Datem, Inc. v. Mostoles, Jr.
This is a civil case decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on December 11, 2019. The case concerns the employment status of Marlo A. Mostoles, Jr. (respondent) in Datem, Inc. (petitioner). The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals declaring the respondent as a regular employee of the petitioner. The Court held that the respondent was able to prove his regular employment status through the overlapping of his work in the petitioner's projects and the petitioner's failure to submit report of his termination to the Department of Labor and Employment. As the respondent was considered a regular employee, the Supreme Court upheld the illegality of his dismissal due to the petitioner's failure to prove any valid or authorized cause for his termination.
ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 249726. December 11, 2019.]
DATEM, INC., ARNULFO DE ASIS, LIBERITO ESPIRITU, AND RENE OLAP, petitioners, vs.MARLO A. MOSTOLES, JR., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated11 December 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 249726 (Datem, Inc., Arnulfo de Asis, Liberito Espiritu, and Rene Olap v. Marlo A. Mostoles, Jr.)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the April 11, 2019 Decision 2 and the September 25, 2019 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 154938 for failure of petitioners Datem, Inc. (Datem), Arnulfo de Asis, Liberito Espiritu, and Rene Olap (collectively, petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in declaring respondent Marlo A. Mostoles, Jr. (respondent) as a regular employee of Datem.
As correctly ruled by the CA, the National Labor Relations Commission did not gravely abuse its discretion in finding that respondent was a regular employee of Datem, and that he was illegally dismissed from employment. Records reveal that respondent was a regular employee of petitioner, considering that: (a) he was employed by Datem since 2012 and he was repeatedly hired by Datem in its various construction projects; (b) there was an overlapping of respondent's work in Datem's projects; and (d) even if his contract allegedly ended on June 29, 2016, notices were still served to him charging him of absence without official leave on August 31, 2016, thereby belying Datem's claim that respondent was a mere project employee whose project had already finished. Further, petitioners failed to prove that respondent was its project employee since: (a) there was no submission of report of employee's termination to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) each time respondent's employment was terminated due to completion of a project or a phase thereof, except for the completion of the Valero Primeland Project on March 31, 2014; and (b) the Establishment Employment Report submitted by Datem to the DOLE does not bear the name of respondent, making it an inconclusive proof that respondent was a project employee. 4 Consequently, there being no valid or authorized cause for respondent's termination from employment, he was considered illegally terminated by petitioners. Settled is the rule that an employer can terminate the services of an employee only for valid and just causes, 5 which petitioners failed to show in this case.
With the denial of the instant petition, the petitioner's prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction is necessarily DENIED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 14-45.
2.Id. at 51-68. Penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos with Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Danton Q. Bueser, concurring.
3.Id. at 70-72.
4. See id. at 64.
5. See Ting Trucking v. Makilan, 787 Phil. 651, 661 (2016); See also Servidad v. National Labor Relations Commission, 364 Phil. 518, 524 (1999).
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU