Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2015 > July 2015 Decisions > G.R. No. 209822, July
2015 - DIONISIO DACLES,* Petitioner, v. MILLENIUM ERECTORS CORPORATION AND/OR RAGAS TIU
espondents.:
G.R. No. 209822, July 08, 2015 - DIONISIO DACLES,* Petitioner, v. MILLENIUM ERECTORS COR
ATION AND/OR RAGAS TIU, Respondents.
FIRST DIVISION
Robles On-Line B
G.R. No. 209822, July 08, 2015
view
DIONISIO DACLES,*Petitioner, v. MILLENIUM ERECTORS CORPORATION AND/OR RAGAS
, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
PERLAS-BERNAB
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Decision2 dated April 8, 2013. and the
ution3 dated October 11, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) inCA-GR. SP No. 122928, which an
d and set aside the Decision4 dated October 17, 2011 and the Resolution5 dated December 2, 2
of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC Case No. NCR 06-07985-10, thereb
nstating the Decision6dated April 4, 2010 of the Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissing petitioner Dionisio
es's (petitioner) illegal dismissal complaint.
The Facts
Respondent Millenium Erectors Corporation (MEC) is a domestic corporation engaged in the cons
ion business.7 On October 6, 2010, petitioner instituted a complaint8 for illegal dismissal with m
claims against MEC and its owner/manager, respondent Ragas Tiu9(respondents), before the NLR
ational Capital Region, docketed as NLRC-NCR-06-07985-10.
Petitioner claimed that he was hired by respondents as a mason in 1998. On June 7, 2010, wh
e was working on a project in Malakas Street, Quezon City (QC), he was advised by responden
ficer, Mr. Bongon, to move to another project in Robinson's Cubao, QC. However, upon arrival
e site, he was instructed to return to his former job site and, thereafter, was given a run-aroun
r the two (2) succeeding days. When he requested to be given a post or assigned to a new pro
he was told by the paymaster not to report for work anymore, prompting him to file the illega
missal complaint, with claims for service incentive leave (SIL) pay, overtime pay, holiday pay, 1
month pay, rest day and premium pay, and salary differentials.10
ollect Company,
redarclaw
For their part, respondents denied having illegally dismissed petitioner, claiming that he was a m
project employee whose contract expired on June 4, 2010 upon the completion of his masonry
assignment in the Residential & Commercial Building Project (RCB- Malakas Project) along East
ue, QC.11 Respondents further denied having employed petitioner since 1998 because it was onl
anized and started business operations in February 2000.12 They averred that petitioner applied
was hired as a mason on October 8, 2009 and assigned to the Newport Entertainment and Com
cial Center Project in Pasay City (NECC Project), which was completed on March 3, 2010. There
petitioner applied anew and was hired as a mason on April 15, 2010 to work on the RCB-Mala
Project.13 Petitioner's termination from both projects was then duly reported to the Department
bor and Employment (DOLE) Makati/Pasay Field Office.14 redarclaw
The LA Ruling
In a Decision15 dated April 4, 2010, the LA dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint, finding tha
itioner is a project employee given that: (a) the employment contracts between MEC and petitio
show that the latter, although repeatedly rehired, was engaged in particular projects and for sp
periods; (b) the periods of employment were determinable with a known beginning and termin
; and (c) the DOLE was notified of petitioner's termination at the end of each project. Consequ
the LA held that petitioner cannot validly claim that he was illegally dismissed because his sep
on was a consequence of the completion of his contract.16 The LA likewise denied petitioner's m
claims for lack of evidentiary support.17
Robles Intellectua
redarclaw
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed18 to the NLRC, docketed as NLRC LAC No. 05-001356-11.
perty Division
The NLRC Ruling
In a Decision19 dated October 17, 2011, the NLRC reversed the LA ruling and instead, declared
petitioner was a regular employee. At the outset, the NLRC denied respondents' assertion that r
ndents could not have employed petitioner in 199820 since it was only registered with the Secu
and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2000, as evinced by its Certificate of Incorporation, 21
g that the said document only proves that MEC has been operating as such without the benefit
egistration; thus, the same should not be taken against petitioner's positive assertion that he w
mployed way back in 1998.
