GR 108142; (December, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 108142. December 26, 1995.
ARCHBUILD MASTERS AND CONSTRUCTION, INC., and JOAQUIN C. REGALA, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ROGELIO CAYANGA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Archbuild Masters and Construction, Inc. (ARMACON) hired respondent Rogelio Cayanga as a driver for its specific water pipe-laying project inside the U.S. Naval Base in Subic. In December 1989, petitioners posted a notice terminating Cayanga’s employment, citing the completion of a phase of the project as the ground for dismissal. They also filed an Employer’s Monthly Report with the DOLE stating the termination was due to “shutdown/retrenchment.” Cayanga filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, alleging the stated ground of project completion was a pretext. He argued that his dismissal was actually due to alleged unauthorized absences and that petitioners had hired a replacement driver, negating any claim of reduced manpower needs.
ISSUE
Whether or not respondent Rogelio Cayanga was illegally dismissed.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC’s finding of illegal dismissal. While Cayanga was a project employee whose employment could legally end upon project completion, petitioners failed to prove this was the bona fide reason for his termination. The Court found petitioners’ evidence inconsistent and insufficient. Critically, their own Employer’s Monthly Report cited “shutdown/retrenchment” as the cause, not project completion. This discrepancy cast serious doubt on their proffered justification. Furthermore, the NLRC correctly noted petitioners did not refute Cayanga’s claim that he was replaced, which, if true, would directly contradict the assertion that his services were terminated due to a phase completion. Under Policy Instruction No. 20, a project employee terminated due to phase completion is not entitled to separation pay provided he is not replaced. The act of replacement indicates the continued need for the position, making the dismissal unlawful. Petitioners’ failure to present clear evidence of the project phase’s actual completion and their inconsistent declarations constituted a failure to discharge the burden of proving a valid dismissal. Consequently, Cayanga was illegally dismissed and entitled to reinstatement and back wages.