Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 433 views

    Dacles Vs Millenium Erectors

    Uploaded by

    Jessie Albert Catapang
    Dionisio Dacles claimed he was illegally dismissed from his job as a mason for Millenium Erectors Corp. The company argued that Dacles was a project employee whose contract ended when the project was completed. The court agreed with the company, finding that Dacles' employment contracts clearly stated his tenure was tied to specific projects and he was validly terminated when projects ended. The court also noted that repeated rehiring on projects does not make an employee regular or permanent in the construction industry given companies' inability to guarantee work beyond each project's life. The court concluded Dacles was not illegally terminated when his project assignment was completed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Dacles Vs Millenium Erectors

    Uploaded by

    Jessie Albert Catapang
    433 views1 page
    Dionisio Dacles claimed he was illegally dismissed from his job as a mason for Millenium Erectors Corp. The company argued that Dacles was a project employee whose contract ended when the project was completed. The court agreed with the company, finding that Dacles' employment contracts clearly stated his tenure was tied to specific projects and he was validly terminated when projects ended. The court also noted that repeated rehiring on projects does not make an employee regular or permanent in the construction industry given companies' inability to guarantee work beyond each project's life. The court concluded Dacles was not illegally terminated when his project assignment was completed.

    Original Description:

    Labor Law

    Original Title

    Dacles vs Millenium Erectors

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Dionisio Dacles claimed he was illegally dismissed from his job as a mason for Millenium Erectors Corp. The company argued that Dacles was a project employee whose contract ended when the project was completed. The court agreed with the company, finding that Dacles' employment contracts clearly stated his tenure was tied to specific projects and he was validly terminated when projects ended. The court also noted that repeated rehiring on projects does not make an employee regular or permanent in the construction industry given companies' inability to guarantee work beyond each project's life. The court concluded Dacles was not illegally terminated when his project assignment was completed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    433 views1 page

    Dacles Vs Millenium Erectors

    Uploaded by

    Jessie Albert Catapang
    Dionisio Dacles claimed he was illegally dismissed from his job as a mason for Millenium Erectors Corp. The company argued that Dacles was a project employee whose contract ended when the project was completed. The court agreed with the company, finding that Dacles' employment contracts clearly stated his tenure was tied to specific projects and he was validly terminated when projects ended. The court also noted that repeated rehiring on projects does not make an employee regular or permanent in the construction industry given companies' inability to guarantee work beyond each project's life. The court concluded Dacles was not illegally terminated when his project assignment was completed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    DIONISIO DACLES vs MILLENIUM ERECTORS

    GR No. 209822; July 8, 2015

    FACTS: Dionisio Dacles instituted a complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims against Millenium Erectors
    Corp. (MEC) and its owner/manager. He claimed that he was hired by respondents as a mason. While working on a
    project, he was advised to move to another project. However, upon arrival at the new project site, he was instructed
    to return to his former project site and thereafter, was given a run-around for the two 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.

    Respondent MEC interposed the defense that petitioner is a mere project employee whose contract expired upon the
    completion of the masonry work assignment in the residential and commercial building of the first of the two
    projects. They further denied having employed petitioner was hired since 1998 because the corporation was only
    organized and started business operations in 2000. Petitioner applied and was hired as a mason in 2009 and assigned
    to his first project which was completed in 2010. Few months after, petitioner applied anew and was hired as a
    mason for another project.

    ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner was illegally dismissed?

    HELD: No he was not illegally terminated. Records reveal that petitioner was adequately informed of his
    employment status as project employee. It was clearly substantiated by the employment contracts duly signed by the
    petitioner. The said contracts sufficiently apprised petitioner that his security of tenure with MEC would only last as
    long as the specific project or a phase thereof to which he was assigned was subsisting. Hence, when the project or
    phase was completed, he was validly terminated from employment, his engagement being co-terminus only with
    such project or phase. At any rate, the repeated and successive rehiring of project employees does not, by and of
    itself, qualify him 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. Thus, once the project is completed it would be unjust to require the employer to maintain
    these employees in their payroll since this would be tantamount to making the employee a privileged retainer who
    collects payment from his employer for work not done, and amounts to labor coddling at the expense of
    management.

    You might also like