Accordingly, the NLRC ruled that petitioner was a regular employee since he was originally emp
in 1998 without a fixed period to perform tasks that were necessary and desirable to MEC's bu
ss, and which status cannot be altered by a subsequent contract stating otherwise. To this end
ointed out that petitioner cannot be lawfully dismissed based on the completion of the last two
projects to which he was assigned and that the employment contracts and termination reports
tted by MEC were merely issued to circumvent the law on regularization of the employment of
ruction workers.22 The NLRC, however, denied petitioner's other money claims for lack of legal b
23
In fine, respondents were ordered to reinstate petitioner with full back wages, plus attorney's
.24
redarclaw
Dissatisfied, respondents moved for reconsideration25 which was denied in a Resolution26 dated
mber 2, 2011. Hence, they filed a petition for review on certiorari27 before the CA.
The CA Ruling
In a Decision28 dated April 8, 2013, the CA annulled and set aside the NLRC's ruling and reinst
the LA's ruling.29 It held that petitioner has not presented evidence to substantiate his claim of
al dismissal. In this relation, it observed that the NLRC made a hasty conclusion that MEC has
operating without the benefit of registration as early as 1998, and in so doing, erroneously relie
the self-serving and unsubstantiated statement of petitioner. Therefore, the CA upheld the LA's
ng that petitioner is a project employee who was first hired as a mason for the NECC Project fr
October 8, 2009 until its completion on March 3, 2010, and second, for the RCB-Malakas Projec
m April 15, 2010 also until its completion. It further gave emphasis on the fact that petitioner's
mination was duly reported by respondents to the DOLE.30 redarclaw
Petitioner moved for reconsideration31 but was denied in a Resolution32 dated October 11, 2013;
ce, this petition.
The essential issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not theCA committed reversible erro
y-2015 Jurisprudence holding that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in declaring that petitioner was a regular em
ee, and not a project employee.
G.R. No. 210341, July 01, 2015 - In labor disputes, grave abuse of discretion may be ascribed to the NLRC when, inter alia, its f
BLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitio
gs and the conclusions reached thereby are not supported by substantial evidence, 34 "or that am
v. JOSEFINO O. ALORA AND OSC t of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusio
. ALORA, Respondent.
Tested against these considerations, the Court finds that the CA correctly granted respondents'
G. R. No. 209845, July 01, 2015 -
orari petition before it, since the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in ruling that petitioner wa
HOR G. MADERAZO AND DIONESI
egular employee of MEC when the latter had established by substantial evidence that petitioner
VERUEN, JR., Petitioners, v. PEOP
merely a project employee. On the other hand, there is no evidence on record to substantiate p
F THE PHILIPPINES AND SANDIGA
AN, Respondents. oner's claim that he was employed as early as 1998. Article 29436of the Labor Code,37 as amen
distinguishes a project-based employee from a regular employee as follows:
ChanRobles Vi rtualaw lib rary
LawlibraryofCR Alaw
; AND FIRST CONSOLIDATED BAN Moreover, if private respondents were indeed employed as "project employees," petitioners shou
espondents. ave submitted a report of termination to the nearest public employment office every time their
oyment was terminated due to completion of each construction project. The records show that
.C. No. 10687, July 22, 2015 - M
did not. Policy Instruction No. 20 is explicit that employers of project employees are exempted
I COLLEGES, INC. REPRESENTED
the clearance requirement but not from the submission of termination report. We have consiste
ARCEL N. LUKBAN, ALBERTO I. G
A, JR., AND MA. PAMELA ROSSAN
