Dacles v. Millenium Erectors Corp.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Dionisio Dacles filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and various money claims against Millenium Erectors Corporation (MEC) and its owner/manager, Ragas Tiu. Dacles alleged he was hired as a mason in 1998 and was dismissed on June 7, 2010, after being given a run-around regarding project assignments. Respondents, however, denied the illegal dismissal, asserting Dacles was a project employee whose contract expired on June 4, 2010, upon completion of his work on the Residential & Commercial Building Project. They further contended that MEC was only established in February 2000, thus disputing Dacles' claim of employment since 1998, and stated Dacles was hired as a project mason in October 2009 and again in April 2010, with his termination from both projects duly reported to the Department of Labor and Employment. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed Dacles' illegal dismissal complaint, finding him to be a project employee whose employment contracts had determinable beginnings and ends, and whose terminations were reported to the DOLE. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the LA's decision, declaring Dacles a regular employee based on his alleged 1998 hiring date and the nature of his tasks. The NLRC ordered reinstatement with back wages. MEC and Tiu appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which annulled the NLRC's ruling and reinstated the LA's decision, holding that Dacles failed to substantiate his claims and that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion. The CA found Dacles to be a project employee, emphasizing the employment contracts and the DOLE termination reports. The Petition: Petitioner Dionisio Dacles seeks review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution, arguing that the CA committed reversible error in holding that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion by declaring him a regular employee instead of a project employee. Dacles contends that the CA erred in disregarding the NLRC's findings and in reinstating the LA's decision, which he believes was based on an incorrect assessment of his employment status. The core of his petition is to challenge the CA's conclusion that he was a project employee and not a regular employee entitled to security of tenure.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in holding that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in declaring petitioner a regular employee, and not a project employee. Whether petitioner was a project employee or a regular employee.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the CA committed reversible error in holding that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in declaring petitioner a regular employee, and not a project employee: The Court held that for certiorari to be granted, petitioner must show grave abuse of discretion, which connotes capricious and whimsical judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction. In labor disputes, this may occur when the NLRC's findings are not supported by substantial evidence. The CA correctly granted the certiorari petition because the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in ruling petitioner was a regular employee when substantial evidence established he was a project employee. On the issue of whether petitioner was a project employee or a regular employee: There was no evidence to support petitioner's claim of employment since 1998. Article 294 of the Labor Code distinguishes project-based employees from regular employees. For an employee to be considered project-based, the employer must show that the employee was assigned to a specific project or undertaking and that the duration and scope were specified at the time of engagement. The services of project employees can be lawfully terminated upon completion of the project or phase thereof. To safeguard workers' rights, employers must prove the specified duration and scope of employment and the existence of the project. In this case, petitioner was informed of his project employee status through employment contracts explicitly stating he was hired for specific projects and that employment would end upon completion or phase of work. These contracts sufficiently apprised him that his tenure was co-terminus with the project. Furthermore, respondent MEC duly submitted Establishment Employment Reports to the DOLE regarding the termination of petitioner from both projects, which is an indicator of project employment as per Department Order No. 19. The records lack substantial evidence to support petitioner's claim of continuous rehiring for 22 years to qualify him as a regular employee. His claim of employment since 1998 was a bare and self-serving assertion. Repeated rehiring of project employees does not automatically qualify them as regular employees; the controlling factor is whether the employment was fixed for a specific project with a determined completion time at the outset. While length of service is generally a yardstick for regularization, this is not applicable to the construction industry where work and funding are project-dependent. Requiring employers to maintain employees on payroll after project completion would be unjust and akin to making them privileged retainers collecting payment for work not done.
Main Doctrine
The employer must prove that the duration and scope of employment were specified at the time of engagement and that there was indeed a project for an employee to be considered a project employee. The submission of termination reports to the DOLE is an indicator of project employment.