G.R. No. 169170 - D.M. Consunji, Inc. vs. Gorres

Respondents (Antonio Gobres, Magellan Dalisay, Godofredo Paragsa, Emilio Aleta, and Generoso Melo) worked as carpenters on various construction projects for petitioner D.M. Consunji, Inc.
Their employment was characterized as "project employment," meaning their work was limited to particular construction projects with defined phases or durations.
Their engagements were governed by employment contracts specifying work for a specific project and were subject to termination upon the completion of the project or phase thereof.

The termination of respondents from each project was reported to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) in compliance with Policy Instruction No. 20, later superseded by Department Order No. 19, series of 1993.
For their last assignment at the Quad 4-Project in Glorietta, Ayala, Makati, respondents began work on September 1, 1998, and on October 14, 1998, saw their names on a posted Notice of Termination.
Petitioner argued that the termination was due to the natural conclusion of their respective phases of work, in line with the guidelines applicable to project employees.

Dissatisfied with their termination, respondents filed a complaint with the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) alleging illegal dismissal and seeking unpaid 13th month pay, five (5) days service incentive leave pay, as well as damages and attorney’s fees.
In their defense, petitioner D.M. Consunji, Inc. (and David M. Consunji) maintained that as project employees, respondents were terminated upon completion of their assigned work phases and that all required procedures (including DOLE reporting) were duly observed.

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the petitioner after finding that respondents were indeed project employees, whose dismissals were valid upon the completion of their works or projects.
The NLRC, in its Resolution dated July 31, 2001, affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter, dismissing the respondents’ appeal.
A subsequent motion for reconsideration by respondents was denied by the NLRC in its Order dated February 21, 2002.

Respondents then petitioned the Court of Appeals, seeking annulment of the NLRC’s Resolution and Order, asking for a declaration of illegal dismissal, reinstatement with full backwages, and awarding of moral, exemplary, and nominal damages.
The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated March 9, 2005, affirmed the validity of the dismissals but modified the ruling by ordering petitioner and David M. Consunji to pay each respondent nominal damages of P20,000.00 for failure to observe the statutory procedural requirement of advance notice.
Petitioner challenged the award of nominal damages by arguing that, under the applicable rules—specifically Section 2 (III), Rule XXIII, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code—no advance notice is required when termination arises from the natural completion of the contract or phase thereof.

The central dispute involved whether respondents, as project employees, were entitled to nominal damages for alleged non-compliance with the procedural due process requirement—namely, the lack of advance notice of their termination.
Petitioner contended that the statutory framework governing project employment exempts employers from the requirement of advance notice when employment ends by the completion of work.

Whether there is a legal basis for awarding nominal damages to respondents on the ground of non-compliance with statutory due process for lack of advance notice of termination.
Whether the requirement of prior or advance notice of termination applies to project employees whose employment naturally ends upon the completion of the contracted project or work phase.
The applicability and relevance of the case of Agabon v. NLRC in distinguishing the procedural requirements for dismissals based on just cause versus termination upon the completion of a project.