Scribd
Upload
177 views2 pages

Dacles vs. Millenium Erectors Corporation And/Or Ragas Tiu G.R. No. 209822, July 8, 2015 Principle

The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner was a project-based employee and not a regular employee. To be considered a project employee, the employer must show that the employee was assigned to a specific project with a defined duration and scope. The Court found that the respondent adequately informed the petitioner of his status and employment contracts showed he was hired for two separate projects, each with a completion date. The respondent also submitted the required reports to the DOLE regarding the petitioner's termination from both projects, indicating project-based employment. Therefore, the petitioner's dismissal upon completion of the projects was valid.

Uploaded by

Lari dela Rosa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
177 views2 pages

Dacles vs. Millenium Erectors Corporation And/Or Ragas Tiu G.R. No. 209822, July 8, 2015 Principle

The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner was a project-based employee and not a regular employee. To be considered a project employee, the employer must show that the employee was assigned to a specific project with a defined duration and scope. The Court found that the respondent adequately informed the petitioner of his status and employment contracts showed he was hired for two separate projects, each with a completion date. The respondent also submitted the required reports to the DOLE regarding the petitioner's termination from both projects, indicating project-based employment. Therefore, the petitioner's dismissal upon completion of the projects was valid.

Uploaded by

Lari dela Rosa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

DACLES vs.

MILLENIUM ERECTORS CORPORATION and/or RAGAS TIU


G.R. No. 209822, July 8, 2015

PRINCIPLE:

For an employee to be considered project-based, the employer must show that:


(a) the employee was assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking; and ( b)
the duration and scope of which were specified at the time the employee was engaged
for such project.

PONENTE: PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

FACTS:

Respondent is a domestic · corporation engaged in the construction business.


Petitioner instituted a complaint for illegal dismissal with money claims against
respondents.

Petitioner claimed that he was hired by respondents as a mason. While he was


working on a project in Quezon City, he was advised to move to another project.
However, upon arrival at the site, he was instructed to return to his former job site.
When he requested to be given a post or assigned to a new project, he was told not to
report for work anymore, prompting him to file the illegal dismissal complaint.

Respondents denied having illegally dismissed petitioner, claiming that he was a


mere project employee whose contract expired upon the completion of his masonry
work assignment. Thereafter, petitioner applied anew and was hired as a mason to work
on the RCB-Malakas Project. Petitioner's termination from both projects was then duly
reported to the DOLE.

The LA dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint, finding that petitioner is a


project employee. The NLRC reversed the LA ruling and instead, declared that
petitioner was a regular employee since he was originally employed in 1998 without a
fixed period to perform tasks that were necessary and desirable to MEC's business. The
CA annulled and set aside the NLRC' s ruling and upheld the LA' s finding that petitioner
is a project employee who was first hired as a mason for the NECC Project from
October 8, 2009 until its completion on March 3, 2010, and second, for the RCB-
Malakas Project from April 15, 2010 also until its completion. It further gave emphasis
on the fact that petitioner's termination was duly reported by respondents to the DOLE.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner is a project employee.

RULING:

Yes. Article 294 of the Labor Code distinguishes a project-based employee from
a regular employee.

For an employee to be considered project-based, the employer must show that:


(a) the employee was assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking; and ( b)
the duration and scope of which were specified at the time the employee was engaged
for such project. Being assigned to a project or a phase thereof which begins and ends
at determined or determinable times, the services of project employees may be lawfully
terminated at the completion of such project or phase.
Consequently, in order to safeguard the rights of workers against the arbitrary
use of the word "project" to prevent them from attaining regular status, employers
claiming that their workers are project employees should prove that: (a) the duration and
scope of the employment was specified at the time they were engaged; and (b) there
was indeed a project.

In this case, records reveal that petitioner was adequately informed of his
employment status as project employee at the time of his engagement for the NECC
and RCB-Malakas Projects. This is clearly substantiated by the latter's employment
contracts.

Further, pursuant to Department Order No. 19, or the "Guidelines Governing the
Employment of Workers in the Construction Industry," respondent duly submitted the
required Establishment Employment Reportsto the DOLE Makati/Pasay Field Office
regarding the "permanent termination" of petitioner from both of the projects for which
he was engaged (i.e., the NECC and RCB-Malakas Projects). Such submission is an
indication of project employment.

You might also like