G.R. No. 240549, August 27, 2020
Salvador Awa Inocentes, Jr., Agapito Awa Inocentes, King Marvin Inocentes and Dennis C. Catangui, Petitioners, vs. R. Syjuco Construction, Inc. (RSCI) and Arch. Ryan I. Syjuco, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Salvador Inocentes Jr., Agapito Inocentes, King Marvin Inocentes, and Dennis Catangui were hired by respondent R. Syjuco Construction, Inc. (RSCI), a construction company engaged in short-term projects, as carpenters and masons between 2005 and 2008. Their engagements were project-based, with durations dependent on specific projects from 2013 to 2015. In February and May 2016, petitioners failed to report for work after being directed by RSCI’s foreman for another short-term project. On June 9, 2016, petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, overtime pay, non-payment of 13th month pay, holiday pay, holiday premium, rest day premium, service incentive leave, and night shift differential, plus moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. RSCI contended petitioners were project employees whose employment ended with each project, denied the money claims, and presented quitclaims as proof of 13th month pay receipt. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, ruling petitioners were project employees in a work pool. The NLRC reversed, declaring petitioners regular employees, awarding backwages, separation pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals initially affirmed the NLRC but later reversed itself in an Amended Decision, reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s ruling, after taking judicial notice of a similar case (CA-G.R. SP No. 150606) involving RSCI workers deemed project employees.

ISSUE

Whether petitioners are regular employees or project employees of RSCI.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that petitioners are regular employees. The Court emphasized that while the construction industry typically employs project-based workers, repeated rehiring and continuous engagement over several years for tasks necessary and desirable to the employer’s business indicate regular employment. Petitioners were hired repeatedly from 2005 to 2015 for RSCI’s construction projects, demonstrating their work was integral to RSCI’s operations. The Court noted RSCI’s failure to comply with Department Order No. 19, series of 1993, which requires reporting terminations due to project completion to the DOLE—a key indicator of project employment. The Court distinguished the cited similar case (CA-G.R. SP No. 150606) by noting it involved different workers and factual circumstances, including denial of entry to job sites, whereas here, petitioners were directed to report for work but did not, and RSCI failed to prove project completion as a termination ground. Thus, petitioners’ dismissal due to contract expiration was illegal, not being a just or authorized cause under Article 279 of the Labor Code. The Court reinstated the NLRC’s award of backwages and separation pay, added service incentive leave pay, and upheld attorney’s fees under Article 2208(7) of the Civil Code, with legal interest at 6% per annum from finality until fully paid. The Court of Appeals’ Amended Decision was reversed and set aside.