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.