Respondent 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 2005, RSCI hired several employees and were assigned to its various projects.
Sometime in February and May 2016, the RSCI’s foreman twice directed said employees to report for work for another short-term project, but the latter failed to do so. Said employees, nonetheless, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against RSCI.
RSCI denied that it illegally dismissed the employees. It asserts that they were project employees whose employment was validly terminated after end of each construction project.
Could the employees be considered project employees?
Jurisprudence1Dacuital v. L.M. Camus Engineering Corp., G.R. No. 176748, September 1, 2010, 644 PHIL 158-175 dictates that a project employee is assigned to a project that starts and ends at a determined or determinable time. The principal test to determine if an employee is a project employee is — whether he or she is assigned to carry out a particular project or undertaking, which duration or scope was specified at the time of engagement.
In the present case, the Court found that at the time of hiring, the employees were not given a notice informing them of their engagement for a specific project. The Court also found that the employees were all continuously engaged by RSCI to render construction services for its short-term projects. Finally, the Court found that RSCI was unable to file any termination report to the DOLE due to alleged project completion or pay the workers any completion bonus supposedly due to project employees following completion of each project.
The Supreme Court thus ruled that the employees were regular employees of RSCI, as they rendered services necessary and desirable to its construction business. As such, the Court stated that they may not be dismissed upon the mere expiration or completion of each project for which they were engaged.
Further reading:
- Inocentes, Jr. v. R. Syjuco Construction, Inc., G.R. No. 240549, August 27, 2020.
