Case Digest (G.R. No. 255602)
Facts:
Joy M. Villarico was employed by D.M. Consunji, Inc. (DMCI) as a laborer starting November 8, 2007, and was assigned to various projects, the last being a crane operator role at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) Expressway Project in 2016. He was suspended for four days in March 2016 for violating company policies and was subsequently considered absent without leave for those days after refusing to sign a notice of explanation. Villarico sought assistance from the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), resulting in conciliation talks. DMCI placed him on floating status and required him to take a medical examination, which he failed due to a positive drug test. Despite undergoing confirmatory testing, Villarico was not informed of the results, prompting him to file a complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary benefits. DMCI argued Villarico was a project employee whose contract ended with the project and that he was unfit for reemployment due to the positive drCase Digest (G.R. No. 255602)
Facts:
- Employment Background of Joy M. Villarico
- Villarico was hired by D.M. Consunji, Inc. (DMCI) as a laborer on November 8, 2007.
- Over the years, he was assigned to different projects, last serving as a crane operator at the NAIA Expressway Project starting March 2016.
- Incident Leading to Suspension and Termination
- On March 30, 2016, Villarico was suspended for four days for violating company policy.
- Upon return, he was asked by site administrator Miguelito Chua to sign a document akin to a notice of explanation; he refused.
- He was informed by Chua that he would be considered absent without leave for the suspension period, and termination papers would be sent.
- Villarico sought assistance from the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), resulting in conciliation conferences.
- DMCI placed him on floating status for two months and required a medical examination.
- Drug Testing and Termination
- Villarico failed the drug test for prohibited substances and was told to undergo a confirmatory test.
- Despite multiple returns for testing, he was never informed of results.
- He filed a complaint against DMCI for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of benefits.
- DMCI’s Counterclaims and Actions
- DMCI stated Villarico was a project employee whose contract expired with the NAIA project.
- Upon project termination, notice of termination was issued, and an Employees’ Termination Report filed with the DOLE.
- DMCI claimed Villarico tested positive for drugs in a subsequent pre-employment medical exam, justifying dismissal per company policy prohibiting controlled substances.
- Proceedings and Decisions in Labor Bodies
- Labor Arbiter found Villarico a project employee with no illegal dismissal, citing contract expiration and valid refusal to rehire due to drug test failure.
- Claims for service incentive leave and 13th month pay were dismissed for lack of proof.
- NLRC affirmed the Arbiter’s decision, agreeing that dismissal was not illegal and denying monetary claims.
- Villarico’s motions for reconsideration were denied.
- Court of Appeals Decision
- The CA dismissed Villarico’s petition, affirming the NLRC ruling.
- Supreme Court Proceedings and Decision
- Villarico filed a Petition for Review, claiming regular employment through continuous service and illegal dismissal without notice or hearing.
- The Supreme Court held:
- Villarico was a regular employee given continuous service of nine years with minimal gaps.
- His dismissal on project completion grounds was improper.
- The dismissal was valid for just cause due to a positive drug test.
- Due process was violated as the twin-notice rule was not observed.
- Villarico entitled to nominal damages (PHP 30,000) for lack of due process.
- DMCI failed to adequately prove payment of 13th month and service incentive leave pay.
- Villarico was awarded payment of these benefits from 2007 to 2016.
- Attorney’s fees were awarded, but no moral or exemplary damages for lack of bad faith evidence.
- Motions for Partial Reconsideration
- Villarico reiterated illegal dismissal and lack of notice.
- DMCI contested payment awards, citing deemed admission for not objecting to bank advisories and prescriptive periods under Article 291 (now 306) of the Labor Code.
- DMCI argued validity of dismissal despite procedural defects.
- Final Resolution
- The Supreme Court denied Villarico’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration.
- Partly granted DMCI’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration, modifying the award:
- 13th month pay limited to claims for 3 years prior to complaint filing (2014-2016).
- Service incentive leave pay awarded for the entire employment period (2007-2016).
- Affirmed award of nominal damages and attorney’s fees.
Issues:
- Whether Joy M. Villarico was a regular or project employee.
- Whether his dismissal was legal, considering the cause and observance of due process.
- Whether Villarico is entitled to backwages and separation pay given the dismissal's circumstances.
- Whether DMCI properly paid Villarico’s 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay.
- Whether the claims for monetary benefits prescribed under Article 291/306 of the Labor Code.
- Whether Villarico is entitled to moral, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)