Case Digest (G.R. No. 159371)
Facts:
In the case of D. M. Consunji Corporation (DMCI) vs. Rogelio P. Bello, G.R. No. 159371, decided on July 29, 2013, the core facts revolve around the employment status of Rogelio P. Bello and his dismissal from DMCI. Bello was employed as a mason from February 1, 1990, until October 10, 1997. Throughout this period, he consistently asserted that he was a diligent worker who never violated any company policies. In October 1997, Bello was diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis, necessitating a leave of absence. Upon recovery, when he returned to work, he was presented with a termination paper citing “voluntary resignation” and a reason described as “aRSDa,” which he did not understand.Bello contended that he had not received any prior notice of his dismissal, nor had he been compensated for separation as mandated by law, claiming his work was integral to DMCI’s operations. In response, DMCI argued that Bello’s employment was project-based, and thus he was a project employee who had
Case Digest (G.R. No. 159371)
Facts:
Bello, employed by DM Consunji Corporation (DMCI) as a mason, was initially hired as a project employee under contracts clearly specifying the limited duration tied to specific construction projects. Over a span of eight years, Bello was repeatedly re-engaged in various projects, reflecting the continuous need for his skills in the construction business—a function that is necessary and desirable to DMCI’s usual operations. Despite his seemingly intermittent engagements, evidence showed that Bello’s work was integral to the company’s core activities. Bello brought an action alleging illegal dismissal after he was terminated on November 5, 1997. He claimed that although he had previously been a devoted and diligent worker who never violated company rules, he was wrongfully terminated. DMCI, on the other hand, argued that Bello had voluntarily resigned from his last project due to health reasons, supporting its claim by presenting a handwritten resignation letter. Bello contended that he only signed the letter because he was misled into believing it was intended merely to extend his sick leave—not to terminate his employment—adding that the handwriting in the letter was notably different from his own. Various tribunals and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) initially ruled in his favor, finding evidence of illegal dismissal, but later reversed the decision by emphasizing the gaps in his employment records and the nature of project contracts. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals (CA), upon reviewing the entire employment history and circumstances surrounding the resignation, held that Bello, though initially hired as a project employee, had in time acquired regular employee status through continuous re-engagement and performance of tasks that were vital to DMCI’s construction business. The CA further ruled that DMCI failed to prove by clear, positive, and convincing evidence that Bello’s resignation was voluntary.Issues:
- Whether Bello, who was originally engaged as a project employee, had eventually acquired the status of a regular employee, owing to the nature, continuity, and necessity of his services in DMCI’s business.
- Whether Bello’s alleged voluntary resignation, evidenced by a handwritten letter, could be accepted as valid or if it was tainted by undue influence, error, or misunderstanding—thus constituting an illegal dismissal.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)