Case Summary (G.R. No. 265553)
Petitioner’s Employment and Allegations
Petitioner alleged he was hired on June 7, 2018 as an in-house project-in-charge, a regular position responsible for overseeing projects at BBTC’s head office. He was first assigned to the SM Fairview Department Store re-layout project, then later to the Jollibee Malolos renovation project. Petitioner recounted a dismissal event occurring in early December 2018 where he was told by Bulao not to return to work and had his salary withheld. Petitioner claimed illegal dismissal and sought payment of unpaid wages, benefits, damages, and attorney’s fees.
Respondents’ Defense and Employment Status
Respondents asserted petitioner was hired under a project-based contract specifically for the SM Fairview project with an estimated six-month term. Upon alleged unsatisfactory performance, petitioner was reassigned to the Jollibee Malolos project. Respondents denied illegal dismissal, claiming petitioner voluntarily absented himself from work and withheld salary was due to unresolved company obligations and failure to return company property. They also maintained that petitioner’s employment ended upon project completion.
Labor Arbiter’s Decision
On August 29, 2019, the Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint but ordered BBTC to pay petitioner unpaid 13th month pay. The LA found petitioner’s employment was project-based per the contract signed on August 22, 2018, noting that project-based employment ends upon project completion. The LA ruled petitioner’s transfer between projects was valid, and no just cause for dismissal was shown.
National Labor Relations Commission Ruling
The NLRC reversed the LA ruling on December 29, 2020. It held that petitioner was a regular employee from the start because he was hired as an “in-house project-in-charge” and was introduced to clients as a regular employee. It emphasized that petitioner’s signing of the project-based contract was dated August 22, 2018, over two months after employment commenced, casting doubt on whether the project-based status was communicated initially. Lacking just cause for dismissal, the NLRC ruled petitioner was illegally dismissed and entitled to full backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, unpaid salaries, holiday pay, 13th month pay, and attorney’s fees.
Court of Appeals Decision
The Court of Appeals (CA), in its decision dated September 20, 2022, granted respondents’ petition for certiorari under Rule 65 and reinstated the LA ruling. The CA agreed that petitioner was a project-based employee as stated in the signed contract and found petitioner failed to prove dismissal. It ruled that petitioner’s employment ended upon project completion, disallowing illegal dismissal claims and monetary awards except for the admitted unpaid 13th month pay.
Issue Before the Supreme Court
The question is whether the CA erred in finding that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion when it reversed the LA and granted petitioner’s illegal dismissal complaint and monetary benefits.
Applicable Law: The 1987 Philippine Constitution and Labor Code Provisions
The 1987 Constitution mandates security of tenure for employees. Article 295 of the Labor Code (formerly Article 280) distinguishes regular employment from project-based employment, stating employment is deemed regular if engaged to perform activities usually necessary or desirable in the employer's business, except where employment is for a fixed project with specified completion from the start.
Relevant jurisprudence (Gadia v. Sykes Asia, Inc.) clarifies that project-based employment requires: (a) assignment to a specific project or undertaking, and (b) that the duration and scope be specified at engagement. Courts protect workers from employer abuse in mischaracterizing employment to deny regular status and security of tenure.
In Carpio v. Modair Manila Co. Ltd., Inc., the Court instructed that:
- An employee is presumed regular unless the employer establishes project-based status under proper terms.
- Security of tenure attaches once regular, and later project contracts cannot circumvent this.
- Continuous rehiring and indispensability of work may convert project-based employment into regular.
- Filing of DOLE termination reports is only an indicator, not determinative, of project employment status.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Employment Status
The Court found petitioner was a regular employee from hiring on June 7, 2018. Respondents failed to prove that petitioner was informed of project-based employment at the start, as petitioner signed the project-based contract only on August 22, 2018––two months after engagement and project commencement. This was undisputed. No evidence showed petitioner was apprised of the contractual status at initial hiring, violating jurisprudence requiring such notice. There was also no DOLE termination report filed, further undermining the claim of project-based employment.
Petitioner’s regular employment status was thus established, and his security of tenure attached on hire date. The subsequent project-based contract signed later could not override this status. This interpretation aligns with protective labor policy and the constitutional right to security of tenure. Respondent’s justifications for dismissal were insufficient under the Labor Code’s just causes.
Illegal Dismissal and Remedies
Because petitioner was a regular employee unlawfully dismissed without just or authorized cause, he is entitled to full backwages and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.
On Monetary Claims and Burden of Proof
Citing Zonio v. 1st Quantum Leap Security Agency, Inc., the Court held that:
- The burden to prove payment of salary, 13th month pa
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 265553)
Background and Procedural History
- Petitioner Leo G. Trimor filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and various unpaid labor benefits against respondents Blokie Builders and Trading Corporation (BBTC) and its President Filamer Amado P. Bulao before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
- Petitioner alleged regular employment beginning June 7, 2018, as an in-house project-in-charge and claimed illegal dismissal, non-payment of salaries, overtime, holiday pay, service incentives, 13th month pay, night shift differential, separation pay, back wages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.
- Respondents contended petitioner was a project-based employee under a contract specifically for the SM Fairview Department Store re-layout project, and later reassigned to the Jollibee Malolos renovation project due to poor performance.
- The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint but granted unpaid 13th month pay.
- The NLRC reversed the LA’s decision, declaring petitioner a regular employee, finding illegal dismissal, and ordering payment of backwages, separation pay, unpaid wages, holiday pay, proportionate 13th month pay, and attorney’s fees.
- The Court of Appeals (CA) reinstated the LA decision, ruling petitioner was a project-based employee and that there was no proof of dismissal, thus denying illegal dismissal and monetary claims except for the admitted 13th month pay.
- Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, contesting the CA ruling.
Issue Before the Court
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC when it reversed the LA dismissal of petitioner’s illegal dismissal complaint and awarded monetary claims.
- Petitioner contended he was a regular employee performing duties necessary to BBTC’s usual business, not informed of project-based status at hiring, reassigned across projects, and that respondents failed to file required Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) termination reports and to give completion bonuses.
- Respondents argued the petition involved factual findings beyond scope of the Court’s review and maintained petitioner’s project-based status consistent with contract terms and industry practice.
Factual Findings
- Petitioner was hired on June 7, 2018, as an in-house project-in-charge with tasks aligned to BBTC’s construction business.
- Respondents presented a project-based contract dated August 22, 2018, assigning petitioner first to the SM Fairview project and later to Jollibee Malolos, both with fixed durations.
- Petitioner did not sign the project-based contract until August 8, 2018—more than two months after initial engagement and project commencement.
- No DOLE termination report was filed at the conclusion of the project.
- Respondents withheld salary allegedly due to petitioner’s failure to return company tools and incomplete turnover obligations.
- Petitioner was allegedly told not to return to work after December 3, 2018, but respondents disputed dismissal, asserting petitioner abandoned work.
Labor Arbiter’s Decision
- The LA ruled petitioner’s employment was project-based, evidenced by the August 22, 2018 contract.
- The transfer to another project to fulfill contractual employment period was valid.
- Employment terminated upon project completion did not constitute illegal dismissal.
- Monetary claims were denied except for unpaid 13th month pay, which respondents