GR 209822; (July, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 209822 ; July 8, 2015
DIONISIO DACLES, Petitioner, vs. MILLENIUM ERECTORS CORPORATION and/or RAGAS TIU, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Dionisio Dacles filed an illegal dismissal complaint against respondent Millenium Erectors Corporation (MEC) and its owner Ragas Tiu. Dacles claimed he was hired as a mason in 1998 and was illegally dismissed in June 2010 when, after being given a run-around between job sites, the paymaster told him not to report for work anymore. He also made various money claims. Respondents denied illegal dismissal, asserting Dacles was a project employee hired for two specific projects: the Newport Entertainment and Commercial Center Project (from October 8, 2009 to March 3, 2010) and the Residential & Commercial Building-Malakas Project (from April 15, 2010 to June 4, 2010). They contended his employment ended upon each project’s completion and submitted corresponding employment contracts and termination reports to the DOLE. Respondents also denied employing Dacles since 1998, as MEC was only incorporated in February 2000.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in holding that the National Labor Relations Commission gravely abused its discretion in declaring petitioner a regular employee, and not a project employee.
RULING
The petition is without merit. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion. The Supreme Court held that petitioner was a project employee, not a regular employee. The employment contracts, which Dacles signed, explicitly stated he was a project employee and that his employment would end upon completion of the project phase. Furthermore, respondents duly submitted Establishment Employment Reports to the DOLE regarding the termination of Dacles after each project, which is an indication of project employment. Petitioner failed to substantiate his claim of being employed since 1998 with evidence. Consequently, his termination was lawful as it resulted from the completion of the specific projects for which he was hired. His money claims were also denied for lack of evidentiary support.