D.M. Consunji v. Jamin, G.R. No. 192514, April 18, 2012

12/5/22, 4:07 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670
G.R. No. 192514. April 18, 2012.*
D.M. CONSUNJI, INC. and/or DAVID M. CONSUNJI, petitioners,

vs. ESTELITO L. JAMIN, respondent.
Labor Law; Regular Employees; Assuming, without granting, that the

petitioner was initially hired for specific projects or undertakings, the
repeated re-hiring and continuing need for his services for over eight (8)
years have undeniably made him a regular employee.—In Liganza v. RBL
Shipyard Corporation, 504 SCRA 678 (2006), the Court held that
“[a]ssuming, without granting[,] that [the] petitioner was initially hired
for specific projects or undertakings, the repeated re-hiring and
continuing need for his services for over eight (8) years have undeniably
made him a regular employee.” We find the Liganza ruling squarely
applicable to this case, considering that for almost 31 years, DMCI had
repeatedly, continuously and successively engaged Jamin’s services since he
was hired on December 17, 1968 or for a total of 38 times—35 as shown by
the schedule of projects submitted by DMCI to the labor arbiter and three
more projects or engagements added by Jamin, which he claimed DMCI
intentionally did not include in its schedule so as to make it appear that there
were wide gaps in his engagements. One of the three projects was local, the
Ritz Towers, from July 29, 1980 to June 12, 1982, while the other two were
overseas—the New Istana Project in Brunei, Darussalam, from June 23,
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
236
236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
D.M. Consuji, Inc. vs. Jamin
1982 to February 16, 1984; and again, the New Istana Project, from January
24, 1986 to May 25, 1986.
Same; Same; Once a project or work pool employee has been: (1)
continuously, as opposed to intermittently, rehired by the same employer for
the same tasks or nature of tasks; and (2) these tasks are vital, necessary
and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer, then the
employee must be deemed a regular employee.—To reiterate, Jamin’s
employment history with DMCI stands out for his continuous, repeated and
successive rehiring in the company’s construction projects. In all the 38
projects where DMCI engaged Jamin’s services, the tasks he performed as a
carpenter were indisputably necessary and desirable in DMCI’s construction
business. He might not have been a member of a work pool as DMCI
insisted that it does not maintain a work pool, but his continuous rehiring
and the nature of his work unmistakably made him a regular employee. In
Maraguinot, Jr. v. NLRC, 284 SCRA 539 (1998), the Court held that once a
project or work pool employee has been: (1) continuously, as opposed to
intermittently, rehired by the same employer for the same tasks or nature of
tasks; and (2) these tasks are vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual
business or trade of the employer, then the employee must be deemed a
regular employee.
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000184e154ad96611fbd2e000d00d40059004a/p/ASV918/?username=Guest 1/12
Same; Same; Length of time is not the controlling test for project
employment, nevertheless, it is vital in determining if the employee was
hired for a specific undertaking or tasked to perform functions vital,
necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer.
—“Surely, length of time is not the controlling test for project employment.
Nevertheless, it is vital in determining if the employee was hired for a
specific undertaking or tasked to perform functions vital, necessary and
indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer. Here, [private]
respondent had been a project employee several times over. His employment
ceased to be coterminous with specific projects when he was repeatedly re-
hired due to the demands of petitioner’s business.” Without doubt, Jamin’s
case fits squarely into the employment situation just quoted.
Same; Project Employees; Separation Pay; Project employees are not
entitled to termination pay if they are terminated as a result of the
completion of the project or any phase thereof in which they are employed,
regardless of the number of projects in which they have
237
VOL. 670, APRIL 18, 2012 237
been employed by a particular construction company.—With our ruling that

