Case Summary (G.R. No. 192514)
Antecedent Facts
Jamin was hired by DMCI on December 17, 1968. Over the years, he transitioned from a laborer to a helper carpenter and his employment was renewed multiple times until his termination on March 20, 1999, due to the completion of the SM Manila project. On April 5, 1999, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against DMCI and its President, David M. Consunji, alleging his termination lacked a valid cause and due process.
Employment Status and Claims
Jamin claimed he had been continuously employed with DMCI for almost 31 years, during which he worked on several projects. DMCI countered that Jamin was a project employee, hired on a project-to-project basis, and that his employment was terminated upon completion of the SM Manila project. Moreover, DMCI asserted that they submitted termination reports to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) after each termination.
Compulsory Arbitration Rulings
The Labor Arbiter ruled on May 27, 2002, dismissing Jamin's complaint for lack of merit, affirming DMCI's stance that Jamin was a project employee. This decision was upheld by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on April 18, 2007, which dismissed Jamin's appeal. Following these decisions, Jamin sought legal redress from the Court of Appeals (CA).
The Court of Appeals' Decision
On February 26, 2010, the CA reversed previous rulings, declaring Jamin a regular employee. The CA based its decision on Jamin's repeated rehiring and the nature of his work, which was deemed essential to DMCI's construction business. It also noted that DMCI had failed to meet certain reporting requirements to DOLE, indicating that Jamin was not merely a project employee. Consequently, the CA determined Jamin's dismissal was illegal and ordered his reinstatement with back wages.
Petition for Review by DMCI
DMCI filed a petition for review arguing that the CA misapplied the law concerning regular employment, emphasized a lack of evidence for a work pool, misinterpreted reporting rules, and claimed that Jamin was dismissed without cause, not requiring due process due to project completion. DMCI maintained that the labor arbiter and NLRC findings should be upheld absent a grave abuse of discretion.
Jamin's Response to the Petition
In his Comment to the petition, Jamin requested dismissal of DMCI’s appeal, arguing it was filed late and lacking merit. He emphasized that the filing of the motion for reconsideration was beyond the reglementary period, rendering the CA's decision final and executory.
Procedural Issue: Timeliness of DMCI’s Appeal
The Court found that DMCI’s appeal was indeed filed late. Jamin had accurately noted that DMCI received the CA decision on March 4, 2010, and failed to file their motion for reconsideration within the prescribed 15-day period, which lapsed on March 19, 2010. Consequently, this made the CA decision final and executory.
Court's Ruling on Employment Status
The Court ultimately agreed with the CA that Jamin was a regular employee. Citing the continuous, repeated, and necessary nature of Jamin's work over 31 years, the Court determined that he should not be classified merely as a project employee. Established jurisprudence supported the view that consistent rehiring for essential tasks suffices for regular employment.
Termin
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 192514)
Background of the Case
- The case revolves around an appeal from the decision dated February 26, 2010, and the resolution dated June 3, 2010, of the Court of Appeals (CA).
- The petitioners are D.M. Consunji, Inc. (DMCI) and its President/General Manager, David M. Consunji, while the respondent is Estelito L. Jamin.
- Jamin was hired by DMCI on December 17, 1968, initially as a laborer and later as a helper carpenter.
Employment History
- Jamin's employment contract was renewed multiple times throughout his tenure.
- His employment was terminated on March 20, 1999, following the completion of the SM Manila project.
- On April 5, 1999, Jamin filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against DMCI, claiming unjust termination without valid cause.
Claims of Estelito L. Jamin
- Jamin alleged he was dismissed at the age of 55, lacking alternative sources of livelihood.
- He contended that he had worked continuously for nearly 31 years and provided a schedule of projects he was involved in, asserting that he was a regular employee.
Defense of D.M. Consunji, Inc.
- DMCI denied liability, arguing that Jamin was a project employee whose employment ended with the completion of the SM Manila project.
- The company claimed it submitted termination reports to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) whenever Jamin's services were terminated.
Labor Arbiter's Ruling
- On May 27, 2002