FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 240549, August 27, 2020
SALVADOR AWA INOCENTES, JR., AGAPITO AWA INOCENTES, KING MARVIN INOCENTES AND DENNIS C. CATANGUI, Petitioners, v. R. SYJUCO CONSTRUCTION, INC. (RSCI) AND ARCH. RYAN I. SYJUCO, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:
1. Amended Decision1 dated February 2, 2018 reversing its earlier ruling that respondents were regular, not project employees; and
2. Resolution2 dated July 5, 2018 denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
Project DurationBDO 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
3. King Marvin Inocentes
Project DurationLoreta 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
4. Dennis Catangui
Project DurationPIKO Push 20 February - 26 April 2013 Loreta Tua 08 May-29 May 2013 PIKO Vantage 29 August - 16 October 2013 PIKO Giordano Concept 26 November — 06 December 2013 PIKO BDO Tektite 01 January - 12 January 2014 PIKO BDO UN times & PIKO BDO Elcano 16 January - 28 January 2014 PIKO Office 06 February - 12 February 2014 PIKO BDO MOB 06 March - 19 March 2014 Victory Liner Pasay 02 October - 08 October 2014 PIKO Fitness First Mall of Asia 23 October - 29 October 2014 Arlo Valero 25 February - 10 March 2015 PIKO BDO Kalentong 15 April-28 April 2015 Office 14 May-31 May 2015 Avalon Condo 02 July-04 August 2015 PIKO Victory liner Sampaloc 12 August - 22 September 2015 PIKO BDO Bacoor 30 September- 13 October 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.5
Project DurationBDO BGC 09 May-15 May 2013 Fitness First SM Aurora 30 May-14 June 2013 BDO Tektite 05 December - 11 December 2013 BDO UN Avenue 11 March-9 May 2014 BDO City of Dreams 16 August - 5 November 2014 Fitness First Mall of Asia 16 November - 17 December 2014 Hernandez Condo 8 January - 9 March 2015 Ayala Heights - Pinky Lim 12 March-16 June 2015 Victory Liner Pasay 10 December- 12 December 2015
WHEREFORE, complainants' appeal is PARTLY GRANTED. The appealed Decision is hereby MODIFIED in that respondent R[.] Syjuco Construction[,] Inc. is directed to pay:The 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.
1. Complainant Salvador Awa Inocentes, Jr. [,] his Backwages, to be computed from 27 November 2015 (the date [of] termination took effect) until the finality of this Decision;
2. Complainant Agapito Awa Inocentes [,] his Backwages, to be computed from 30 November 2015 (the date [of] termination took effect) until the finality of this Decision;
3. Complainant King Marvin Inocentes[,] his Backwages, to be computed from 15 November 2015 (the date [of] termination took effect) until the finality of this Decision;
4. Complainant Dennis G. Catangui[,] his Backwages, to be computed from 20 December 2015 (the date [of] termination took effect) until the finality of this Decision;
5. Separation Pay, in lieu of reinstatement, in the amount of one (1) month's salary for every year of service, that is, from date of employment until the finality of this Decision;
6. Moral damages in the amount of Php 10,000.00 each;
7. Exemplary damages in the amount of [Php] 10,000.00 each;
8. [P]lus Attorney's Fees in an amount equivalent to 10% of the total monetary award.
Attached is the detailed computation which forms part of this Decision.
All other claims are DISMISSED for lack of basis.
SO ORDERED.9
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. Our Decision dated December 7, 2017 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petition for certiorari is GRANTED. The assailed NLRC dispositions dated February 24, 2017 and June 30, 2017 are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The decision of the Labor Arbiter dated November 29, 2016 in NLRC Case No. 07-08384-16 is REINSTATED. No costs.The Court of Appeals (Former Special Eleventh Division) took judicial notice of the Decision dated December 28, 201712 of the Former Special Third Division in CA-G.R. SP No. 150606 entitled R. Syjuco Construction, Inc. (RSCI)/Arch. Ryan I. Syjuco v. NLRC, Dominic Inocentes, Jeffrey Inocentes, Joseph Cornelio and Reymark Catangui involving as well the employment status of similarly situated construction workers of RSCI.13
SO ORDERED.11
After taking a second hard look at the facts of this case vis-a-vis the facts in CA-G.R. SP No. 150606, We find that the Private Respondents herein are similarly situated with the Private Respondents in CA-G.R. SP No. 150606. Thus, the issues raised by the Private Respondents herein are not different from the issues raised by the Private Respondents in the earlier case.The Amended Decision cited as basis for its turn around a similar case under CA-GR SP No. 150606 where the Former Special Third Division, through its Decision dated October 5, 2017, held that RSCI's construction workers, like herein petitioners, were project employees, and not regular employees.
In view thereof and in order to avoid conflicting dispositions, We are constrained to rule differently and to agree with the Petitioner's contention that the Private Respondents are project employees.
It is undisputed that the Petitioner is a construction company engage in short-term projects, such as renovation or construction of branches of banks, stores in malls, and other similar projects that can easily be accomplished in a few months. At the time of each engagement, the Private Respondents were advised as to the nature of the work and the duration of the project they were involved in. This is evidenced by the submissions of the Petitioner showing the project assignments and duration thereof. Upon completion of the project or particular phase thereof where they were engaged to work, the Private Respondents' employment necessarily ended. The Private Respondents' re-hiring thus was conditioned on the availability of construction projects of the Petitioner. During the time that there is no project assignment, the Private Respondents are not paid and are free to seek other employment. Therefore, the Private Respondents are indeed project employees, whose employment was coterminous with the projects they were assigned.
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.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.
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.
Moreover, the summary of project assignments even worked against respondents as it established the necessity and desirability of petitioners' tasks on the usual business of respondents. It is worth noting that respondents themselves admitted to such essentiality of the work because in their Reply (also submitted with the LA), respondents confirmed that days or a few months after a repair or renovation project, they would inform petitioners that they would be called upon when a new project commences. This matter only shows that petitioners' work for respondents did not end by the supposed completion of a project because respondents coordinated with and notified them that their services would still be necessary for respondents.
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.
x x x x
However, as already discussed, respondents did not prove that they informed petitioners, at the time of engagement, that they were being engaged as project employees. The duration and scope of their work was without prior notice to petitioners. While the lack of a written contract does not necessarily make one a regular employee, a written contract serves as proof that employees were informed of the duration and scope of their work and their status as project employee at the commencement of their engagement. There being none that was adduced here, the presumption that the employees are regular employees prevails.
x x x x
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. (Emphasis supplied)
Endnotes:
1 Penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro and concurred in by Associate Justices Danton Q. Bueser and Pablito A. Perez, rollo, pp. 9-15.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser and concurred in by Associate Justices Pablito A. Perez and Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin, id. at 7-8.
3Id. at 129.
4Id. at 129, 171-173.
5Id. at 130.
6Id. at 131.
7Id. at 64-70.
8 Penned by Presiding Commissioner Grace M. Venus and concurred in by Commissioners Bernardino B. Julve and Leonard Vinz O. Ignacio, id. at 77-87.
9Id. at 86-87.
10Id. at 91-95.
11Id. at 14.
12 Penned by Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and concurred in by now Supreme Court Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco.
13Id. at 10.
14Id. at 179.
15Id. at 180-181.
16 Guidelines Governing the Employment of Workers in Construction Industry.
17 Second Division Resolution dated August 6, 2018.
18 716 Phil. 267 (2013).