Case Summary (G.R. No. 169170)
Factual Background
The respondents were employed as carpenters by D.M. Consunji, Inc. on various construction projects. Their last assignment began on September 1, 1998, in a project located at Glorietta, Ayala, Makati. On October 14, 1998, they found their names on the Notice of Termination posted on the project premises. Following their termination, the respondents filed a complaint against the petitioner for illegal dismissal, arguing non-payment of 13th-month pay, service leave pay, and damages.
Legal Assertions by Petitioner
The petitioner argued that the respondents were project employees whose terms of employment were governed by Policy Instruction No. 20, later replaced by Department Order No. 19, series of 1993. They maintained that respondents' dismissals were legitimate, claiming they were terminated upon the completion of their work phases, with proper notifications made to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).
Respondents' Claims
The respondents countered that the estimated duration of their project was two years, and their terminations occurred prematurely, without prior notice. They asserted that they were not afforded proper procedural due process despite their classification as project employees.
Initial Rulings
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the petitioner, confirming that respondents were project employees and their terminations were valid as they coincided with the completion of their assigned work phases. The NLRC upheld this decision, leading respondents to appeal to the Court of Appeals.
Court of Appeals' Decision
The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC's ruling regarding the validity of the respondents' dismissals but modified the decision to award nominal damages of P20,000 each for lack of due process concerning notices of termination. The court emphasized that despite the legality of the dismissals, the respondents were entitled to be informed of their termination.
Petition for Review
D.M. Consunji, Inc. contested the Court of Appeals' decision, particularly the award for nominal damages, arguing that the due process requirements cited by the appellate court were not applicable, given the completion of work project. The petitioner referred to the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, asserting that no advance notice was needed for project employees upon completion of their assignments.
Supreme Court's Analysis
The Supreme Court recognized that while the respondents were classified legally as project employees with terminations stemming from complete work pha
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 169170)
Case Background
- This case is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 70708, which was dated March 9, 2005, and its subsequent Resolution dated August 2, 2005, that denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
- The petition was filed by D.M. Consunji, Inc. against respondents Antonio Gobres, Magellan Dalisay, Godofredo Paragsa, Emilio Aleta, and Generoso Melo, all of whom were employed as carpenters in various construction projects undertaken by the petitioner.
Employment and Termination Details
- The respondents were employed as project employees under the guidelines set by Policy Instruction No. 20, later superseded by Department Order No. 19, series of 1993.
- Their last assignment was at Quad 4-Project in Glorietta, Ayala, Makati, which commenced on September 1, 1998.
- On October 14, 1998, the respondents found their names on a Notice of Termination on the project’s bulletin board, which led them to file a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of benefits.
Legal Proceedings
- The respondents alleged illegal dismissal and sought remedies for non-payment of 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, damages, and attorney’s fees.
- The petitioner argued that the respondents were validly terminated upon completion of their respective phases of work, and their services were reported to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) as required.
- The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the petitioner, affirming that the respondents were proj