Jamin had been a regular employee, the issue of whether DMCI submitted
termination of employment reports, pursuant to Policy Instructions No. 20
(Undated), as superseded by DOLE Department Order No. 19 (series of
1993), has become academic. DOLE Policy Instructions No. 20 provides in
part: Project employees are not entitled to termination pay if they are
terminated as a result of the completion of the project or any phase thereof
in which they are employed, regardless of the number of projects in which
they have been employed by a particular construction company. Moreover,
the company is not required to obtain a clearance from the Secretary of
Labor in connection with such termination. What is required of the company
is a report to the nearest Public Employment Office for statistical purposes.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Bernas, Pagaspas, Balatbat, See for petitioners.
Fernandez and Associates for respondent.
BRION, J.:
We resolve the present appeal1 from the decision2 dated February
26, 2010 and the resolution3 dated June 3, 2010 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 100099.
The Antecedents
On December 17, 1968, petitioner D.M. Consunji, Inc. (DMCI),
a construction company, hired respondent Estelito L.
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 3-23; filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
2 Id., at pp. 26-37; penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz, and concurred in
by former Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes (now a Supreme Court Associate
Justice) and Associate Justice Jaapar B. Dimaampao.
3 Id., at pp. 46-47.
238

Jamin as a laborer. Sometime in 1975, Jamin became a helper

carpenter. Since his initial hiring, Jamin’s employment contract had
been renewed a number of times.4 On March 20, 1999, his work at
DMCI was terminated due to the completion of the SM Manila
project. This termination marked the end of his employment with
DMCI as he was not rehired again.
On April 5, 1999, Jamin filed a complaint5 for illegal dismissal,
with several money claims (including attorney’s fees), against
DMCI and its President/General Manager, David M. Consunji.
Jamin alleged that DMCI terminated his employment without a just
and authorized cause at a time when he was already 55 years old and
had no independent source of livelihood. He claimed that he
rendered service to DMCI continuously for almost 31 years. In
addition to the schedule of projects (where he was assigned)
submitted by DMCI to the labor arbiter,6 he alleged that he worked
for three other DMCI projects: Twin Towers, Ritz Towers, from July
29, 1980 to June 12, 1982; New Istana Project, B.S.B. Brunei, from
June 23, 1982 to February 16, 1984; and New Istana Project, B.S.B.
Brunei, from January 24, 1986 to May 25, 1986.
DMCI denied liability. It argued that it hired Jamin on a project-
to-project basis, from the start of his engagement in 1968 until the
completion of its SM Manila project on March 20, 1999 where
Jamin last worked. With the completion of the project, it terminated
Jamin’s employment. It alleged that it submitted a report to the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) everytime it
terminated Jamin’s services.
_______________
4 Supra note 2, at pp. 2-31; Schedule of DMCI projects where Jamin worked.
5 Rollo, pp. 49-50.
6 Id., at p. 60.
239
VOL. 670, APRIL 18, 2012 239

The Compulsory Arbitration Rulings

In a decision dated May 27, 2002,7 Labor Arbiter Francisco A.
Robles dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. He sustained
DMCI’s position that Jamin was a project employee whose services
had been terminated due to the completion of the project where he
was assigned. The labor arbiter added that everytime DMCI rehired
Jamin, it entered into a contract of employment with him. Moreover,
upon completion of the phase of the project for which Jamin was
hired or upon completion of the project itself, the company served a
notice of termination to him and a termination report to the DOLE
Regional Office. The labor arbiter also noted that Jamin had to file
an application if he wanted to be re-hired.
On appeal by Jamin, the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC), in its decision of April 18, 2007,8 dismissed the appeal and
affirmed the labor arbiter’s finding that Jamin was a project
employee. Jamin moved for reconsideration, but the NLRC denied
the motion in a resolution dated May 30, 2007.9 Jamin sought relief
from the CA through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court.
The CA Decision
On February 26, 2010, the CA Special Fourth Division rendered

the disputed decision10 reversing the compulsory arbitration rulings.
It held that Jamin was a regular employee. It based its conclusion
on: (1) Jamin’s repeated and successive rehiring in DMCI’s various

projects; and (2) the nature of his work in the projects—he was
performing activities necessary or desirable in DMCI’s construction
business.
_______________
7 Id., at pp. 206-217.
8 Id., at pp. 249-253.
9 Id., at p. 264.
10 Supra note 2.
240

