G.R. No. 221897. November 07, 2016
ISIDRO QUEBRAL, ET AL. PETITIONERS, VS. ANGBUS CONSTRUCTION, INC. AND ANGELO BUSTAMANTE, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioners were construction workers employed by Angbus Construction, Inc. from 2008 to 2011. They alleged they were regular employees performing necessary and desirable tasks for Angbus’s business and were summarily dismissed without just cause or due process in June and July 2012. They filed consolidated illegal dismissal cases. Respondents countered that petitioners were project employees, initially hired by a separate entity, Angelfe Management, for a one-time project, and later by Angbus for another distinct project, with a significant gap between employments. To support this, respondents presented Establishment Employment Reports filed with the DOLE indicating termination due to project completion. However, they failed to submit the actual project employment contracts, claiming these were destroyed by a flood, a fact they attempted to prove with a Barangay Certification from Pasig City.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, crediting the DOLE reports and finding petitioners to be project employees. The NLRC reversed this decision, declaring petitioners as regular employees illegally dismissed. The NLRC gave no credence to the Barangay Certification, noting respondents’ business address was in Quezon City, not Pasig, and found that the continuous hiring of petitioners by two companies with the same ownership and business address indicated uninterrupted employment. The CA later annulled the NLRC decision, reinstating the LA’s ruling, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the NLRC and ruling that petitioners were project employees and not illegally dismissed.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court reversed the CA and reinstated the NLRC decision. The core legal principle is that in termination disputes, the burden of proof rests on the employer to prove that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause. Respondents failed to discharge this burden. Their primary defense—that petitioners were project employees—required clear proof of the duration and scope of the specific project. The purported project employment contracts were not presented. The excuse of flood damage was properly rejected by the NLRC, as the Barangay Certification pertained to an address in Pasig, while respondents’ official business address was in Quezon City, violating the rule that employment records must be kept at the principal office.
Without the contracts, respondents’ claim of project employment lacked substantiation. The DOLE reports alone were insufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity of employment, especially as they were not filed within the required period prior to termination. Consequently, petitioners, having performed tasks necessary and desirable to Angbus’s construction business for years, were deemed regular employees under Article 295 of the Labor Code. Their dismissal, absent proof of a just or authorized cause and compliance with procedural due process, was illegal. They are therefore entitled to reinstatement and full backwages.