Inocentes, Jr. vs. R. Syjuco Construction, Inc., G.R. No. 240549, August 27, 2020, Third Division, Lazaro-Javier, J. [Case Digest]

 

Inocentes, Jr. vs. R. Syjuco Construction, Inc.,

G.R. No. 240549, August 27, 2020,

Third Division, Lazaro-Javier, J.

[Case Digest]

Topics:

            Project Employee

            Failure to Submit Termination Report

 

Facts:

            Respondent R. Syjuco Construction, Inc. (RSCI) is a construction company engaged in short-term projects such as renovation or construction of bank branches, stores in malls and similar projects with short duration. For its projects, RSCI hired construction workers like masons, carpenters, whose contracts of engagement were indicated to be co-terminous with the projects to which they were assigned.

            RSCI hired petitioners Salvador Inocentes Jr. and Agapito Inocentes as carpenter and mason, respectively. Thereafter, RSCI engaged as carpenters King Marvin Inocentes in 2007 and Dennis Catangui, in 2008. The durations of their respective engagements depended on the scope and period of the projects. Between 2013 and 2015, petitioners were assigned to the following projects:

1. Salvador Inocentes Jr.

Project	Duration
BDO BGC J.Y Campus	02 May-15 May 2013
Edward Hernandez Residence	29 August - 11 September 2013
BDO UN Avenue	09 January - 29 January 2014
Edward Hernandez Residence	10 April-02 July 2014
BDO City of Dreams	16 August -19 November 2014
Hernandez Condo	15 December - 18 December 2014
Tierra Pura	22 December - 26 December 2014
Hernandez Condo	28 January - 03 March 2015
Pinky Lim	20 May - 01 August 2015
BDO Solaire	22 October - 23 November 2015

2.Agapito Inocentes       

Project	Duration
Loreta Arcadia Ave.	25 April-30 April 2013
BDO BGC	09 May-07 June 2013
PIKO Empire Studio	07 October - 09 October 2013
Edward Hernandez Residence	08 November - 11 December 2013
Edward Hernandez Residence	10 January - 02 March 2014
Victory Liner Cubao	23 May-22 July 2014
Victory Liner Pasay	04 September - 08 October 2014
PIKO Warehouse	11 December - 24 December 2014
Hernandez Condo	22 January - 18 March 2015
Avalon Condo	13 May-25 July 2015
PIKO BDO Solaire	08 August - 22 September 2015

 

            Sometime in February and May 2016, the RSCI's foreman twice directed petitioners to report for work for another short-term project, but the latter failed to do so.

            On June 9, 2016, petitioners filed a request for assistance and complaint under the single entry approach (SEnA) entitled Salvador A. Inocentes, Jr., Agapito A. Inocentes, King Marvin Inocentes and Dennis C. Catangui v. R. Syjuco Construction, Inc. RSCI/Arch. Ryan I. Syjuco. They sued for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, overtime pay, and non-payment of 13th month pay, holiday pay, holiday premium, rest day premium, service incentive leave and night shift differential. They also demanded for moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.

            RSCI denied that petitioners were illegally dismissed. As they were project employees, their employment was validly terminated after end of each construction project. It also denied petitioners' entitlement to holiday pay since they did not work during holidays. Too, they were not entitled to nightshift differential as their work did not go beyond 12 midnight. As to non-receipt of 13th month pay, their signed quitclaims were proof of receipt of such benefit.

            LA dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. LA ruled that petitioners were project employees who belonged to RSCI's work pool. Their engagements were intermittent, depending on the availability of projects.  NLRC ruled that petitioners were regular employees. Their co­terminous status ceased when they were repeatedly hired for more than five (5) years as carpenters and masons since their services were necessary and desirable to RSCFs construction business. Notably, RSCI itself failed to submit the reportorial requirement under DOLE Department Order No. 19, series of 1993 every time petitioners' assigned projects got terminated. And because they were regular employees, their dismissal due to contract expiration was invalid, the same not being a just or authorized cause for termination under Art. 279 of the Labor Code.  CA on motion for reconsideration filed by the respondent reversed the ruling of NRLC and held that the petitioners were project employees.

 

Issue:

            Whether petitioners were regular employees of respondent.

 

Held:

            Yes; by Decision dated July 29, 2019, we pronounced, in no uncertain terms, that RSCI's construction workers were regular employees as the services they rendered were necessary and desirable to RSCI's construction business. As such, they may not be dismissed upon the mere expiration or completion of each project for which they were engaged. Thus: In Dacuital vs. L.M. Camus Engineering Corp., the Court stressed that a project employee is assigned to a project that starts and ends at a determined or determinable time. The Court elucidated therein that the principal test to determine if an employee is a project employee is -whether he or she is assigned to carry out a particular project or undertaking, which duration or scope was specified at the time of engagement.

            In this case, to ascertain whether petitioners were project employees, as claimed by respondents, it is primordial to determine whether notice was given them that they were being engaged just for a specific project, which notice must be made at the time of hiring. However, no such prior notice was given by respondents.

            The Court notes that the summary of project assignments relied by the CA cannot be considered as the needed notice because it only listed down the projects from where petitioners were previously assigned but nowhere did it indicate that petitioners were informed or were aware that they were hired for a project or undertaking only.

            Stated differently, the summary only listed the projects after petitioners were assigned to them but it did not reflect that petitioners were informed at the time of engagement that their work was only for the duration of a project. Notably, it was only in their Rejoinder (filed with the LA) that respondents stated that at the time of their engagement, petitioners were briefed as to the nature of their work but respondents did not fully substantiate this claim.

            Also, the fact that respondents did not submit a report with the DOLE (anent the termination of petitioners' employment due to alleged project completion) further bolsters that petitioners were not project employees. In Freyssinet Filipinas Corp. vs. Lapuz, the Court explained that the failure on the part of the employer to file with the DOLE a termination report every time a project or its phase is completed is an indication that the workers are not project employees but regular ones.

            Notably, considering that respondents failed to discharge their burden to prove that petitioners were project employees, the NLRC properly found them to be regular employees. It thus follows that as regular employees, petitioners may only be dismissed for a just or authorized cause and upon observance of due process of law. As these requirements were not observed, the Court also sustains the finding of the NLRC that petitioners were illegally dismissed.

            Let it be underscored too that even if we rely on the averment of respondents that petitioners ceased to work at the end of their purported project contract, this assertion will not hold water since it is not a valid cause to terminate regular employees. This is in addition to the fact that there was no showing that petitioners were given notice of their termination, an evident violation of their right to due process.

            Inocentes is on all fours with the present case. Petitioners here and those in Inocentes were all RSCI's construction workers. As such, they had been repeatedly and continuously employed for many years. They performed tasks that were desirable and necessary to RSCI's construction business. Thus, they were regular employees, not project employees. For sure, mere termination or completion of each project for which they were engaged is not a valid or just cause for termination of employment under Art. 279 of the Labor Code.

            While the Court is aware that Inocentes is under reconsideration, our Decision in that case stands until otherwise vacated or reversed. Undoubtedly, the issues, subject matters and causes of action in Inocentes and in the present case are identical. The workers were categorized as project employees but they were not properly informed of the nature of their employment as such.