Case Digest (G.R. No. 192514)
Facts:
Respondent Estelito L. Jamin was hired by petitioner D.M. Consunji, Inc. (DMCI) as a laborer on December 17, 1968, later becoming a helper carpenter, with employment renewed repeatedly through various DMCI construction projects. His work was terminated on March 20, 1999 upon completion of the SM Manila project, and on April 5, 1999 he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims against DMCI and DMCI’s President/General Manager David M. Consunji.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, and the NLRC affirmed, treating Jamin as a project employee. On February 26, 2010, the Court of Appeals reversed, held Jamin to be a regular employee, and ordered reinstatement with backwages, without loss of seniority and benefits; DMCI’s motion for reconsideration was denied on June 3, 2010, prompting DMCI’s Rule 45 petition.
Issues:
- Whether DMCI’s appeal to the Supreme Court should be dismissed for being filed out of time.
- Whether the CA erred in declaring Jamin a regular employee and finding his dismissal illegal and without due process.
- Whether DMCI’s alleged lapses in submitting termination reports to the DOLE should affect Jamin’s employment status.
- Whether David M. Consunji should be held liable for Jamin’s dismissal.
Ruling:
The Court dismissed the petition insofar as it was procedurally barred: DMCI’s motion for reconsideration of the CA decision was filed three days late, making the CA decision final and executory, and thus the Rule 45 petition was likewise filed out of time. The Court also denied the petition for lack of merit, affirming the CA.
On the merits, the Court upheld the CA’s conclusion that Jamin became a regular employee due to his repeated and successive re-hiring over almost thirty-one years and the fact that the tasks he performed as a carpenter were necessary or desirable to DMCI’s usual business. With the finding of regular employment, the Court held the dispute on DMCI’s DOLE termination-report compliance to be academic, and it absolved David M. Consunji of personal liability because the CA made no express finding of his involvement.
Ratio:
DMCI’s procedural default was decisive. The Court found that DMCI received the CA decision on March 4, 2010, that the filing deadline for the motion for reconsideration was March 19, 2010, yet DMCI filed it on March 22, 2010, so the CA ruling became final; the Court refused to relax the rules where no reversible error or grave abuse of discretion was shown.
Substantively, the Court sustained the CA. It found a long, practically continuous pattern of re-engagement through numerous projects and applied Liganza v. RBL Shipyard Corporation, concluding that the repeated re-hiring and continuing need for Jamin’s services made him a regular employee, notwithstanding DMCI’s project-labeling and contract papers. It also applied the reasoning in Maraguinot, Jr. v. NLRC that once a project or work pool employee is continuously re-hired by the same employer for the same vital tasks, regular employment results, and it stressed that the length of service is not the sole test but remains relevant to determine whether employment is fixed to a specific project.
Finally, after finding Jamin regular, the Court treated the DOLE termination-report issue as moot, and it absolved David M. Consunji for lack of any express factual finding of his participation in the dismissal.
Doctrine:
- A motion for reconsideration filed beyond the reglementary period makes the CA decision final and executory, rendering the subsequent petition similarly late.
- (Get Pro to unlock 4 more doctrines)