Invoking the Court’s ruling in an earlier case,11 the CA declared

that the pattern of Jamin’s rehiring and the recurring need for his
services are sufficient evidence of the necessity and indispensability
of such services to DMCI’s business or trade, a key indicator of
regular employment. It opined that although Jamin started as a
project employee, the circumstances of his employment made it
regular or, at the very least, has ripened into a regular employment.
The CA considered the project employment contracts Jamin
entered into with DMCI for almost 31 years not definitive of his
actual status in the company. It stressed that the existence of such
contracts is not always conclusive of a worker’s employment status
as this Court explained in Liganza v. RBL Shipyard Corporation, et
al.12 It found added support from Integrated Contractor and
Plumbing Works, Inc. v. NLRC,13 where the Court said that while
there were several employment contracts between the worker and
the employer, in all of them, the worker performed tasks which were
usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the
employer and, a review of the worker’s assignments showed that he
belonged to a work pool, making his employment regular.
Contrary to DMCI’s submission and the labor arbiter’s findings,
the CA noted that DMCI failed to submit a report to the DOLE
Regional Office everytime Jamin’s employment was terminated, as
required by DOLE Policy Instructions No. 20. The CA opined that
DMCI’s failure to submit the reports to the DOLE is an indication
that Jamin was not a project employee. It further noted that DOLE
Department Order No. 19, Series of 1993, which superseded DOLE
Policy Instruc-
_______________
11 Baguio Country Club Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission,
G.R. No. 71664, February 28, 1992, 206 SCRA 643.
12 G.R. No. 159862, October 17, 2006, 504 SCRA 678.
13 503 Phil. 875; 466 SCRA 265 (2005).
241
VOL. 670, APRIL 18, 2012 241

tions No. 20, provides that the termination report is one of the
indicators of project employment.14
Having found Jamin to be a regular employee, the CA declared
his dismissal illegal as it was without a valid cause and without due
process. It found that DMCI failed to provide Jamin the required
notice before he was dismissed. Accordingly, the CA ordered
Jamin’s immediate reinstatement with backwages, and without loss

of seniority rights and other benefits.
DMCI moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied the motion
in its resolution of June 3, 2010.15 DMCI is now before the Court
through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court.16
The Petition
DMCI seeks a reversal of the CA rulings on the ground that the

appellate court committed a grave error in annulling the decisions of
the labor arbiter and the NLRC. It presents the following arguments:
1. The CA misapplied the phrase “usually necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer” when it
considered Jamin a regular employee. The definition of a regular
employee under Article 280 of the Labor Code does not apply to
project employment or “employment which has been fixed for a
specific project,” as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Fernandez
v. National Labor Relations Commission17 and D.M. Consunji, Inc.
v. NLRC.18 It maintains the same project employment methodology
in its business operations and it cannot understand why a different
ruling or treatment would be handed down in the present case.
_______________
14 Section 2.2(e)
15 Supra note 3.
16 Supra note 1.
17 G.R. No. 106090, February 28, 1994, 230 SCRA 460.
18 401 Phil. 635; 348 SCRA 441 (2000).
242

