Title
D.M. Consunji, Inc. vs. Jamin
Case
G.R. No. 192514
Decision Date
Apr 18, 2012
Jamin, a 31-year DMCI laborer, was dismissed at 55 after project completion. Courts ruled him a regular employee, not project-based, and declared his dismissal illegal due to lack of notice and just cause. DMCI's appeal was denied as untimely.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 192514)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Employment Relationship
    • Petitioner: D.M. Consunji, Inc. (DMCI), a construction company.
    • Respondent: Estelito L. Jamin, engaged initially as a laborer on December 17, 1968, later functioning as a helper carpenter.
    • Employment characterized by repeated renewals and re-hirings over a span of nearly 31 years.
  • Chronology of Employment and Termination
    • Jamin’s initial hiring in 1968 with subsequent renewals as DMCI needed his services for various construction projects.
    • Transition from a laborer to a helper carpenter occurred sometime in 1975.
    • His employment concluded on March 20, 1999, following the completion of the SM Manila project; DMCI claimed the termination was due to the project’s end and that he was not rehired thereafter.
  • Filing of the Complaint and Allegations
    • On April 5, 1999, Jamin filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and additional money claims (including attorney’s fees) against DMCI and its President/General Manager, David M. Consunji.
    • Allegations included:
      • Termination without just and authorized cause.
      • Lack of valid notice and due process prior to dismissal.
      • Claim that, after nearly 31 years of continuous service, termination was unjust, especially noting his age (55 years old) and the absence of alternative livelihood.
  • Compulsory Arbitration and Subsequent Rulings
    • Labor Arbiter Decision (May 27, 2002):
      • Dismissed Jamin’s complaint on merits, holding that he was a project employee.
      • Emphasized that each re-hiring involved a new contract and that termination followed the completion of the respective project or project phase.
      • Noted that Jamin needed to file an application for re-hire after each termination.
    • NLRC Decision (April 18, 2007):
      • Affirmed the labor arbiter’s finding that Jamin was hired as a project employee.
      • Rejected Jamin’s subsequent motion for reconsideration (May 30, 2007).
  • Court of Appeals (CA) Decision and Findings
    • CA Decision (February 26, 2010):
      • Reversed the compulsory arbitration rulings and declared Jamin to be a regular employee.
      • Based its conclusion on two main factors:
        • The repeated and successive re-hirings by DMCI over nearly three decades.
ii. The nature of Jamin’s work which involved functions necessary or desirable to DMCI’s regular construction business.
  • Held that the project employment contracts, though consistently employed under such terms, did not conclusively define his employment status.
  • Cited the failure of DMCI to submit termination reports to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) for every project termination as an indicator contrary to project employment.
  • CA Reconsideration Motion (June 3, 2010):
    • DMCI’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA.
  • Petition for Review and Arguments Presented
    • DMCI filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, asserting that:
      • The CA misapplied the definition of regular employment by focusing on job functions and the need for services, thereby wrongly converting project employment to regular employment.
      • There was no evidence of a "work pool" as insinuated in the CA ruling.
      • The lapses by DMCI in submitting termination reports to DOLE should not have been rigidly penalized.
      • The dismissal was justified due to the completion of the project, meaning no notice or hearing was warranted.
    • Jamin’s Position in Opposition:
      • Argued that the CA correctly nullified decisions of the labor arbiter and NLRC.
      • Emphasized that continuous and repeated re-hirings essentially rendered him a regular employee.
      • Claimed DMCI’s procedural lapses (e.g., failure to file reports) substantiated his regular employment status and subsequent illegal dismissal.

Issues:

  • Timeliness of DMCI’s Appeal
    • Whether DMCI’s motion for reconsideration, and subsequently its petition for review on certiorari, was filed within the prescribed reglementary period.
    • The factual basis showing that DMCI received the CA decision on March 4, 2010 but filed the motion on March 22, 2010 (a three-day delay).
  • Nature of Employment: Project Employee vs. Regular Employee
    • Whether the repeated and successive re-hirings, spanning almost 31 years, transformed Jamin’s status from that of a project employee to a regular employee.
    • Whether the nature of Jamin’s work, being necessary or desirable to DMCI’s construction business, constitutes a sufficient basis to infer regular employment.
  • Compliance with Procedural Requirements
    • Whether DMCI’s failure to submit termination reports to the DOLE after every project termination correctly indicated or negated the project employment status.
    • Evaluation of the proper application of DOLE policies and termination report requirements in determining employment status.
  • Due Process in the Dismissal
    • Whether Jamin’s dismissal, having occurred without the issuance of a notice before termination, violated the due process requirements for a regular employee.
    • Whether termination for the completion of a project justifies the absence of prior notice and a hearing.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms