Facts
D.M. Consunji, Inc. (DMCI) hired Estelito L. Jamin on December 17, 1968 as a laborer. He was later assigned as a helper carpenter in 1975. Throughout his employment, DMCI repeatedly renewed his employment contracts, rehiring him a total of thirty-eight (38) times for various construction projects over a span of almost thirty-one (31) years.
On March 20, 1999, Jamin’s employment was terminated following the completion of the SM Manila project, after which DMCI no longer rehired him. Claiming that he had rendered continuous service for nearly three decades, Jamin filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, asserting that he had already attained regular employment status.
DMCI denied liability and maintained that Jamin was merely a project employee who had been engaged on a project-to-project basis. According to DMCI, his employment automatically ceased upon the completion of the project to which he was assigned.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, and the ruling was affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC, prompting DMCI to elevate the case to the Supreme Court through a petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE: Whether or not Estelito Jamin was a regular employee of DMCI.
Ruling
Yes. The Supreme Court held that Jamin was a regular employee.
The Court reiterated the doctrine in Maraguinot, Jr. v. NLRC that a project or work pool employee becomes a regular employee when:
- he is continuously, rather than intermittently, rehired by the same employer for the same tasks; and
- the tasks performed are vital, necessary, and indispensable to the employer’s usual business or trade.
Applying this doctrine, the Court found that Jamin had been repeatedly, continuously, and successively rehired by DMCI for thirty-eight (38) separate projects over almost thirty-one (31) years. In all these projects, he consistently performed carpentry-related work, which was clearly necessary and indispensable to DMCI’s construction business.
The Court emphasized that even assuming Jamin was originally hired as a project employee, his repeated rehiring over an extended period transformed his status into that of a regular employee. The continuity of his service demonstrated that his work was not merely coterminous with specific projects, but was actually indispensable to the company’s regular operations.
Citing Liganza v. RBL Shipyard Corporation, the Court further clarified that the length of service alone does not determine whether an employee is regular or project-based. Rather, the controlling factor is whether the employee was hired for a specific project whose completion had been determined at the time of engagement. Nevertheless, the length and continuity of service remain significant indicators in determining whether the employee’s work is necessary and desirable to the employer’s business.
The Court also noted inconsistencies in DMCI’s alleged employment history of Jamin. Although DMCI attempted to show a four-year gap in his employment, the records revealed that the company omitted several projects in which Jamin had actually worked, namely the Ritz Tower Project and two New Istana Projects. These omissions undermined DMCI’s claim that Jamin’s employment was merely intermittent.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the finding that Jamin was a regular employee and that his dismissal without valid cause constituted illegal dismissal.