2. There is no work pool in DMCI’s roster of project

employees. The CA erred in insinuating that Jamin belonged to a
work pool when it cited Integrated Contractor and Plumbing Works,
Inc. ruling.19 At any rate, Jamin presented no evidence to prove his
membership in any work pool at DMCI.
3. The CA misinterpreted the rules requiring the submission of
termination of employment reports to the DOLE. While the report is
an indicator of project employment, as noted by the CA, it is only
one of several indicators under the rules.20 In any event, the CA
penalized DMCI for a few lapses in its submission of reports to the
DOLE with a “very rigid application of the rule despite the almost
unanimous proofs surrounding the circumstances of private
respondent being a project employee as shown by petitioner’s
documentary evidence.”21
4. The CA erred in holding that Jamin was dismissed without
due process for its failure to serve him notice prior to the termination
of his employment. As Jamin was not dismissed for cause, there was
no need to furnish him a written notice of the grounds for the
dismissal and neither is there a need for a hearing. When there is no
more job for Jamin because of the completion of the project, DMCI,
under the law, has the right to terminate his employment without
incurring any liability. Pursuant to the rules implementing the Labor
Code,22 if the termination is brought about by the completion of the
contract or phase thereof, no prior notice is required.
Finally, DMCI objects to the CA’s reversal of the findings of the
labor arbiter and the NLRC in the absence of a showing that the
labor authorities committed a grave abuse of discre-
_______________
19 Supra note 13.
20 Supra note 14.
21 Supra note 1, at pp. 16-17.
22 Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, Book VI, Rule I, Sec. 1(d)(iii),
last paragraph, not Book V, Rule XXIII, Section 2(c), as cited.
243
VOL. 670, APRIL 18, 2012 243

tion or that evidence had been disregarded or that their rulings had
been arrived at arbitrarily.
The Case for Jamin
In his Comment (to the Petition),23 Jamin prays that the petition
be denied for having been filed out of time and for lack of merit.He
claims, in support of his plea for the petition’s outright dismissal,
that DMCI received a copy of the CA decision (dated February 26,
2010) on March 4, 2010, as stated by DMCI itself in its motion for
reconsideration of the decision.24 Since DMCI filed the motion with
the CA on March 22, 2010, it is obvious, Jamin stresses, that the
motion was filed three days beyond the 15-day reglementary period,
the last day of which fell on March 19, 2010. He maintains that for
this reason, the CA’s February 26, 2010 decision had become final
and executory, as he argued before the CA in his Comment and
Opposition (to DMCI’s Motion for Reconsideration).25
On the merits of the case, Jamin submits that the CA committed
no error in nullifying the rulings of the labor arbiter and the NLRC.
He contends that DMCI misread this Court’s rulings in Fernandez v.
National Labor Relations Commission, et al.26 and D.M. Consunji,
Inc. v. NLRC,27 cited to support its position that Jamin was a project
employee.
Jamin argues that in Fernandez, the Court explained that the
proviso in the second paragraph of Article 280 of the Labor Code
relates only to casual employees who shall be considered regular
employees if they have rendered at least one year of service, whether
such service is continuous or broken. He further argues that in
Fernandez, the Court held
_______________
23 Rollo, pp. 328-348.
24 Id., at p. 38, paragraph 1.
25 Id., at pp. 350-351.
26 Supra note 17.
27 Supra note 18.
244

that inasmuch as the documentary evidence clearly showed gaps of a

month or months between the hiring of Ricardo Fernandez in the
numerous projects where he was assigned, it was the Court’s
conclusion that Fernandez had not continuously worked for the
company but only intermittently as he was hired solely for specific
projects.28 Also, in Fernandez, the Court affirmed its rulings in
earlier cases that “the failure of the employer to report to the
[nearest] employment office the termination of workers everytime a
project is completed proves that the employees are not project

employees.”29
Jamin further explains that in the D.M. Consunji, Inc. case, the
company deliberately omitted portions of the Court’s ruling stating
that the complainants were not claiming that they were regular
employees; rather, they were questioning the termination of their
employment before the completion of the project at the Cebu Super
Block, without just cause and due process.30
In the matter of termination reports to the DOLE, Jamin disputes
DMCI’s submission that it committed only few lapses in the
reportorial requirement. He maintains that even the NLRC noted that
there were no termination reports with the DOLE Regional Office
after every completion of a phase of work, although the NLRC
considered that the report is required only for statistical purposes.
He, therefore, contends that the CA committed no error in holding
that DMCI’s failure to submit reports to the DOLE was an indication
that he was not a project employee.
Finally, Jamin argues that as a regular employee of DMCI for
almost 31 years, the termination of his employment was without just
cause and due process.
_______________
28 Supra note 17, at p. 465.
29 Id., at p. 468.
245
VOL. 670, APRIL 18, 2012 245

