Cioco vs. C.E. Construction Corp., G.R. No. 156748, September 8, 2004 [Case Digest]

 

Cioco vs. C.E. Construction Corp.,

G.R. No. 156748, September 8, 2004

 

Facts:

            Isaac Cioco, Jr., Rebie A. Mercado, Benito V. Galvadores, Cecilio Solver, Carmelo Juanzo, Benjamin Baysa, and Rodrigo Napoles (WORKERS) were hired by C.E. Construction Corporation (COMPANY), a domestic corporation engaged in the construction business and managed by its owner-president, Mr. Johnny Tan. They were hired as carpenters and laborers in various construction projects from 1990 to 1999, the latest of which was the GTI Tower in Makati. Prior to the start of every project, the WORKERS signed individual employment contracts which uniformly read: "I hereby apply as carpenter/laborer on [the] GTI Tower project. It is understood that if accepted, the period of employment shall be co-terminus with the completion of the project, unless sooner terminated by you prior to the completion of the project."

            Sometime in May and June 1999, the WORKERS, along with sixty-six (66) others, were terminated by the COMPANY on the ground of completion of the phases of the GTI Tower project for which they had been hired. Alleging that they were regular employees, the WORKERS filed complaints for illegal dismissal with the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC. Claims for underpaid wages and unpaid overtime pay, premium for holiday and rest days, service incentive leave pays, night shift differential, and 13th month pay were likewise demanded.

            LA rendered judgment in favor of the company.  NLRC affirmed the labor arbiter's decision. CA although petitioners were project employees, their dismissal as such project employees is hereby declared ILLEGAL, and private respondent C.E. Construction Corporation is directed to pay back wages computed from the date of termination, i.e., May 27, 1999 for petitioners Isaac Cioco, Jr., Carmelo Juanzo, Cecelio (sic) Soler and Benito Galvadores and from June 5, 1999 for petitioners Rebie Mercado, Baysa Benjamin (sic) and Rodrigo Napoles, up to the date of completion of the construction of the GTI Tower project.

 

Issue:

            Whether or not the employment of Cioco and others had been illegally terminated by the company.

 

Held:

            No; a review of the records shows that the COMPANY submitted the needed evidence. In its motion for reconsideration of the CA’s decision, the COMPANY attached as Annexes "A" and "B," Progress Billing Reports clearly showing that the GTI Tower project was already 80.9203% and 81.3747% accomplished as of May 31, 1999 and June 30, 1999, respectively. Specifically, the particular form, concreting and masonry works for which the WORKERS had been hired and assigned were already completed or near completion, as shown by Annexes "A-3," "A-4," and "A-6" of the May Progress Billing Report, and Annexes "B-3," "B-4," "B-6" and "B-7" of the June Progress Billing Report. The WORKERS did not question the veracity of the evidence presented and just insisted that they are regular employees of the COMPANY, hence, not liable for termination on mere ground of project completion.

Filipinas Pre-fabricated Building Systems Inc. vs. Puente, G.R. No. 153832, March 18, 2005 [Case Digest]

 

Filipinas Pre-fabricated Building Systems Inc. vs. Puente,

G.R. No. 153832, March 18, 2005

 

Facts:

            Puente started working with [Petitioner] Filsystems, Inc., a corporation engaged in construction business, on June 12, 1989; that he was initially hired by [petitioner] company as an ‘installer’; that he was later promoted to mobile crane operator and was stationed at the company premises at No. 69 Industria Road, Bagumbayan, Quezon City; that his work was not dependent on the completion or termination of any project; that since his work was not dependent on any project, his employment with the [petitioner-]company was continuous and without interruption for the past ten (10) years; that on October 1, 1999, he was dismissed from his employment allegedly because he was a project employee. He filed a pro forma complaint for illegal dismissal against the [petitioner] company on November 18, 1999.

            The [petitioner-]company however claims that complainant was hired as a project employee in the company’s various projects; that his employment contracts showed that he was a project worker with specific project assignments; that after completion of each project assignment, his employment was likewise terminated and the same was correspondingly reported to the DOLE.

            LA dismissed the case for lack of merit.  NLRC dismissed the appeal of Puente.  CA reversed the NLRC and the labor arbiter.

 

Issue:

            Whether Puente is regular employee.

 

Held:

            No; the contracts of employment of Puente attest to the fact that he was hired for specific projects. His employment was coterminous with the completion of the projects for which he had been hired. Those contracts expressly provided that his tenure of employment depended on the duration of any phase of the project or on the completion of the construction projects. Furthermore, petitioners regularly submitted to the labor department reports of the termination of services of project workers. Such compliance with the reportorial requirement confirms that respondent was a project employee.

            Indicators of project employment. – Either one or more of the following circumstances, among other, 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 services to any other employer.

            (e) The termination of his employment in the particular project/undertaking is reported 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’ terminations/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.

            The above-quoted provisions make it clear that a project employee is 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." In D.M. Consunji, Inc. v. NLRC, this Court has ruled that "the length of service of a project employee is not the controlling test of employment tenure but whether or not ‘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.’

D.M. Consunji, Inc. vs. Estelito Jamin, G.R. No. 192514, April 18, 2012 [Case Digest]

 

D.M. Consunji, Inc. vs. Estelito Jamin,

G.R. No. 192514, April 18, 2012

 

Facts:

            DMCI hired respondent Estelito L. Jamin as a laborer. Sometime in 1975, Jamin became a helper carpenter. Since his initial hiring, Jamin’s employment contract had been renewed a number of times. On March 20, 1999, his work at DMCI was terminated due to the completion of the SM Manila project. This termination marked the end of his employment with DMCI as he was not rehired again.

            Jamin filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Jamin alleged that DMCI terminated his employment without a just and authorized cause at a time when he was already 55 years old and had no independent source of livelihood. He claimed that he rendered service to DMCI continuously for almost 31 years. In addition to the schedule of projects (where he was assigned) submitted by DMCI to the labor arbiter, he alleged that he worked for three other DMCI projects: Twin Towers, Ritz Towers, from July 29, 1980 to June 12, 1982; New Istana Project, B.S.B. Brunei, from June 23, 1982 to February 16, 1984; and New Istana Project, B.S.B. Brunei, from January 24, 1986 to May 25, 1986.

            DMCI denied liability. It argued that it hired Jamin on a project-to-project basis, from the start of his engagement in 1968 until the completion of its SM Manila project on March 20, 1999 where Jamin last worked. With the completion of the project, it terminated Jamin’s employment. It alleged that it submitted a report to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) every time it terminated Jamin’s services.

            Labor Arbiter Francisco A. Robles dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. He sustained DMCI’s position that Jamin was a project employee whose services had been terminated due to the completion of the project where he was assigned. NLRC affirmed the labor arbiter’s finding that Jamin was a project employee. CA reversed the compulsory arbitration rulings. It held that Jamin was a regular employee. It based its conclusion on: (1) Jamin’s repeated and successive rehiring in DMCI’s various projects; and (2) the nature of his work in the projects — he was performing activities necessary or desirable in DMCI’s construction business.

 

Issue:

            Whether Jamin is a regular employee of DMCI.

 

Held:

            Yes; Jamin’s employment history with DMCI stands out for his continuous, repeated and successive rehiring in the company’s construction projects. In all the 38 projects where DMCI engaged Jamin’s services, the tasks he performed as a carpenter were indisputably necessary and desirable in DMCI’s construction business. He might not have been a member of a work pool as DMCI insisted that it does not maintain a work pool, but his continuous rehiring and the nature of his work unmistakably made him a regular employee. In Maraguinot, Jr. v. NLRC, the Court held that once a project or work pool employee has been: (1) continuously, as opposed to intermittently, rehired by the same employer for the same tasks or nature of tasks; and (2) these tasks are vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer, then the employee must be deemed a regular employee.

            Surely, length of time is not the controlling test for project employment. Nevertheless, it is vital in determining if the employee was hired for a specific undertaking or tasked to perform functions vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer. Here, [private] respondent had been a project employee several times over. His employment ceased to be coterminous with specific projects when he was repeatedly re-hired due to the demands of petitioner’s business.

            To set the records straight, DMCI indeed submitted reports to the DOLE but as pointed out by Jamin, the submissions started only in 1992. DMCI explained that it submitted the earlier reports (1982), but it lost and never recovered the reports. It reconstituted the lost reports and submitted them to the DOLE in October 1992; thus, the dates appearing in the reports.

Palgan vs. Holy Name University, G.R. No. 219916, Feb. 10, 2021 [Case Digest]

 

Palgan vs. Holy Name University,

G.R. No. 219916, Feb. 10, 2021

Third Division [Hernando, J]

 

Facts:

            Petitioner started working as a Casual or Assistant Clinical Instructor for two semesters for school year (S.Y.) 1992-1993 in HNU's College of Nursing while awaiting the results of her Nursing Board Examination. She alleged that upon her hiring, HNU did not inform her of the standards for the evaluation of her satisfactory completion of her probationary period.

            In the second semester of S.Y. 1994-1995, she was hired as a full-time Clinical Instructor until S.Y. 1998-1999, and was assigned at the Medical Ward. During the second semester of S.Y. 1998-1999, she was transferred to the Guidance Center as a Nursing Guidance Instructor handling guidance, education, and graduate school courses. At this time, she was elected as Municipal Councilor of Carmen, Bohol. Upon her reelection as Municipal Councilor for the 2001-2004 term, she took a leave of absence from HNU.

            Sometime in the year 2004, petitioner rejoined HNU and was given a full-time load for the S.Y. 2004-2005. For S.Y. 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, petitioner signed contracts for term/semestral employment. However, in a notice dated February 28, 2007, HNU informed Arlene that her contract of employment, which would have expired on March 31, 2007, will no longer be renewed.

            Arlene argued that since she taught at HNU for more than six consecutive regular semesters, she already attained the status of a regular employee pursuant to the Manual of Regulations for Private School Teachers. There having been no valid or justifiable cause for her dismissal as she was not guilty of any infractions under the Labor Code or the Manual of Regulations for Private School Teachers, petitioner claimed that her employment was illegally terminated.

            On the other hand, respondents contended that in S.Y. 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, Arlene remained a probationary employee. The completion of her probationary period did not automatically make her a permanent employee since she failed to comply with all the conditions of her probationary employment satisfactorily. Respondents insisted that petitioner was not dismissed; rather, her contract of employment merely expired on March 31, 2007.

            The Arbiter dismissed Arlene's complaint for lack of merit. Since her employment was probationary in nature, she has no vested right yet to a permanent appointment until after the completion of the pre-requisite three-year period for the acquisition of a permanent status.

            The NLRC denied Arlene's appeal and affirmed the ruling of the Arbiter. Palgan filed Motion for Reconsideration, which the NLRC granted. NLRC held that Palgan was illegally dismissed. CA reversed the decision of NLRC and held that Palgan was not illegally dismissed.

           

 

Issue:

            Whether CA erred in reversing the decision of NLRC.

 

Held:

            No; the governing law for the employment status of teachers/professors/instructors are the manuals of regulations for private schools.

            In Lacuesta v. Ateneo de Manila University (Lacuesta), We held that the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools and not the Labor Code determines whether or not a faculty member in a private educational institution has attained a permanent or regular status.

            Petitioner did not meet all the criteria required to be considered as a permanent employee. We have laid down in Lacuesta the following requisites before a private school teacher acquires permanent status, namely: 1) The teacher serves full-time; 2) he/she must have rendered three consecutive years of service; and 3) such service must have been satisfactory.

            These requisites find basis in Sections 92 and 93 of the 1992 Manual, which provide: Section 92. Probationary Period. Subject in all instances to compliance with Department and school requirements, the probationary period for academic personnel shall not be more than three (3) consecutive years of satisfactory service for those in the elementary and secondary levels, six (6) consecutive regular semesters of satisfactory service for those in the tertiary level, and nine (9) consecutive trimesters of satisfactory service for those in the tertiary level where collegiate courses are offered on the trimester basis.

            While petitioner has rendered three consecutive years of satisfactory service, she was, however, not a full-time teacher at the College of Nursing of HNU. It must be stressed that only a full-time teaching personnel can acquire regular or permanent status. This rule has been reiterated in a long line of cases, one of which is Herrera-Manaois v. St. Scholastica's College, where We held: "In the light of the failure of Manaois to satisfy the academic requirements for the position, she may only be considered as a part-time instructor pursuant to Section 45 of the 1992 Manual. In turn, as we have enunciated in a line of cases, a part-time member of the academic personnel cannot acquire permanence of employment and security of tenure under the Manual of Regulations in relation to the Labor Code. We thus quote the ruling of this Court in Lacuesta."

            Petitioner was never qualified to be a full-time faculty due to the apparent lack of the required clinical experience under the governing law and its relevant regulations. Full-time academic personnel are those meeting all the following requirements:

                        a. Who possess at least the minimum academic qualifications prescribed by the Department under this Manual for all academic personnel;

                        b. Who are paid monthly or hourly, based on the regular teaching loads as provided for in the policies, rules and standards of the Department and the school;

                        c. Whose total working day of not more than eight hours a day is devoted to the school;

                        d. Who have no other remunerative occupation elsewhere requiring regular hours of work that will conflict with the working hours in the school; and

                        e. Who are not teaching full-time in any other educational institution.

            All teaching personnel who do not meet the foregoing qualifications are considered part-time.

 

            Petitioner's experience as clinical instructor cannot be considered as "clinical practice experience" as there

is no substantial evidence on record that would prove that petitioner actually engaged in activities that may be considered as clinical practice within the ambit of the law.

            Evidence on record would reveal that petitioner was hired by HNU as a "full-time" clinical instructor assigned at the medical ward from 1994-1997. From 1998-2002, Arlene worked as a "part-time" faculty member until she was again hired in 2004.

            The evidence on record would show that petitioner was not illegally dismissed since no dismissal occurred in the first place. Her fixed-term contract merely expired.