held that failure of the employer to file termination reports after every project completion prove
APUYA, Complainant, v. ATTY. JO at the employees are not project employees. Nowhere in the New Labor Code is it provided tha
. PAJARILLO, Respondent. reportorial requirement is dispensed with. The fact is that Department Order No. 19 supe
ing Policy Instruction No. 20 expressly provides that the report of termination is one
G.R. No. 212194, July 06, 2015 - the indicators of project employment. (Emphasis supplied)On the other hand, the records a
LE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff- ereft of any substantial evidence to support petitioner's claim that he had been continuously reh
llee, v. ROD FAMUDULAN1 Y FEDE by respondent as a mason for 22 years45 as to accord him with a regular employment status. P
Accused-Appellant. ner proffered a bare and self-serving claim that he has been employed by respondent since 199
It is well-settled that a party alleging a critical fact must support his allegation with substantial
G.R. No. 187631, July 08, 2015 -
ence as allegation is not evidence.47 Ultimately, nothing on record evinces the existence of an e
NGAS CITY, MARIA TERESA GERO
N HER CAPACITY AS CITY TREASU yer-employee relationship48 between him and respondent prior to his employment as a project e
OF BATANGAS CITY AND TEODUL yee in the NECC Project.
. DEGUITO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
LEGAL OFFICER OF BATANGAS CI At any rate, the repeated and successive rehiring of project employees does not, by and of itse
ualifY them as regular employees. Case law states that length of service (through rehiring) is n
etitioners, v. PILIPINAS SHELL PE e controlling determinant of the employment tenure, but whether the employment has been fixe
EUM CORPORATION, Respondent. r a specific project or undertaking, with its completion having been determined at the time of t
ngagement of the employee.49 While generally, length of service provides a fair yardstick for de
G.R. No. 212205, July 06, 2015 -
ning when an employee initially hired on a temporary basis becomes a permanent one, entitled
LE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
he security and benefits of regularization, this standard will not be fair, if applied to the constru
llee, v. OBALDO BANDRIL Y TABLI
industry because construction firms cannot guarantee work and funding for its payrolls beyond
Accused-Appellant.
ife of each project as they have no control over the decisions and resources of project propone
.C. No. 10207, July 21, 2015 - R r owners.50 Thus, once the project is completed it would be unjust to require the employer to m
ECISION DATED 17 MARCH 2011 ain these employees in their payroll since this would be tantamount to making the employee a
RIMINAL CASE NO. SB-28361 ENT eged retainer who collects payment from his employer for work not done, and amounts to labo
D "PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V dling at the expense of management.51 redarclaw
37
Presidential Decree No. 442 entitled "A DECREE INSTITUTING A LABOR CODE THEREBY REVIS
.M. No. MTJ-14-1839, July 22, 20 AND CONSOLIDATING LABOR AND SOCIAL LAWS TO AFFORD PROTECTION TO LABOR, PROMOT
ATTY. LUCITA E. MARCELO, Comp PLOYMENT AND HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND INSURE INDUSTRIAL PEACE BASED ON
nt, v. JUDGE PELAGIA J. DALMACI CIAL JUSTICE" (approved on May 1, 1974).
AQUIN, PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNI
L TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANC 38
See Gadia v. Sykes Asia, Inc., supra note 33.
SAN JOSE DEL MONTE, BULACAN,
pondent. 39
See Omni Hauling Services, Inc. v. Bon, G. R. No. 199388, September 3, 2014, 734 SCRA 2
G.R. No. 189262, July 06, 2015 - 77-282. See also Section I (c), Rule XXIII (Termination of Employment), Book V of the Omnibu
LT MANPOWER SERVICES, INC., P es Implementing the Labor Code [as amended by DOLE Department Order No. 9, Series of 199
ner, v. MA. VICTORIA H. MALINA hich govern termination of project employees states: LawlibraryofCRAlaw
espondent.