The Court’s Ruling

The procedural issue
Was DMCI’s appeal filed out of time, as Jamin claims, and
should have been dismissed outright? The records support Jamin’s
submission on the issue.
DMCI received its copy of the February 26, 2010 CA decision on
March 4, 2010 (a Thursday), as indicated in its motion for
reconsideration of the decision itself,31 not on March 5, 2010 (a
Friday), as stated in the present petition.32 The deadline for the filing
of the motion for reconsideration was on March 19, 2010 (15 days
from receipt of copy of the decision), but it was filed only on March
22, 2010 or three days late. Clearly, the motion for reconsideration
was filed out of time, thereby rendering the CA decision final
and executory.
Necessarily, DMCI’s petition for review on certiorari is also late
as it had only fifteen (15) days from notice of the CA decision to file
the petition or the denial of its motion for reconsideration filed in
due time.33 The reckoning date is March 4, 2010, since DMCI’s
motion for reconsideration was not filed in due time. We see no
point in exercising liberality and disregarding the late filing as we
did in Orozco v. Fifth Division of the Court of Appeals,34 where we
ruled that “[t]echnicality should not be allowed to stand in the way
of equitably and completely resolving the rights and obligations of
the parties.” The petition lacks merit for its failure to show that the
CA committed any reversible error or grave abuse of discretion
when it reversed the findings of the labor arbiter and the NLRC.
_______________
31 Supra note 24.
33 Rules of Court, Rule 45, Section 1.
34 497 Phil. 227; 457 SCRA 700 (2005), citing Buenaobra v. Lim King Guan, 465
Phil. 290; 420 SCRA 359 (2004).
246

As earlier mentioned, Jamin worked for DMCI for almost 31

years, initially as a laborer and, for the most part, as a carpenter.
Through all those years, DMCI treated him as a project employee,
so that he never obtained tenure. On the surface and at first glance,
DMCI appears to be correct. Jamin entered into a contract of
employment (actually an appointment paper to which he signified
his conformity) with DMCI either as a field worker, a temporary
worker, a casual employee, or a project employee everytime DMCI
needed his services and a termination of employment paper was
served on him upon completion of every project or phase of the
project where he worked.35 DMCI would then submit termination of
employment reports to the DOLE, containing the names of a number
of employees including Jamin.36 The NLRC and the CA would later
on say, however, that DMCI failed to submit termination reports to
the DOLE.
The CA pierced the cover of Jamin’s project employment
contract and declared him a regular employee who had been
dismissed without cause and without notice. To reiterate, the CA’s
findings were based on: (1) Jamin’s repeated and successive
engagements in DMCI’s construction projects, and (2) Jamin’s
performance of activities necessary or desirable in DMCI’s usual
trade or business.
We agree with the CA. In Liganza v. RBL Shipyard
Corporation,37 the Court held that “[a]ssuming, without
granting[,] that [the] petitioner was initially hired for specific
projects or undertakings, the repeated re-hiring and continuing
need for his services for over eight (8) years have undeniably
made him a regular employee.” We find the Liganza ruling
squarely applicable to this case, considering that for almost 31 years,
DMCI had repeatedly, continuously and successively engaged
Jamin’s services since
_______________
35 Rollo, pp. 71-140.
36 Id., at pp. 141-157.
247
VOL. 670, APRIL 18, 2012 247

he was hired on December 17, 1968 or for a total of 38 times—35 as

shown by the schedule of projects submitted by DMCI to the labor
arbiter38 and three more projects or engagements added by Jamin,
which he claimed DMCI intentionally did not include in its schedule
so as to make it appear that there were wide gaps in his
engagements. One of the three projects was local, the Ritz Towers,39
from July 29, 1980 to June 12, 1982, while the other two were
overseas—the New Istana Project in Brunei, Darussalam, from June
23, 1982 to February 16, 1984;40 and again, the New Istana Project,
from January 24, 1986 to May 25, 1986.41
We reviewed Jamin’s employment contracts as the CA did and

