GR 207613; (January, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 207613 January 31, 2018
Reyman G. Minsola, Petitioner vs. New City Builders, Inc. and Engr. Ernel Fajardo, Respondents
FACTS
Petitioner Reyman G. Minsola was hired by respondent New City Builders, Inc., a construction firm, as a laborer for the structural phase of the Avida Tower 3 Project on December 16, 2008. His employment contract explicitly stated that his engagement would last only until the completion of that specific phase. Upon the phase’s completion on August 24, 2009, he was terminated but was immediately re-hired the following day as a mason for the project’s subsequent architectural phase. In December 2009, the company discovered Minsola had no appointment paper for this new role and instructed him to sign one. Minsola repeatedly refused to comply. On January 20, 2010, after another refusal during a meeting, he left the office and never returned to work, subsequently filing a complaint for illegal dismissal.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether Minsola was a regular employee illegally dismissed or a project employee whose employment validly ended, and whether his refusal to sign a required document constituted abandonment.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that Minsola was a project employee and was not illegally dismissed. The legal logic hinges on the distinction between regular and project-based employment under Article 280 of the Labor Code. A project employee is hired for a specific undertaking with a foreseeable end. The Court found Minsola’s employment was coterminous with distinct project phases—first the structural phase, then the architectural phase. His re-hiring for a subsequent phase did not convert him into a regular employee, as each engagement remained for a specific project or phase. The employer’s failure to submit a report of termination to the Department of Labor and Employment after the first phase, while a procedural lapse, does not alter the fundamental nature of the employment.
Furthermore, the Court found no constructive dismissal. Minsola’s refusal to sign the appointment paper, a reasonable directive to formalize his current project employment, was unjustified. His subsequent abandonment of work was voluntary. Thus, his termination from the architectural phase was lawful upon its completion or, alternatively, his employment was severed by his own abandonment. However, the Court upheld monetary awards for underpayment, as his daily wage was below the legal minimum, and for proportionate 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay accrued during his valid periods of project employment.