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.’
No comments:
Post a Comment