G.R. No. 265553 - Leo G. Trimor vs. Blokie Builders and Trading Corporation and Filamer Amado P. Bulao

Case Summary (G.R. No. 265553)

Key Dates

Hiring/Engagement: June 7, 2018 (petitioner began work).
Contract notation: Employment contract bears petitioner’s signature with a notation “8‑22‑18” (indicating signing on or about August 8/22, 2018).
Alleged dismissal/withholding of pay events: early morning December 3, 2018 (phone instruction not to return); December 10, 2018 (salary withheld).
Labor Arbiter decision: August 29, 2019.
NLRC decision: December 29, 2020; NLRC resolution modifying award: November 22, 2021.
Court of Appeals decision: September 20, 2022; CA resolution denying reconsideration: January 31, 2023.
Supreme Court decision: October 4, 2023. Applicable constitution: 1987 Philippine Constitution.

Procedural Posture

Petitioner filed before the NLRC claims for illegal dismissal and multiple monetary benefits (unpaid wages, overtime, holiday and rest day premiums, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, night shift differential, separation pay, backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees). The Labor Arbiter dismissed the illegal dismissal claim but awarded 13th month pay. The NLRC reversed, declaring petitioner a regular employee illegally dismissed and awarding backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, certain unpaid wages and holiday pay, proportionate 13th month pay, and attorney’s fees. The CA reinstated the Labor Arbiter and denied illegal dismissal, prompting the Supreme Court review by petition for certiorari under Rule 45.

Core Factual Dispute

Petitioner’s position: hired as an in‑house, regular project‑in‑charge, introduced as such to clients, not informed at hiring that his employment was project‑based, and thus was illegally dismissed without just cause. Respondents’ position: petitioner was hired under a project‑based contract for the SM Fairview project, later reassigned to Jollibee Malolos to maintain continuity of a six‑month contractual period; termination followed petitioner’s abandonment/nonresponse and unresolved obligations, and BBTC withheld pay pending return of company property and accounting.

Legal Framework — Nature of Employment (Article 295, Labor Code)

Article 295 (formerly Article 280) distinguishes regular from project‑based employment: employment is deemed regular when the employee performs activities usually necessary or desirable in the employer’s business, except where employment is fixed for a specific project or undertaking whose completion or termination was determined at engagement. Jurisprudence requires that employers asserting project‑based status prove (1) assignment to a specific project or undertaking, and (2) that the duration and scope were specified at the time of engagement.

Jurisprudential Standards Applied

Gadia v. Sykes Asia, Inc.: the principal test for project‑based status is whether the employee was assigned to a specific project and whether duration and scope were specified at engagement; employers must show both the existence of a project and that the terms were specified at hiring.
Carpio v. Modair Manila Co., Ltd., Inc.: additional guidelines for construction workers — worker is presumed regular unless employer proves (a) contract specifying a specific undertaking determinable at engagement, (b) there was indeed a project, and (c) bargaining occurred on equal terms; a subsequent project contract cannot undermine existing regular status; continuous rehiring and performance of tasks indispensable to employer’s business can ripen project engagement into regular status; filing (or not filing) DOLE termination reports is only an indicator, not dispositive.
DOLE Department Order No. 19 (1993): guidelines for employment in the construction industry; submission of a DOLE termination report is an indicator of project employment but non‑submission does not automatically confer regular status.
Zonio/1st Quantum: burden of proof for monetary claims shifts; employer must prove payment for claims like salary differentials, service incentive leave, holiday pay, and 13th month pay; employee must prove overtime, night shift, and rest‑day work before entitlement to those premiums.

Supreme Court’s Review Standard and Scope

The Supreme Court recognizes deference to factual findings below in Rule 45 petitions, but it may review facts where there is conflict among the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and Court of Appeals. Certiorari lies only where there is grave abuse of discretion — a capricious, whimsical exercise of judgment tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court found the CA erred in declaring grave abuse by the NLRC because the NLRC’s conclusions were supported by substantial evidence.

Application of Law to Facts — Employment Status

The Court upheld the NLRC’s conclusion that petitioner was a regular employee from the outset. Key factual bases: petitioner began work on June 7, 2018 but the project‑based contract carries a notation “8‑22‑18” reflecting signing more than two months after project commencement; respondents did not controvert this fact. The late signing indicates petitioner was not informed of project‑based status at hiring and thus security of tenure attached on engagement. The absence of a DOLE termination report when the project purportedly ended on December 5, 2018 further weighs against project status. Under Modair and Sykes Asia, an employer cannot retroactively convert a regular engagement into a project employment by obtaining a later signature; doing so would undermine security of tenure.

Application of Law to Facts — Illegal Dismissal and Remedies

Because petitioner was a regular employee, he could only be dismissed for just or authorized causes under the Labor Code. Respondents did not present just causes for dismissal; their primary justification was project completion. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the NLRC finding of illegal dismissal. Remedies awarded or sustained by the Court: full backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement (computed from date of dismissal until finality of decision), unpaid wages for specified periods, holiday pay for June 12 and June 15, 2018, proportionate 13th month pay for 2018, and attorney’s fees. The Court limited certain claims: petitioner failed to prove entitlement to overtime pay, night shift differential, and rest‑day premium, so those were not awarded.