we noted that while the contracts indeed show that Jamin had been
engaged as a project employee, there was an almost unbroken string
of Jamin’s rehiring from December 17, 1968 up to the termination of
his employment on March 20, 1999. While the history of Jamin’s
employment (schedule of projects)42 relied upon by DMCI shows a
gap of almost four years in his employment for the period between
July 28, 1980 (the supposed completion date of the Midtown Plaza
project) and June 13, 1984 (the start of the IRRI Dorm IV project),
the gap was caused by the company’s omission of the three projects
above mentioned.
For not disclosing that there had been other projects where
DMCI engaged his services, Jamin accuses the company of
suppressing vital evidence that supports his contention that he
rendered service in the company’s construction projects
continuously and repeatedly for more than three decades. The
_______________
38 Supra note 6.
39 Rollo, p. 171; Certification of Premium Payments, SSS Makati Branch.
40 Id., at pp. 175-196; Jamin’s Payslips for the New Istana Project.
41 Id., at pp. 197-199; Payslips for New Istana Project (second phase).
42 Supra note 6.
248

non-disclosure might not have constituted suppression of evidence

—it could just have been overlooked by the company—but the
oversight is unfair to Jamin as the non-inclusion of the three projects
gives the impression that there were substantial gaps not only of
several months but years in his employment with DMCI.
Thus, as Jamin explains, the Ritz Tower Project (July 29, 1980 to
June 12, 1982) and the New Istana Project (June 23, 1982 to
February 16, 1984) would explain the gap between the Midtown
Plaza project (September 3, 1979 to July 28, 1980) and the IRRI
Dorm IV project (June 13, 1984 to March 12, 1985) and the other
New Istana Project (January 24, 1986 to May 25, 1986) would
explain the gap between P. 516 Hanger (September 13, 1985 to
January 23, 1986) and P. 516 Maint (May 26, 1986 to November 18,
1987).
To reiterate, Jamin’s employment history with DMCI stands out
for his continuous, repeated and successive rehiring in the
company’s construction projects. In all the 38 projects where DMCI
engaged Jamin’s services, the tasks he performed as a carpenter
were indisputably necessary and desirable in DMCI’s construction
business. He might not have been a member of a work pool as
DMCI insisted that it does not maintain a work pool, but his
continuous rehiring and the nature of his work unmistakably made
him a regular employee. In Maraguinot, Jr. v. NLRC,43 the Court
held that once a project or work pool employee has been: (1)
continuously, as opposed to intermittently, rehired by the same
employer for the same tasks or nature of tasks; and (2) these tasks
are vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade
of the employer, then the employee must be deemed a regular
employee.
Further, as we stressed in Liganza,44 “[r]espondent capitalizes on
our ruling in D.M. Consunji, Inc. v. NLRC which reit-
_______________
43 348 Phil. 580; 284 SCRA 539 (1998).

249
VOL. 670, APRIL 18, 2012 249

erates the rule that the length of service of a project employee is not
the controlling test of employment tenure but whether or not ‘the
employment 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.’ ”
“Surely, length of time is not the controlling test for project
employment. Nevertheless, it is vital in determining if the employee
was hired for a specific undertaking or tasked to perform functions
vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of
the employer. Here, [private] respondent had been a project
employee several times over. His employment ceased to be
coterminous with specific projects when he was repeatedly re-hired
due to the demands of petitioner’s business.”45 Without doubt,
Jamin’s case fits squarely into the employment situation just quoted.
The termination reports
With our ruling that Jamin had been a regular employee, the issue
of whether DMCI submitted termination of employment reports,
pursuant to Policy Instructions No. 20 (Undated46), as superseded by
DOLE Department Order No. 19 (series of 1993), has become
academic. DOLE Policy Instructions No. 20 provides in part:
“Project employees are not entitled to termination pay if they are

