Inocentes Vs RCSI

Salvador Awa INOCENTES, Jr., Agapito Awa Inocentes, King Marvin Inocentes And Dennis C.
Catangui
VS. R. Syjuco Construction, Inc. (RSCI) And Arch. Ryan I. Syjuco
G.R. No. 240549, August 27, 2020
Principle: Project employees vs regular employees
FACTS:
RSCI is a construction company engaged in short-term projects such as renovation or construction of
bank branches, stores in malls and similar projects with short duration. For its projects, RSCI hired
construction workers like masons, carpenters, whose contracts of engagement were indicated to be co-
terminous with the projects to which they were assigned.
Sometime in February and May 2016, the RSCI's foreman twice directed petitioners to report for work
for another short-term project, but the latter failed to do so.
Petitioners sued for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, overtime pay, and non-payment of 13th
month pay, holiday pay, holiday premium, rest day premium, service incentive leave and night shift
differential. They also demanded for moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.
RSCI denied that petitioners were illegally dismissed, as they were project employees. It also denied
petitioners' entitlement to holiday pay since they did not work during holidays. Too, they were not
entitled to nightshift differential as their work did not go beyond 12 midnight. As to non-receipt of 13th
month pay, their signed quitclaims were proof of receipt of such benefit.
LA: ruled that petitioners were project employees. Since they were not receiving any salary during their
temporary break, they were free to find employment elsewhere
NLRC: ruled that petitioners were regular employees. Their coterminous status ceased when they were
repeatedly hired for more than 5 years as carpenters and masons since their services were necessary
and desirable to RSCIs construction business.
Notably, RSCI itself failed to submit the reportorial requirement under DOLE Department Order No. 19,
series of 1993 every time petitioners' assigned projects got terminated. And because they were regular
employees, their dismissal due to contract expiration was invalid, the same not being a just or
authorized cause for termination under Art. 279 of the Labor Code.
ISSUE: Are petitioners project-based employees?
RULING: No
RSCI's construction workers were regular employees as the services they rendered were necessary and
desirable to RSCI's construction business.
Project employee is assigned to a project that starts and ends at a determined or determinable time. It
is primordial to determine whether notice was given them that they were being engaged just for a
specific project, which notice must be made at the time of hiring. However, no such prior notice was
given by respondents.
The summary of projects assignment only listed the projects after petitioners were assigned to them
but it did not reflect that petitioners were informed at the time of engagement that their work was only
for the duration of a project. Notably, it was only in their Rejoinder (filed with the LA) that respondents
stated that at the time of their engagement, petitioners were briefed as to the nature of their work but
respondents did not fully substantiate this claim.
Moreover, the summary of project assignments even worked against respondents as it established the
necessity and desirability of petitioners' tasks on the usual business of respondents. It is worth noting
that respondents themselves admitted to such essentiality of the work because in their Reply (also
submitted with the LA), respondents confirmed that days or a few months after a repair or renovation
project, they would inform petitioners that they would be called upon when a new project
commences. This matter only shows that petitioners' work for respondents did not end by the
supposed completion of a project because respondents coordinated with and notified them that their
services would still be necessary for respondents.
Also, the fact that respondents did not submit a report with the DOLE (anent the termination of
petitioners' employment due to alleged project completion) further bolsters that petitioners were not
project employees. In Freyssinet Filipinas Corp. vs. Lapuz, the Court explained that the failure on the
part of the employer to file with the DOLE a termination report every time a project or its phase is
completed is an indication that the workers are not project employees but regular ones.
Thus, they were regular employees, not project employees. For sure, mere termination or completion
of each project for which they were engaged is not a valid or just cause for termination of
employment under Art. 279 of the Labor Code. This is in addition to the fact that there was no showing
that petitioners were given notice of their termination, an evident violation of their right to due process.
The Court sustains the award of backwages and separation pay to the illegally terminated employees
which shall be computed from the date of their illegal dismissal until finality of this Decision.
As for the award often percent (10%) attorney's fees, the same is justified under Article 2208(7) of the
Civil Code which allows it in actions involving wages of household helpers, laborers, and skilled workers.
The legal rate of six percent (6%) per annum is imposed on the total money award to be reckoned from
finality of this Decision until fully paid.

Inocentes Vs RCSI

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Inocentes Vs RCSI

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Inocentes Vs RCSI

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Salvador Awa INOCENTES, Jr., Agapito Awa Inocentes, King Marvin Inocentes And Dennis C.

Principle: Project employees vs regular employees

ISSUE: Are petitioners project-based employees?

You might also like