*** (c) in cases of project employment or employment covered by legitimate contracting or sub-contracting arrangements, no employee shall be dismissed prior to the completion of the project or phase thereof for which the employees was engaged, or prior to the expiration of the contract between the principal and contractor, unless the dismissal is for just or authorized cause subject to the requirements of due process or prior notice, or is brought about by the completion of the phase of the project or contract for which the employee was engaged." Records show that respondent were dismissed after the expiration of their respective project employment contracts, and due to the completion of the phases of work respondents were engaged for. Hence, the cited provision's requirements of due process or prior notice when an employee is dismissed for just or authorized cause (under Articles 282 and 283 of the Labor Code) prior to the completion of the project or phase thereof for which the employee was engaged do not apply to this case. Further, Section 2 (III), Rule XXIII, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code provides: "Section 2. Standard of due process: requirements of notice.-In all cases of termination of employment, the following standards of due process shall be substantially observed. *** III. If the termination is brought about by the completion of the contract or phase thereof, no prior notice is required. If the termination is brought about by the failure of an employee to meet the standards of the employee in the case of probationary employment, it shall be sufficient that a written notice is served the employee within a reasonable time from the effective date of termination." In this case, the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the Court of Appeals all found that respondents were validly terminated due to the completion of the phases of work for which respondents' services were engaged. The above rule clearly states, "if the termination is brought about by the completion of the contract or phase thereof, no prior notice is required." Cioco, Jr. C.E. Construction Corporation explained that this is because completion of the work or project automatically terminates the employment, in which case, the employer is, under the law, only obliged to render a report to the DOLE on the termination of the employment. Hence, prior or advance notice of termination is not part of procedural due process if the termination is brought about by the completion of the contract or phase thereof for which the employee was engaged. Petitioner, therefore, did not violate any requirement of procedural due process by failing to give respondents advance notice of their termination; thus, there is no basis for the payment of nominal damages. V. OPINION OF THE COURT PERALTA, J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari1 of the Decision of the Court of appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 70708, dated March 9, 2005, and its resolution, dated August 2, 2005, denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The facts are as follows: Respondents Antonio Gobres, Magellan Dalisay, Godofredo Paragsa, Emilio Aleta and Generoso Melo worked as carpenters in the construction projects of petitioner D.M. Consunji, Inc., a construction company, on several occasions and/or at various times. Their termination from employment for each project was reported to the Department of Labor and employment (DOLE), in accordance with Policy Instruction No. 20, which was later superseded by Department Order No. 19, series of 1993. Respondent's last assignment was at Quad 4-Project in Glorieta, Ayala, Makati, where they started working on September 1, 1998. On October 14, 1998, respondents saw their names included in the Notice of Termination posted on the bulletin board at the project premises. Respondents filed a Complaint with the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) against petitioner D.M. Consunji, Inc. and David M. Consunji for illegal dismissal, and nonpayment of 13th month pay, five (5) days service incentive leave pay, damages and attorney's fees. Petitioner D.M. Consunji, Inc. and David M. Consunji countered that respondents, being project employees, are covered by Policy Instruction No. 20, as superseded by Department Order No. 19, series of 1993 with respect to their separation or disrnissal. Respondents were employed per project undertaken by petitioner company and within varying estimated periods indicated in their respective project employment contracts. Citing the employment record of each respondent, petitioner and David M. Consunji averred that respondent's services were terminated when their phases of work for which their services were engaged were completed or when the project themselves 1 Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Project employees are not entitled to termination pay if they are terminated as a result of the completion etion of the project 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 a clearance from the Secretary of Labor in connection with such termination. What is required of the company is a report to the nearest Public Employment Office for statistical purposes. 3 Department Order No. 19, series of 1993 2.2 Indications of project employment. Either one or more of the following circumstances, among others, may be considered as indicators that an employee is a project employee. (a) The duration of the specific/identified undertaking for which the worker is engaged is reasonably determinable. (b) Such duration, as well as the specific work/ service to be performed, is defined in an employment agreement and is made clear to the employee at the time of hiring. (c) The work/service performed by the employee is in connection with the particular project/ undertaking for which he is engaged. (d) The employee, while not employed and awaiting engagement, is free to offer his service to any other employer. party (e) The termination of his employment in the particular project/undertaking is reported rted to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional Office having jurisdiction over the workplace within 30 days following the date of his separation from work, using the prescribed form on employees' termination dismissals suspensions. (f) An undertaking in the employment contract by the employer to pay completion bonus to the project employee as practiced by most construction companies. 6.1 Requirements of labor and social legislations. (a) The construction company and the general contractor and/or subcontractor referred to in Sec. 2.5 shall be responsible for the workers in its employ on matters of compliance with the requirements of existing laws and regulations on hours of work, wages, wage related benefits, health, safety and social welfare benefits, including submissions to the DOLE-Regional Office of Work Accident/ Illness Report, Monthly Report on Employees' Termination/Dismissals/Suspensions and other reports ***. (Emphasis supplied.) 4 Generoso G. Melo, petitioner and David M. Consunji maintained the same positions they had against the case of Melo's co-complainants. Petitioner contended that since respondents were terminated by reasons of the completion of their respective phases of work in the construction project, their termination was warranted and legal.5 Moreover, petitioner claimed that respondents have been duly paid their services incentive leave pay and 13th month pay through their respective bank accounts, as evidenced by bank remittances. Respondents replied that the quad 4Project at Glorieta, Ayala, Makati City was terminated to take two years to finish, but they were dismissed within the two-year period. They had no prior notice of their termination. Hence, granting that they were project employees, they were still illegally dismissed for non-observance of procedural due process. On October 4, 1999, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision dismissing respondents' complaint. The Labor Arbiter found that respondents were project employees, they were dismissed from the last project they were assigned to when their respective phases of work were completed, and that their petitioner D.M. Consunji, Inc. and David M. Consunji reported their termination of services to the DOLE in accordance with the requirements of law. Paper, CA rollo, p. 46. 8 Rollo, pp. 263-265. Respondents motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC for lack of merits in its Order 10 dated February 21, 2002. Respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, seeking the annulment of the NLRC Resolution dated July 31, 2001 and Order dated February 21, 2002. Respondents prayed that their dismissal be declared as illegal, and that they be ordered reinstated to their former position with full backwages until actual reinstatement, and awarded moral, exemplary and nominal damages. On March 9, 2005, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads: Wherefore, the Decision and Resolution of the NLRC in finding petitioners' dismissal as valid are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that private respondents are ordered to pay each of the petitioners the sum of P20,000.00 as nominal damages for noncompliance with the statutory due process. Costs against petitioners. 11 The Court of Appeals sustained the findings of the NLRRC that respondents are project employees. It held: The Labor Arbiter and [the] NLRC correctly applied Article 280 of the Labor Code when it ruled that petitioners' employment which is fixed for [a] specific project and the completion of which has been determined at the time that their services were engaged, makes them project employees. As could be gleaned from the last portion of Article 280 of the Labor Code, the nature of employment of petitioners, which is fixed for a specific project and the completion of which has been determined when they were hired, is expected therefrom. This is the reason why under Policy Instruction No. 20 and Department Order No. 19, series of 1993, employers of project employees are required to report their termination to DOLE upon completion of the project for which they were enaged. 12 The CA stated that although respondents were project employees, they were entitled to know the reason for their dismissal and to be heard on whatever claims they might have. It held that respondents' right to statutory due process was violated for lack of advance notice of their termination, even 9 Id. at 283-285. 10 Id. at 371-372. 11 Id. at 37. 12 Id. at 33. |