Dacles v. Millenium Erectors Corporation, G.R. No. 209822, July 8, 2015

Dacles v. Millenium Erectors Corporation, G.R. No. 209822, July 8, 2015


Millenium Erectors Corporation is a domestic corporation engaged in the construction business.

Petitioner Dacles was hired by Millenium as a mason in 1998. On June 7, 2010, while he was working on a project in Malakas Street, Quezon City (QC), he was advised by respondent's officer, Mr. Bongon, to move to another project in Robinson's Cubao, QC. However, upon arrival at the site, he was instructed to return to his former job site and, thereafter, was given a run-around for the two (2) succeeding days. When he requested to be given a post or assigned to a new project, he was told by the paymaster not to report for work anymore, prompting him to file a complaint for illegal dismissal.

As a defense, Millenial claimed that Dacles’ employment as project employee was terminated on June 4, 2010 upon the completion of this masonry work assignment in their RCB-Malakas Project. He has been previously hired as a project employee for its NECC Project, which expired on March 3, 2010.

ISSUE: Whether or not Dacles is a project employee.

YES.

for an employee to be considered project-based, the employer must show that: (a) the employee was assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking; and ( b) the duration and scope of which were specified at the time the employee was engaged for such project. Being assigned to a project or a phase thereof which begins and ends at determined or determinable times, the services of project employees may be lawfully terminated at the completion of such project or phase. Consequently, in order to safeguard the rights of workers against the arbitrary use of the word "project" to prevent them from attaining regular status, employers claiming that their workers are project employees should prove that: (a) the duration and scope of the employment was specified at the time they were engaged; and (b) there was indeed a project.

In this case, Milenium was able to prove that Dacles was a project employee:

1. Dacles was adequately informed of his employment status, as shown by his employment contract, stating that (a) he was hired as a project employee; and (b) his employment was for the indicated starting dates therein "and will end on completion/phase of work of project.

2. Millenium submitted “Establishment Employment Reports” to DOLE regarding the permanent termination of Dacles from its projects in accordance with DO 19 (Guidelines Governing the Employment of Workers in the Construction Industry.”

3. There was no proof that he has been repeatedly rehired for 22 years.
·      At any rate, the repeated and successive rehiring of project employees does not, by and of itself, qualify them as regular employees. Case law states that length of service (through rehiring) is not the controlling determinant of the employment tenure, but whether the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, with its completion having been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee.
·      While generally, length of service provides a fair yardstick for determining when an employee initially hired on a temporary basis becomes a permanent one, entitled to the security and benefits of regularization, this standard will not be fair, if applied to the construction industry because construction firms cannot guarantee work and funding for its payrolls beyond the life of each project as they have no control over the decisions and resources of project proponents or owners.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gadia v. Sykes Asia, Inc., G.R. No. 209499, January 28, 2015

Gadia v. Sykes Asia, Inc., G.R. No. 209499, January 28, 2015   Sykes Asia is a corporation engaged in Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) which provides support to its international clients from various sectors (e.g., technology, telecommunications, retail services) by carrying on some of their operations, governed by service contracts that it enters with them. On September 2, 2003, 12  Alltel Communications, Inc. (Alltel), a United States-based telecommunications firm, contracted Sykes Asia’s services to accommodate the needs and demands of Alltel clients for its postpaid and prepaid services (Alltel Project). Thus, on different dates, Sykes Asia hired petitioners as customer service representatives, team leaders, and trainers for the Alltel Project. Sometime in 2009, Alltel informed Sykes that it is terminating its contract with Sykes. As a result, Sykes sent each of the petitioners end-of-life notices informing them of their dismissal from service due to the term...
Read more

Evangelista v. Earnshaw, G.R. No. 36453, September 28, 1932

SEDITIOUS SPEECH Evangelista v. Earnshaw, G.R. No. 36453, September 28, 1932 Evangelista, the President of the Communist Party of the Philippines, applied for a permit to hold a rally, before the Office of Mayor of Manila. This was refused by the Mayor, which prompted Evangelista to file a petition for mandamus before the Court. Instead of being condemned or criticised, the respondent mayor should be praised and commended for having taken a prompt, courageous, and firm stand towards the said Communist Party of the Philippines before the latter could do more damage by its revolutionary propaganda, and by the seditious speeches and utterances of its members. In the case of Gitlow vs. New York (268 U. S., 652), the Supreme Court of the United States said: Such utterances, by their very nature, involve danger to the public peace and to the security of the state. They threaten breaches of the peace and ultimate revolution. And the immediate danger is none...
Read more

Gonzales v. COMELEC, 27 SCRA 835, G.R. No. 27833, April 18, 1969

Gonzales v. COMELEC, 27 SCRA 835, G.R. No. 27833, April 18, 1969 Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 4880 prohibiting the too early nomination of candidates and limiting the period of electoral campaign. CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TEST & DANGEROUS TENDENCY TEST At the very least, free speech and free press may be identified with the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully any matter of public interest without censorship or punishment. There is to be then no previous restraint on the communication of views or subsequent liability whether in libel suits, prosecution for sedition, or action for damages, or contempt proceedings   unless there be a clear and present danger of substantive evil that Congress has a right to prevent. This Court spoke, in Cabansag v. Fernandez ; of two tests that may supply an acceptable criterion for permissible restriction. Thus: "These are the 'clear and present danger' rule and the 'dangero...
Read more