Burden of Proof on Monetary Claims

Applying the shifting burdens: respondents failed to prove payment of wages for the periods June 7–July 6, 2018 and November 26–December 2, 2018, and failed to show payment for the specified ho

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 265553)

Procedural History

Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 was filed from the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated September 20, 2022 and CA Resolution dated January 31, 2023 in CA-G.R. SP No. 171772.
The CA had reversed and set aside the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Decision dated December 29, 2020 and Resolution dated November 22, 2021 in NLRC LAC No. 11-004053-19.
The NLRC had, in turn, reversed the Labor Arbiter’s (LA) Decision dated August 29, 2019 in NLRC NCR Case No. 01-00051-19, which had dismissed petitioner’s complaint for illegal dismissal and ordered only payment of 13th month pay.
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the CA Decision and Resolution, and reinstated the NLRC Decision and Resolution with modifications in a Decision rendered October 4, 2023 (G.R. No. 265553).

Core Facts

Petitioner Leo G. Trimor alleged he was hired by Blokie Builders and Trading Corporation (BBTC) on June 7, 2018 as an in-house project-in-charge, a regular position, introduced to clients and working at BBTC’s head office.
Petitioner was assigned to the SM Fairview Department Store re-layout project (assignment noted as beginning July 25, 2018) and later to the Jollibee Malolos renovation project (September 2018).
On the morning of December 3, 2018 petitioner received a call from respondent Filamer Amado P. Bulao instructing him to return to the work site; petitioner asked to rest and was allegedly told “Wag ka nang bumalik.”
On December 10, 2018 petitioner went to BBTC’s office to collect his salary; Bulao allegedly withheld it and said, “Wala ka nang babalikan na trabaho. Baka nga ikaw pa ang may utang samin,” and indicated petitioner would be informed on December 20, 2018 after accounting for responsibilities.
Respondents contended petitioner was employed under a “PROJECT BASE[D] CONTRACT” for the SM Fairview project from June 7, 2018 until completion (estimated six months), that his work was found unsatisfactory in August 2018 causing a client request for replacement, and that petitioner was reassigned to Jollibee Malolos on September 1, 2018 to fulfill the contractual period.
Respondents alleged petitioner informed Bulao on December 3, 2018 that he would not report the next day; Bulao permitted it but reminded petitioner of turnover on December 5, 2018; petitioner allegedly failed to appear on December 5 and ignored contact attempts, appearing only on December 10 to demand last pay; respondents withheld payment due to unresolved obligations and return of company tools, and were surprised petitioner filed the labor case.

Labor Arbiter (LA) Decision (August 29, 2019)

The LA dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal.
The LA found petitioner’s employment project-based based on an employment contract signed by petitioner dated “8-22-18,” concluding petitioner knew his engagement was limited to the S.M. Fairview re-layout project with a targeted six-month period.
The LA deemed petitioner’s transfer to Jollibee Malolos valid (client request and to honor original contract period).
The LA reasoned that BBTC’s practice in construction is to hire project employees for specific projects or phases whose employment terminates upon project completion; thus, no illegal dismissal occurred.
The LA found no grounds for petitioner’s other monetary claims and damages, but, as respondents admitted nonpayment, ordered payment of 13th month pay in the amount of PHP 6,312.00.

NLRC Decision (December 29, 2020) and Resolution (November 22, 2021)

The NLRC reversed the LA and concluded:
- Petitioner was a regular employee of BBTC from the start.
- Petitioner was illegally dismissed and entitled to full backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.
- BBTC was liable to pay unpaid wages for June 7, 2018 to July 6, 2018 and November 26, 2018 to December 2, 2018; holiday pay for June 12, 2018 and June 15, 2018; proportionate 13th month pay for 2018; and attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the total judgment award to be paid to the Public Attorney’s Office.
The NLRC observed doubt whether petitioner was informed of project-based status at the time he began working, noting that respondents did not dispute petitioner’s claim he was hired as an “in-house project-in-charge” and introduced as such to clients.
The NLRC emphasized the notation “8-22-18” beside petitioner’s signature on the contract, indicating he signed on August 8, 2018—two months after the SM Fairview project commencement—undermining respondents’ claim he was notified of project-based status at engagement.
On reconsideration, the NLRC in its November 22, 2021 Resolution modified its Decision by removing an allowance component from the computation of backwages and adjusting attorney’s fees, while affirming the rest.

Court of Appeals (CA) Decision (September 20, 2022) and Resolution (January 31, 2023)

The CA granted respondents’ petition for certiorari under Rule 65 and reinstated the LA Decision.
The CA agreed petitioner was a project-based employee as stated in the contract he had signed, which explicitly specified employment for the SM Fairview re-layout project beginning on the indicated start date and ending upon project completion.
The CA found petitioner was adequately informed of his project-based status at engagement.
Regarding the illegal dismissal claim, the CA held petitioner failed to prove the fact of dismissal; without proof of dismissal, the legality of dismissal could not be an issue, and the illegal dismissal claim was denied.
The CA upheld the LA’s findings denying petitioner’s monetary claims for unpaid salaries, overtime, holiday pay, rest day premium, service incentive leave pay, and night shift differential for lack of proof of withholding; it nonetheless upheld the award of 13th month pay because respondents admitted nonpayment.
The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in the January 31, 2023 Resolution.

Issue Before the Supreme Court

Whether the CA erred in concluding the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it reversed the LA’s dismissal of the complaint for illegal dismissal and other monetary claims.
Petitioner’s distilled contentions:
- He is a regular employee because his duties are necessary to BBTC’s usual construction business; he was not informed of project-based status during engagement; he was not assigned to a specific project
...continue reading