1. I was assigned to a specific project which finished before the cessation of the JV agreement. I performed and met the requirements and the project will push through with the next phase.
2. While finalizing or preparing the agreement (between the two companies) for the next phase, I informally worked in the other project of the 1 company... needing valuable technical recommendations which I complied because I personally knew the owners.
3. During the waiting process, some negative issues arose (missing items etc etc...) against me and was handed a termination letter around 3 months after the initial project activity saying that the project I was hired for already ended. There was no employment contract whatsoever because I knew the president and manager of both companies. Promises of good employment fortune was made by them after I delivered what they need for the next phase to proceed.
4. I was disgusted on how they treated my employment and gave negative issues after delivering to them what they need and so I filed the NLRC case. Unfortunately, the LA of NLRC ruled that I was hired for the JV project only.
5. My employment totals around 1year. I acquired an employment letter from one of the company which totals 1 year and 3 months.
My question is:
a. What is the project? Does it pertain also to the next phase or just the initial activity I did? What if both company purposely decided not to proceed with the next phase (to support their termination claim as project base) then what is my status? Is my status really a project-based?
b. Is a termination of services letter considered an admission that the employee is regular? Is there a precedent for this which can be used as argument?
c. The LA also ruled that non-reporting of employees to DOLE does not equate to being a Regular employee if the next phase did not proceed.
d. What is the implication of me working with another project of the same company but not the JV project? Can these be grounds for being regular employee but for what company? My profession is usually necessary to the usual business activities of
e. I wanted to answer the other arguments of the LA (which I believe is one of the reason for the negative decision) but my attorney mentioned that it is not related to the question of my case and insisted to stick with the normal arguments related to the case. The flimsy arguments of the company and LA ruled over my case.
Do I need a new attorney or is my attorney right not to answer all arguments?
I need many advise and precedents please as I am thinking of taking an appeal... up to SC if needed.