PROJECT EMPLOYEES – PRINCIPAL TEST OF PROJECT EMPLOYMENT ISSUE with HOLDING
G.R. 209822 – Dionisio Dacles v. Millennium Erectors 1. Is Dacles a regular employee (and was therefore illegally dismissed)? NO. Dacles was
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Petitioner Dacles was a construction worker who was hired by respondent Millennium
Erectors Corporation (MEC) as a mason. While working on a project in Malakas Street,
Quezon City, he was told by MEC officer Bongon to move to another project in Cubao.
However, when he arrived in the Cubao project site he was told to return to his former job
site. For 2 days Dacles was given a run-around and when he requested to be given a post,
he was told not to report to work anymore. The SC upheld the CA decision, ratiocinating that
MEC duly proved by substantial evidence that Dacles, though rehired, was engaged for
specific projects and was therefore a project employee.
DOCTRINE
Art. 294. Regular and casual employment. — The provisions of written agreement to the
contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment
shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities
which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer,
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 or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal
in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season. xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
FACTS
1. Petitioner Dionisio Dacles ("Dacles") was hired as a mason in 1998 by respondent
Millennium Erectors Corporation ("MEC"), a domestic corporation engaged in the
construction business.
2. Mr. Bongon of MEC instructed Dacles to move to another project in Robinsons' Cubao,
QC.
3. Upon Dacles' arrival in the Cubao site, he was instructed to return to his former job site.
This happened for around two (2) succeeding days.
4. Dacles thus requested that he be given a post or assigned to a new project, but MEC's
paymaster told him not to report for work anymore thus prompting Dacles to file an
illegal dismissal complaint with claims for:
a. Service incentive leave (SIL)
b. Overtime pay
c. Holiday pay
d. 13th month pay
e. Rest day and premium pay
f. Salary differentials
5. MEC alleged that Dacles was not a regular employee but a mere project employee
whose contract had already expired upon completion of his masonry work assignment
in their project along their residential and commercial building project along East Ave.
6. MEC also denied that they employed Dacles in 1998, since MEC was only registered
in the SEC in 2000, and that they hired petitioner as a mason in October 2009. MEC
also claimed that Dacles' termination from two projects wherein he was employed was
duly reported to the Department of Labor Pasay Office.
7. Aggrieved, Dacles filed an illegal dismissal complaint. Respondents claim that Dacles
was not a regular employee but was merely a project employee. The LA ruled in favor
of MEC, while the NLRC reversed the same. The CA reinstated the LA's ruling holding
that Dacles was not able to present enough evidence to substantiate his claim.
a project employee.
a. To justify the grant of the extraordinary relief of certiorari, Dacles should
satisfactorily show that the court or quasi-judicial authority gravely abused
the discretion conferred upon it.
b. In labor disputes, grave abuse of discretion may be ascribed to the NLRC
when its findings and the conclusions reached thereby are not supported by
substantial evidence, "or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion."
i. In this case, the CA correctly granted respondents' certiorari position
before it since the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in ruling that
petitioner was a regular employee of MEC.
c. For an employee to be considered project-based, the employer must
show that: (a) the employee was assigned to carry out a specific project or
undertaking; and (b) the duration and scope of which were specified at the
time the employee was engaged for such project.
d. In order to safeguard the rights of workers against the arbitrary use of the
word "project" to prevent them from attaining regular status, employers
claiming that their workers are project employees should prove that: (a)
the duration and scope of the employment was specified at the time they were
engaged; and (b) there was indeed a project.
e. In this case, records reveal that petitioner was adequately informed of his
employment status (as project employee) at the time of his engagement. This
is clearly substantiated by the latter's employment contracts duly signed by
him, explicitly stating that: (a) he was hired as a project employee; and (b) his
employment was for the indicated starting dates therein "and will end on
completion/phase of work of project."
f. Further, pursuant to Department Order No. 19, or the "Guidelines Governing
the Employment of Workers in the Construction Industry," respondent duly
submitted the required Establishment Employment Reports to the DOLE
regarding the permanent termination of Dacles.
g. The repeated and successive rehiring of project employees does not, by and
of itself, qualify them as regular employees. Case law states that length of
service (through rehiring) is not the controlling determinant of the employment
tenure, but whether the employment has been fixed for a specific project
or undertaking, with its completion having been determined at the time of the
engagement of the employee.
i. Note that generally, length of service provides a fair yardstick for
determining when an employee initially hired on a temporary basis
becomes a permanent one. This standard will not be fair, if
applied to the construction industry because construction firms
cannot guarantee work and funding for its payrolls beyond the life of
each project as they have no control over the decisions and
resources of project proponents or owners.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated April 8, 2013 and the Resolution
dated October 11, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 122928 are hereby
AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.
DIGESTER: