26. In mid of May 2017, the project was almost to its end as completed units were turn-over.

27. Pursuant to Department Order No. 19, or the “Guidelines Governing the Employment of
Workers in the Construction Industry”, respondent Classique duly submitted the required
Establishment Employment Reports National Capital Region.

28. Respondent’s Human Resource officer informed complainants that respondent Classique will
endeavour to look for other projects so that complainants and other project based employees
may be respectively engaged. They were never dismissed.1

29. Without waiting for the six-month period to expire, complainants commenced the instant
complaint.

ISSUES

WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANTS WERE ILLEGALLY DISMISSED.

WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANTS ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR MONETARY CLAIMS.

DISCUSSIONS

30. It is a recognized fact that construction firms like herein respondent Classique cannot guarantee
work and funding for its payrolls beyond the life of each project as they have no control over the
decisions and resources of project proponents or owners.2

31. In this case, when the Makati Diamond Residences project was taken over by San Miguel
Properties Inc., respondent-appellant suffered tremendous financial set-backs. Thus, it would be
more prejudicial if it would continue to pay the salaries of complainants when the project was
abruptly terminated.

1
Copy of DOLE Establishment Report is herein attached as “Annex 17”

2
William Uy Construction Corp. v. Trinidad, 629 Phil. 185, 190 (2010), citing Caseres v. Universal Robina Sugar
Milling Corp. (URSUMCO), 560 Phil. 615, 623 (2007)
32. Similarly, then the Shangri-La the Fort project was completed and the units were turned over, it
would be unjust for respondent-appellant to continue the employment of complainants beyond
the life of the project.

33. In Dionisio Dacles vs. Millennium3, the Supreme Court ruled that once the project is completed it
would be unjust to require the employer to maintain these employees in their payroll since this
would be tantamount to making the employee a privileged retainer who collects payment from
his employer for work not done, and amounts to labor coddling at the expense of management.4

34. When Shangrila the Fort project was almost completed and the phase where complaints were
engaged to perform varnishing works were already completed, the respondent Classique
resorted to temporary lay-off as it is practically difficult for respondent Classique to retain
complaint’s services.

35. The Labor Code as amended allows laying off when there is absence of projects. Pursuant to
Article 286 of the Labor Code, the suspension of the operation of business or undertaking in a
temporary lay-off situation must not exceed six (6) months. Laying off is even recognized as
acceptable practice by the Supreme Court since firms connected with the construction industry
cannot guarantee work and funding for its payrolls beyond the life of each project.

36. The facts and evidence belie the claim of complainants that they were dismissed. There is no
evidence at all to prove that they were terminated from their employment.

37. The rule is that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it; thus, complainant is
burdened to prove his allegation that respondents dismissed him from his employment. It must
be stressed that the evidence to prove this fact must be clear, positive and convincing. The rule
that the employer bears the burden of proof in illegal dismissal cases finds no application here
because the respondents deny having dismissed the complainant.

38. Let it be underscored that the fact of dismissal must be established by positive and overt acts of
an employer indicating the intention to dismiss which is clearly absent in this case.

3
G.R. No. 209822 July 8, 2015
4
Malicdem v. Maru/as Industrial Corporation, G.R. No. 204406, February 26, 2014, 717 SCRA 563; Archbuild
Masters and Construction, Inc. v. NLRC, 321 Phil. 869, 875-876 (1995)
39. Indeed, a party alleging a critical fact must support his allegation with substantial evidence, for
any decision based on unsubstantiated allegation cannot stand without offending due process.

40. Construction companies have no control over the decisions and resources of project proponents
or owners. There is no construction company that does not wish it has such control but the
reality, understood by construction workers, is that work depends on decisions and
developments over which construction companies have no say.

41. While generally, length of service provides a fair yardstick for determining when an employee
initially hired on a temporary basis becomes a permanent one, entitled to the security and
benefits of regularization, this standard will not be fair, if applied to the construction industry
because construction firms cannot guarantee work and funding for its payrolls beyond the life of
each project as they have no control over the decisions and resources of project proponents or
owners.