Title
Supreme Court
Bajaro vs. Metro Stonerich Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 227982
Decision Date
Apr 23, 2018
Bajaro, a project employee, claimed illegal dismissal; Court ruled termination valid upon project completion, awarding unpaid benefits and attorney’s fees.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 200903)

Petition Details

Bajaro filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, seeking to overturn the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated July 22, 2016, and Resolution dated October 27, 2016. The CA affirmed the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)'s ruling dismissing his complaint for illegal dismissal.

Background of Employment

Metro Stonerich Corporation is a domestic construction entity operated by Ibrahim M. NuAo. Bajaro was hired on June 4, 2008, and worked in various construction projects until May 10, 2014. His employment was characterized by a daily wage of Php 500 and was contingent on project completion.

Incident Leading to Dismissal

On April 21, 2014, while working at the KCC Mall of Marbel in Koronadal City, Bajaro experienced a leg injury. Following this, he sought medical treatment but was initially rebuffed by Metro Stonerich. He later recovered and returned to work on May 7, 2014, only to be informed that he should no longer report for work and was offered financial compensation instead.

Claims of Illegal Dismissal

Bajaro claimed regular employment status due to his continuous tenure over six years and asserted illegally dismissal when Metro Stonerich stopped his work without just cause. He also sought various monetary benefits arising from his employment.

Respondent's Argument

Metro Stonerich argued that Bajaro was a project employee engaged specifically for various construction projects with defined timelines. They maintained that his repeated rehiring did not grant him regular employee status and that he received all monetary benefits owed to him.

Ruling of the Labor Arbiter (LA)

On June 25, 2014, the LA ruled in favor of Metro Stonerich, declaring Bajaro a project employee based on the explicit terms of employment contracts. However, the LA awarded Bajaro an overtime pay differential and other benefits, while rejecting his claims for holiday pay and damages.

NLRC Decision

On July 30, 2015, the NLRC affirmed the LA's ruling, reinforcing that Bajaro's employment was project-based and validly terminated upon project completion. They found no violations of employment laws in Bajaro's classification.

CA Review

The CA upheld the NLRC's findings, emphasizing that Bajaro was properly classified as a project employee and that his employment status was fully disclosed at the time of hiring. The CA confirmed the monetary awards granted to Bajaro by the LA without finding any grave abuse of discretion.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court dismissed Bajaro's petition, upholding the previous rulings regarding his employment classification. It clarified that the distinctions between regular and project employment are crucial, given the nature of the construction industry, where employment often fluctuates with project availability.

Employment Classification

The Court reiterated the definition of project employees under the Labor Code, which mandates that employees must be explicitly informed of their project-bound status. Bajaro’s documentation supported his classification as a project employee, thereby legitimizing his termination once the project was completed.

Conclusion on Employment Status

The Court concluded that the length of service and repeated rehiring in

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.