Conmech Construction & Development Corp. v. Bonzato
This is a civil case decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines in January 2018. The case concerns Conmech Construction & Development Corporation, which petitioned the Supreme Court to review a decision of the Court of Appeals declaring that four of its workers were regular employees and not project employees. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Conmech failed to present substantial evidence to prove that the workers were project employees. The Court noted that the duration of the project for which the workers had been hired was not specified in their contract, and that the details of the employment contract were not enough to establish that the workers had been informed of the duration and scope of their work. The Court also held that the failure to file termination reports with the Department of Labor and Employment was an indication that the workers were regular employees. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, and ordered Conmech to pay the workers monetary awards and the cost of suit.
ADVERTISEMENT
THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 232607. January 31, 2018.]
CONMECH CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.ROLANDO M. BONZATO, ROGER M. GUYO, JULLIE E. GUTIERREZ, AND FELIX SAMUYA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 31, 2018, which reads as follows: AScHCD
"G.R. No. 232607 (CONMECH CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ROLANDO M. BONZATO, ROGER M. GUYO, JULLIE E. GUTIERREZ, and FELIX SAMUYA, Respondents.) — The Court NOTES petitioner's Compliance dated September 20, 2017 submitting a soft copy of the motion for extension to file a petition for review on certiorari and an affidavit of declaration of electronic submission of the said motion.
After a judicious review of records, the Court RESOLVES TO DENY the petition for review on certiorari on the ground of the failure of the petitioner to show that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in holding that the respondents were its regular employees.
The CA correctly ruled that the petitioner failed to present substantial evidence to prove its claim that the respondents were only project employees. The principal test to determine whether employees are project employees or not is to ascertain whether or not the employees were assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking the duration or scope of which was specified at the time the employees were engaged for the project. 1 In this case, the duration of the project for which the respondents had been hired was not specified in their contract.
The details of the employment contract were not enough to establish that the respondents had been informed of the duration and scope of their work, and of their status as project employees. The Court finds to be correct the CA's observation that although their employment contracts indicated that their employment was co-terminous with the project for which they were hired, making it appear that their employment had a fixed period, their employment contract did not persuasively show the time-bound nature of their employment especially considering that they were repeatedly hired.
Moreover, Department Order No. 19 of the Department of Labor and Employment required the employer to submit a report of an employee's termination to the nearest public employment office every time the employment is terminated due to the completion of a project. The submission of the establishment termination report would have been proof that at some definite time the employment of the respondents had ceased with the projects in relation to which they were hired. There was no showing herein of the filing of such reports. As such, the failure to file the termination reports upon the cessation of the respondents' employment was an indication that they had not been project but regular employees. AcICHD
The well-established rule is that regular employees enjoy security of tenure, and can be dismissed only for just or valid cause, and upon compliance with due process, i.e., notice and hearing. In cases involving an employee's dismissal, the burden is on the employer to prove that the dismissal was legal. 2 This burden was not discharged by the petitioner. Consequently, with their being regular employees, the respondents were entitled to security of tenure, and their services could not be terminated except for causes provided by law. 3 The monetary awards granted to them are, therefore, upheld.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari; AFFIRMS the amended decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on July 6, 2017; and ORDERS the petitioner to pay the cost of suit. (Martires, J., on official leave.)
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Goma v. Pamplona Plantation, Inc., G.R. No. 160905, July 4, 2008, 557 SCRA 124, 135.
2.Dacuital v. L.M. Camus Engineering Corporation, G.R. 176148, September 1, 2010, 629 SCRA 702, 716.
3.Cocomangas Hotel Beach Resort v. Visca, G.R. No. 167045, August 29, 2008, 563 SCRA 705, 721.
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU