G.R. No. 265553 , October 04, 2023
Leo G. Trimor, Petitioner, vs. Blokie Builders and Trading Corporation and Filamer Amado P. Bulao, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Leo G. Trimor was hired by respondent Blokie Builders and Trading Corporation (BBTC), a general construction company, on June 7, 2018, as an in-house project-in-charge. He was assigned to the SM Fairview Department Store re-layout project on July 25, 2018, and later to the Jollibee Malolos renovation project in September 2018. Petitioner alleged that on December 3, 2018, after being instructed to return to the work site, he requested to rest due to lack of sleep, to which BBTC’s President, Filamer Amado P. Bulao, responded, “Wag ka nang bumalik.” On December 10, 2018, when petitioner went to collect his salary, Bulao stated, “Wala ka nang babalikan na trabaho. Baka nga ikaw pa ang may utang samin,” and withheld his salary. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and various monetary claims.
Respondents countered that petitioner was a project-based employee hired under a “PROJECT BASE[D] CONTRACT” for the SM Fairview project with an estimated six-month duration. They claimed petitioner’s work was unsatisfactory, leading to his reassignment to the Jollibee project to complete the contractual period. They asserted that petitioner abandoned his work on December 5, 2018, and only appeared on December 10, 2018, to demand his last pay, which was withheld due to unresolved obligations.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint, ruling petitioner was a project-based employee, but ordered payment of his unpaid 13th month pay. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the LA, declaring petitioner a regular employee who was illegally dismissed, and awarded backwages, separation pay, unpaid wages, holiday pay, proportionate 13th month pay, and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals (CA) reinstated the LA’s decision, finding petitioner was a project-based employee and that he failed to prove his dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the LA’s dismissal of the complaint for illegal dismissal and other monetary claims, specifically regarding petitioner’s employment status (regular vs. project-based) and the validity of his dismissal.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the CA and reinstating the NLRC decision with modifications. The Court ruled that petitioner was a regular employee, not a project-based employee. The “PROJECT BASE[D] CONTRACT” was signed by petitioner on August 22, 2018, two months after he started working on June 7, 2018, and thus did not govern the inception of his employment. At the time of his engagement, there was no written contract informing him of a fixed period or specific project. His duties as a project-in-charge were necessary and desirable to BBTC’s usual business of construction. His reassignment to different projects further indicated that his employment was not limited to a specific project. The Court also noted respondents’ failure to submit a termination report to the DOLE, as required for project employees. As a regular employee, petitioner could only be dismissed for just or authorized causes, which respondents failed to prove. His dismissal was therefore illegal. The Court affirmed the NLRC’s awards of backwages, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, unpaid wages, holiday pay, proportionate 13th month pay, and attorney’s fees, subject to recomputation. All monetary awards shall accrue legal interest at 6% per annum from finality of the decision until full payment.