Case Digest (G.R. No. L-18494)
Facts:
Millennium Erectors Corporation v. Virgilio Magallanes, G.R. No. 184362, November 15, 2010, Supreme Court Third Division, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court.Respondent Virgilio Magallanes began working in 1988 as a utility man for Laurencito Tiu (CEO) of Millennium Erectors Corporation (petitioner) and for related projects, being assigned to several construction projects in Metro Manila; his last assignment was a building project in Libis, Quezon City. In July 2004 Magallanes was told not to report for work allegedly because of old age, and on August 6, 2004 he filed an illegal dismissal complaint before the Labor Arbiter.
Petitioner answered and in its Position Paper contended that Magallanes was a project employee hired for the Libis project on January 30, 2003; it submitted an employment contract said to be signed by him, a termination report to the Department of Labor and Employment dated August 17, 2004, and a P2,000 cash voucher and a signed quitclaim as proof of final payment. Petitioner also maintained it was incorporated only in February 2000 and that the earlier Kenneth Construction Corporation was a distinct entity, to rebut Magallanes’ claim of employment since 1988.
By Decision of November 25, 2005 the Labor Arbiter (penned by Labor Arbiter Jose G. de Vera) dismissed Magallanes’ complaint, finding that he knew the nature and duration of his employment as a project employee and that his services ended with project completion; the Arbiter observed Magallanes’ failure to provide specific details of his alleged dismissal.
On appeal the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) set aside the Labor Arbiter’s Decision by its February 6, 2007 decision (penned by Commissioner Angelita A. Gacutan, concurring Commissioners Raul T. Aquino and Victoriano R. Calaycay), holding Magallanes to be a regular, not a project, employee because the alleged contract lacked a definite termination date and because payrolls showed employment as early as 2001, supporting continuous service. The NLRC concluded that repeated performance of the same functions converted any casual or project engagement into regular employment and that termination without just or authorized cause amounted to illegal dismissal.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration to the NLRC, which raised procedural defects in Magallanes’ appeal (alleged belated filing, lack of date of receipt, lack of verification and non-service of copies), was denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC by Decision of April 11, 2008 (penned by Asso...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC err in treating respondent’s motion for reconsideration as an appeal despite alleged procedural defects (lack of verification, lack of proof of service, and alleged belated filing)?
- Was respondent a project employee or a regular employee, and if regular, was his termination an illegal dismissal for lack of j...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)