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.
No comments:
Post a Comment