Case Title: Leo Trimor v. Blokie Builders and Trading Corporation (G.R. No. 265553, October 04, 2023)
Photo from Unsplash | Scott Blake
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
The employee’s signing of the employment contract more than two months after the project had commenced logically implies that he was not apprised of his status as a project-based employee when he was engaged.
Employers who assert that a worker is a project-based employee must be substantiate that the duration and scope of employment were explicitly determined at the time of engagement.
The Labor Code distinguishes a project-based employee from a regular employee, to wit:
“ARTICLE 295. Regular and casual employment. – The provisions of a written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, and employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employer has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and employment is for the duration of the season.
An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, That any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered as regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such activity exists.” (Emphasis supplied.)
In the case of Leo Trimor v. Blokie Builders and Trading Corporation (G.R. No. 265553, October 04, 2023), the Supreme Court ruled that an employee who was hired two months after the beginning of a project cannot be considered as a project-based employee.
The facts of the case are as follows:
Respondent Blokie Builders and Trading Corporation (Blokie Builders), a general construction company, hired Petitioner Leo Trimor (Trimor) as an in-house project-in-charge/foreman under a project-based contract signed by Trimor on August 22, 2018.
Under the employment contract, Trimor was assigned to SM Fairview Department Store for a re-layout project from June 07, 2018 until its completion.
In August 2018, Blokie Builders allegedly found that Trimor’s work was unsatisfactory and inadequate, to the extent that the client requested for his replacement. Supposedly, to ensure the project’s continuity and to fulfill the original contractual six-month employment period, Trimor was reassigned to oversee the Jollibee Malolos renovation project starting on September 1, 2018.
Trimor filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of salaries and other monetary claims, after he was allegedly not allowed to work after his absence. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint ruling that there was no illegal dismissal when Trimor’s employment was terminated due to project completion.
Upon appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), the NLRC overturned the findings of the Labor Arbiter and concluded that Trimor was a regular employee of Blokie Builders from the start and that he was illegally dismissed.
According to the NLRC, it was doubtful whether Trimor was informed of his employment status as a project-based employee when he began working. Also, Trimor was hired as an “in-house project-in-charge” which is a regular position.
Moreover, the NLRC highlighted Trimor’s notation “8-22-18” on the employment contract, indicating that he signed it on August 22, 2018, which was two months after the SM Fairview Department Store re-layout project had commenced.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion when it ruled that Trimor is a regular employee. According to the CA, there was no doubt that Trimor has been adequately informed of his status as a project-based employee at the time of his engagement.
Is Trimor a regular employee of Blokie Builders?
The Supreme Court ruled that:
Trimor was considered by Blokie Builders as a regular employee from the outset, with security of tenure already attached to his employment.
A project employee is assigned to a project which begins and ends at determined or determinable times. Unlike regular employees who may only dismissed for just and/or authorized causes under the Labor Code, the services of employees who are hired as “project-based employees” may be lawfully terminated at the completion of the project.
For an employee to be considered project-based, the employer must show compliance with two requisites, namely that:
(a) the employee was assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking; and
(b) the duration and scope of which are specified at the time the employee was engaged for such project.
Being assigned to a project or a phase thereof which begins and ends at determined or determinable times, the services of project employees may be lawfully terminated at the completion of such project or phase.
Consequently, in order to safeguard the rights of workers against the arbitrary use of the word “project” to prevent them from attaining regular status, employers claiming that their workers are project employees should prove that:
(a) the duration and scope of the employment was specified at the time they were engaged; and
(b) there was indeed a project.
Trimor’s signing of the employment contract more than two months after the project had commenced logically implies that he was not apprised of his status as a project-based employee when he was engaged. Furthermore, there exists no evidence to substantiate that he received adequate notification of such status at the time of hiring.
Thus, Trimor was considered by Blokie Builders as a regular employee from the outset, with security of tenure already attached to his employment. Moreover, Trimor’s subsequent execution of a project employment contract cannot undermine his security of tenure. To allow and sanction the signing of project-based employment contracts at a later stage would open the door to employer abuse and subvert an employee’s constitutionally guaranteed right to security of tenure.
Source:
Jose Leni Solidum v. Smart Communications, Inc. (G.R. No. 206985, February 28, 2024)
Related Article/s:
Casual Employees vs. Project Employees
Will non-submission of report for project termination regularize project employees?
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding taxation and taxpayer’s remedies, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.
All rights reserved.