ChanRobles Vi rtualaw lib rary
G.R. No. 190983, July 29, 2015 - Tan Brothers Corporation of Basilan City v. Escudero, G.R. No. 188711, July 3, 2013, 700 SCR
47
G.R. No. 188698, July 22, 2015 - obina Sugar Milling Corp. (URSUMCO), 560 Phil. 615, 623 (2007).
LE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee
SONIA BERNEL NUARIN, Appellant. 50
Id.
G.R. No. 186305, July 22, 2015 -
NT, INC., Petitioner, v. MORNING
51
See Malicdem v. Marulas Industrial Corporation, G.R. No. 204406, February 26, 2014, 717 SC
TRAVEL AND TOURS, INC., Resp 563; Archbuild Masters and Construction, Inc. v. NLRC, 321 Phil. 869, 875-876 (1995)
nt.
G.R. No. 172983, July 22, 2015 - 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY
tioner, v. PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT IN 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
ANCE CORPORATION, Respondent.
1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
G.R. No. 175188, July 15, 2015 -
MISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENU 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
titioner, v. LA TONDEÑA DISTILLE
1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
NC. (LTDI [NOW GINEBRA SAN M
L], Respondent.
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
G.R. No. 209137, July 01, 2015 -
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
ARDO CELEDONIO, Petitioner, v. P
E OF THE PHILIPPINES, Responde 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
G.R. No. 206442, July 01, 2015 - Main Indices of the Library ---> THE LAW FIRM: Home Page Law Firm Overview Law Firm Ser
TO CANCERAN, Petitioner, v. PEOP Law Firm Offices & Communication Links Chan Robles & Wy, CPAs The ChanRobles Group TH
F THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. W LIBRARY: Foreword Table of Contents Site Map What's New? Philippines: Country Guide
pine Constitution Constitutional Laws of Nations of the World Philippine Corporate Bulletin On-
G.R. No. 201494, July 29, 2015 -
Philippine Environment Laws Philippine Foreign Investment Brief Philippine Foreign Investmen
TES R. CUSAP, Petitioner, v. ADI
s Philippine Human Rights Law Resources Philippine Intellectual Property Brief Philippine Labo
PHILIPPINES, INC., (ADIDAS), PR
TION RESOURCES & INTER-MARKE cular On-Line Philippine Law Update On-Line Philippine Legal Resources Institute for Strategic
EXPONENTS, INC. (PRIME) AND J pine Political Reform & Development Vox Populi: Survey of Burning Issues of the Day Philippi
HLETES, INC. (JCA), Respondents. litical Inquirer Philippine Judicial System Philippine Supreme Court Decisions On-Line Philippin
preme Court Circulars Philippine Tax Update On-Line Primary Sources of Philippine Law Repos
.M. No. P-07-2293 (Formerly A.M. of Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes RP-US Treaties Rules of Court of the Philippines U. S. G
06-12-411-MTC), July 15, 2015 - nment Resources U. S. Jurisprudence U. S. Supreme Court Decisions On-Line Worldwide Hum
CE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATO ights Law Resources Worldwide Legal Resources-Alphabetical List Worldwide Legal Resources-B
omplainant, v. JOEBERT C. GUAN, untry Worldwide Legal Resources-By Topic United Nations & World Governments International
MER CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL t of Justice Worldwide Jurisprudence: Supreme Court Decisions [By Country] Global Political Res
AL COURT, BULAN, SORSOGON, R
s CRALAW Search Engine The Business Page The Entertainment Page The Sports Page Kidstuf
ndent.
e Y2K Global Resources Law List - Free Listing Databank for Lawyers & Law Firms Philippine L
G.R. No. 199660, July 13, 2015 - of Lawyers & Law Firms Worldwide Listing of Lawyers & Law Firms
X CORPORATION AND EDILBERTO
RAVO, Petitioners, v. VALERIE ANN
HOLLERO, Respondent.
98 - 2019 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED