September 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > September 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 185067 : September 27, 2010] MANN BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS, INC./ANTONIO C. SABATER, AS PRESIDENT V. ROGELIO P. FRANCISCO, RUSTICO B. PERIABRAS, NESTOR G. GOBIS, IAN E. BENOLARIA, JOHNNY S. FERRER, JOEL O. TUPIG, REYNALDO M. LUYANG, MARIO M. SAYNO, JERRY L. BANGGAWAN, ROLANDO T. ABEJERO, ORLANDO BACHILLER, CONRADO VILLALUZ, ORLANDO BRUAN, ROMEO DUMAWAL AND REYNALDO DALINA:
[G.R. No. 185067 : September 27, 2010]
MANN BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS, INC./ANTONIO C. SABATER, AS PRESIDENT V. ROGELIO P. FRANCISCO, RUSTICO B. PERIABRAS, NESTOR G. GOBIS, IAN E. BENOLARIA, JOHNNY S. FERRER, JOEL O. TUPIG, REYNALDO M. LUYANG, MARIO M. SAYNO, JERRY L. BANGGAWAN, ROLANDO T. ABEJERO, ORLANDO BACHILLER, CONRADO VILLALUZ, ORLANDO BRUAN, ROMEO DUMAWAL AND REYNALDO DALINA
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 27 September 2010 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 185067 (Mann Builders & Developers, Inc./Antonio C. Sabater, as President v. Rogelio P. Francisco, Rustico B. Periabras, Nestor G. Gobis, Ian E. Benolaria, Johnny S. Ferrer, Joel O. Tupig, Reynaldo M. Luyang, Mario M. Sayno, Jerry L. Banggawan, Rolando T. Abejero, Orlando Bachiller, Conrado Villaluz, Orlando Bruan, Romeo Dumawal and Reynaldo Dalina).
Petitioner Mann Builders & Developers, Inc. (Mann Builders) is a construction company engaged mostly in projects of the Pasig City government. It hired Rogelio P. Francisco, Rustico B. Periabras, Nestor G. Gobis, Ian E. Benolaria, Johnny S. Ferrer, Joel O. Tupig, Reynaldo M. Luyang, Mario M. Sayno. Jerry L. Banggawan, Rolando T. Abejero, Orlando Bachiller, Conrado Villaluz, Orlando Bruan, Romeo Dumawal and Reynaldo Dalina (the workers) in varying capacities: driver, carpenter, laborer, pay loader operator and mason.
In 2005, Mann Builders dismissed the workers. Thus, they filed individual complaints[1] against Mann Builders for illegal dismissal before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
Mann Builders asserted that the workers were project employees whose employment ceased upon termination of the project for which they were hired. On the other hand, the workers said that although they were hired for specific projects, they have been continuously and repeatedly re-hired to do the same kind of work that was necessary and desirable to Mann Builders' business making them regular employees.
On March 31, 2006 the Labor Arbiter rendered judgment finding the workers illegally dismissed.[2] It held that Mann Builders merely denied hiring them continuously and failed to prove that it validly terminated the workers for not presenting the workers' employment contracts as well as termination reports required to be submitted to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). Hence, the workers were ordered reinstated, except for Villaluz and Bachiller, and paid their backwages, difference in underpayment, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay and 13Ih month pay to be computed three years backwards, for a total of Pl,276,938.89.[3]
Mann Builders appealed the decision to the NLRC and moved for the reduction of the appeal bond as well as to admit cash bond in the amount of P100,000.00. On September 27, 2006 the NLRC denied Mann Builders' motion and dismissed the appeal[4] since the cash bond posted was way below the monetary award and for failure to submit a certificate of non-forum shopping.
Mann Builders moved for reconsideration and filed a surety bond equivalent to the amount of the monetary award. The NLRC, however, also denied reconsideration because Mann Builders failed to submit certain documents[5] together with the surety bond. Besides, Mann Builders' appeal lacked merit.[6]
Consequently, Mann Builders filed a petition for certiorari[7] before the Court of Appeals (CA). On December 10, 2007 the CA rendered judgment[8] affirming the NLRC. The appellate court held that Mann Builders failed to substantially comply with the rules on the posting of bond and affirmed that the workers were regular employees who can only be removed for cause. Mann Builders filed a motion for reconsideration of the CA decision but the same was denied.[9] It thus filed this petition for review under Rule 45.
The petition lacks merit.
FIRST. The NLRC and the CA did not dismiss its appeal on purely technical grounds. Aside from citing the insufficiency of the appeal bond, the NLRC and CA also concluded that Mann Builders failed to prove that the workers were in fact project employees. The NLRC and CA ruled on the substantive arguments and evidence presented by Mann Builders.
SECOND. We find no reason to deviate from the appellate court's factual conclusion that the workers are regular employees.
In the construction industry, a worker may either be a project or non-project employee, depending on the circumstances of his employment. Among the factors that may be considered are: (a) the determinable duration of the worker's specific undertaking; (b) the fact that the duration and specific work to be done was defined in an employment contract and made known to the worker at the time of hiring; (c) the connection of the work to be performed to the specific project for which the worker was hired; (d) the worker's freedom to offer his services to other employers; (e) the submission of a report to the DOLE on the termination of the worker's services upon completion of the project; and (f) an undertaking to pay completion bonus to a project employee as practiced in most construction companies.[10]
Here, the workers, at the time of hiring, were not informed of the specific duration and nature of their work. Mann Builders did not present any employment contract fixing the time frame and the nature of the workers' employment. Neither did it submit to the DOLE the required report on the termination of the workers' services upon completion of every project.[11]
Moreover, Mann Builders did not deny that the workers were repeatedly hired to perform work that wyas necessary and usual to its business. In fact, the workers were hired for numerous projects with minimal gaps in between.[12] When a project employee is continuously re-hired by the same employer for the same tasks that are vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business of the employer, the employee is deemed a regular employee.[13]
Mann Builders allege that the workers were free to offer their services to other contractors at the end of each project, a privilege of a project employee.[14] This, however, is not an absolute rule. The workers still form part of a work pool from which a construction company regularly taps its workers, much like regular seasonal employees. In a work pool, the workers do not receive salaries and are free to seek other employment during temporary breaks in business. This arrangement is beneficial to both employer and employee as it prevents the "coddling labor at the expense of capital" and enables workers to attain the status of regular employees.[15]
Based on the totality of the circumstances, the workers' employment could not have been validly terminated due to completion of a project. This is not among the legal causes for dismissing regular employees. They are thus entitled to reinstatement with full backwages and other monetary benefits.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is therefore DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP 99114 dated December 10, 2007 is AFFIRMED. Mann Builders is thus DIRECTED to reinstate the workers and to pay them backwages and other monetary benefits computed from the date of their illegal dismissal up to the date of actual reinstatement.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 185067 (Mann Builders & Developers, Inc./Antonio C. Sabater, as President v. Rogelio P. Francisco, Rustico B. Periabras, Nestor G. Gobis, Ian E. Benolaria, Johnny S. Ferrer, Joel O. Tupig, Reynaldo M. Luyang, Mario M. Sayno, Jerry L. Banggawan, Rolando T. Abejero, Orlando Bachiller, Conrado Villaluz, Orlando Bruan, Romeo Dumawal and Reynaldo Dalina).
Petitioner Mann Builders & Developers, Inc. (Mann Builders) is a construction company engaged mostly in projects of the Pasig City government. It hired Rogelio P. Francisco, Rustico B. Periabras, Nestor G. Gobis, Ian E. Benolaria, Johnny S. Ferrer, Joel O. Tupig, Reynaldo M. Luyang, Mario M. Sayno. Jerry L. Banggawan, Rolando T. Abejero, Orlando Bachiller, Conrado Villaluz, Orlando Bruan, Romeo Dumawal and Reynaldo Dalina (the workers) in varying capacities: driver, carpenter, laborer, pay loader operator and mason.
In 2005, Mann Builders dismissed the workers. Thus, they filed individual complaints[1] against Mann Builders for illegal dismissal before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
Mann Builders asserted that the workers were project employees whose employment ceased upon termination of the project for which they were hired. On the other hand, the workers said that although they were hired for specific projects, they have been continuously and repeatedly re-hired to do the same kind of work that was necessary and desirable to Mann Builders' business making them regular employees.
On March 31, 2006 the Labor Arbiter rendered judgment finding the workers illegally dismissed.[2] It held that Mann Builders merely denied hiring them continuously and failed to prove that it validly terminated the workers for not presenting the workers' employment contracts as well as termination reports required to be submitted to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). Hence, the workers were ordered reinstated, except for Villaluz and Bachiller, and paid their backwages, difference in underpayment, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay and 13Ih month pay to be computed three years backwards, for a total of Pl,276,938.89.[3]
Mann Builders appealed the decision to the NLRC and moved for the reduction of the appeal bond as well as to admit cash bond in the amount of P100,000.00. On September 27, 2006 the NLRC denied Mann Builders' motion and dismissed the appeal[4] since the cash bond posted was way below the monetary award and for failure to submit a certificate of non-forum shopping.
Mann Builders moved for reconsideration and filed a surety bond equivalent to the amount of the monetary award. The NLRC, however, also denied reconsideration because Mann Builders failed to submit certain documents[5] together with the surety bond. Besides, Mann Builders' appeal lacked merit.[6]
Consequently, Mann Builders filed a petition for certiorari[7] before the Court of Appeals (CA). On December 10, 2007 the CA rendered judgment[8] affirming the NLRC. The appellate court held that Mann Builders failed to substantially comply with the rules on the posting of bond and affirmed that the workers were regular employees who can only be removed for cause. Mann Builders filed a motion for reconsideration of the CA decision but the same was denied.[9] It thus filed this petition for review under Rule 45.
The petition lacks merit.
FIRST. The NLRC and the CA did not dismiss its appeal on purely technical grounds. Aside from citing the insufficiency of the appeal bond, the NLRC and CA also concluded that Mann Builders failed to prove that the workers were in fact project employees. The NLRC and CA ruled on the substantive arguments and evidence presented by Mann Builders.
SECOND. We find no reason to deviate from the appellate court's factual conclusion that the workers are regular employees.
In the construction industry, a worker may either be a project or non-project employee, depending on the circumstances of his employment. Among the factors that may be considered are: (a) the determinable duration of the worker's specific undertaking; (b) the fact that the duration and specific work to be done was defined in an employment contract and made known to the worker at the time of hiring; (c) the connection of the work to be performed to the specific project for which the worker was hired; (d) the worker's freedom to offer his services to other employers; (e) the submission of a report to the DOLE on the termination of the worker's services upon completion of the project; and (f) an undertaking to pay completion bonus to a project employee as practiced in most construction companies.[10]
Here, the workers, at the time of hiring, were not informed of the specific duration and nature of their work. Mann Builders did not present any employment contract fixing the time frame and the nature of the workers' employment. Neither did it submit to the DOLE the required report on the termination of the workers' services upon completion of every project.[11]
Moreover, Mann Builders did not deny that the workers were repeatedly hired to perform work that wyas necessary and usual to its business. In fact, the workers were hired for numerous projects with minimal gaps in between.[12] When a project employee is continuously re-hired by the same employer for the same tasks that are vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business of the employer, the employee is deemed a regular employee.[13]
Mann Builders allege that the workers were free to offer their services to other contractors at the end of each project, a privilege of a project employee.[14] This, however, is not an absolute rule. The workers still form part of a work pool from which a construction company regularly taps its workers, much like regular seasonal employees. In a work pool, the workers do not receive salaries and are free to seek other employment during temporary breaks in business. This arrangement is beneficial to both employer and employee as it prevents the "coddling labor at the expense of capital" and enables workers to attain the status of regular employees.[15]
Based on the totality of the circumstances, the workers' employment could not have been validly terminated due to completion of a project. This is not among the legal causes for dismissing regular employees. They are thus entitled to reinstatement with full backwages and other monetary benefits.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is therefore DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP 99114 dated December 10, 2007 is AFFIRMED. Mann Builders is thus DIRECTED to reinstate the workers and to pay them backwages and other monetary benefits computed from the date of their illegal dismissal up to the date of actual reinstatement.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours.
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] The complaints were docketed as NLRC NCR CN 00-09-07790-05, 00-09-0S392-05. 00-11-10150-05 and 00-10-08850-05.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 75-83.
[3] Id. at 84.
[4] Rollo, pp. 47-51.
[5] These documents include: (1) A joint declaration under oath by the employer, his counsel and bonding company that the bond is genuine and will be in effect until final disposition of the case; (2) An indemnity agreement between the employer and bonding company; (3) Proof of security deposit; (4) Certificate of registration of the bonding company; (5) Certificate of authority to transact business of the bonding company: (6) Certificate of accreditation and authority from the Supreme Court: and (7) Notarized board resolution or secretary's certificate showing the bonding company's authorized signatories and their specimen signatures.
[6] Rollo, pp. 54-57.
[7] Docketed as CA-G.R. SP 99114.
[8] Penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, and concurred in by Associate Justices Portia Alino-Hormachuelos and Lucas P. Bersamin (now a member of this Court). "
[9] Rollo, pp. 71-72.
[10] Filsystems, Inc. v. Puente, 493 Phil. 923, 931 (2005), citing Department of Labor and Employment Order 19, Series of 1993.
[11] Cocomangas Hole! Beach Resort v. Visca, G.R. No. 167045, August 29, 2008, 563 SCRA 705. 718-719.
[12] CA rollo, pp. 62-64.
[13] Integrated Contractor and Plumbing Works, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 503 Phil. 875, 883(2005).
[14] Rollo, p. 36.
[15] Integrated Contractor and Plumbing Works, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra note 13, at 882.