terminated as a result of the completion of the project or any phase thereof
in which they are employed, regardless of the number of projects in which
they have been employed by a particular construction company. Moreover,
the company is not required to obtain a clearance from the Secretary of
Labor in connection with such
_______________
45 Ibid.
46 Vicente B. Foz, The Labor Code of the Philippines and its Implementing Rules
and Regulations, 7th Edition, 1979, pp. 134-135, but cited as Policy Instructions No. 20
(Series of 1977) in Raycor Aircontrol Systems, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,
330 Phil. 306, 315; 261 SCRA 589 (1996).
250

termination. What is required of the company is a report to the nearest

Public Employment Office for statistical purposes.”47
To set the records straight, DMCI indeed submitted reports to the

DOLE but as pointed out by Jamin, the submissions started only in
1992.48 DMCI explained that it submitted the earlier reports (1982),
but it lost and never recovered the reports. It reconstituted the lost
reports and submitted them to the DOLE in October 1992; thus, the
dates appearing in the reports.49
Is David M. Consunji, DMCI’s President/
General Manager, liable for Jamin’s
dismissal?
While there is no question that the company is liable for Jamin’s
dismissal, we note that the CA made no pronouncement on whether
DMCI’s President/General Manager, a co-petitioner with the

company, is also liable.50 Neither had the parties brought the matter
up to the CA nor with this Court. As there is no express finding of
Mr. Consunji’s involvement in Jamin’s dismissal, we deem it proper
to absolve him of liability in this case.
As a final point, it is well to reiterate a cautionary statement we
made in Maraguinot,51 thus:
“At this time, we wish to allay any fears that this decision unduly
burdens an employer by imposing a duty to re-hire a project employee even
after completion of the project for which he was hired. The import of this
decision is not to impose a positive and sweeping obligation upon the
employer to re-hire project employees. What this
_______________
47 Id., paragraph 4.
48 Rollo, pp. 141-147.
49 Id., at p. 243; DMCI’s Answer to and/or Comment on the Appeal, p. 8.
51 Supra note 43 at p. 605; p. 560.
251
VOL. 670, APRIL 18, 2012 251

decision merely accomplishes is a judicial recognition of the employment

status of a project or work pool employee in accordance with what is fait
accompli, i.e., the continuous re-hiring by the employer of project or work
pool employees who perform tasks necessary or desirable to the employer’s
usual business or trade.”
In sum, we deny the present appeal for having been filed late and
for lack of any reversible error. We see no point in extending any
liberality by disregarding the late filing as the petition lacks merit.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby
DENIED for late filing and for lack of merit. The decision dated
February 26, 2010 and the resolution dated June 3, 2010 of the Court
of Appeals are AFFIRMED. Petitioner David M. Consunji is
absolved of liability in this case.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Peralta,** Perez and Sereno, JJ., concur.
Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.
Notes.—The test for distinguishing a “project employee” from a

“regular employee” is whether or not he has been assigned to carry
out a “specific project or understanding,” with the duration and
scope of his engagement specified at the time his service is
contracted. (William Uy Construction Corp. vs. Trinidad, 615 SCRA
180 [2010])
There are two types of employees in the construction industry—
Project employees and Non-project employees. (Exodus
International Construction Corporation vs. Biscocho, 644 SCRA 76
[2011])
——o0o——
_______________
** Additional Member vice Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes per Raffle dated March
28, 2012.
© Copyright 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

D.M. Consunji v. Jamin, G.R. No. 192514, April 18, 2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

D.M. Consunji v. Jamin, G.R. No. 192514, April 18, 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

12/5/22, 4:07 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670

G.R. No. 192514. April 18, 2012.*

D.M. CONSUNJI, INC. and/or DAVID M. CONSUNJI, petitioners,

Labor Law; Regular Employees; Assuming, without granting, that the

236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

D.M. Consuji, Inc. vs. Jamin

VOL. 670, APRIL 18, 2012 237

D.M. Consuji, Inc. vs. Jamin

been employed by a particular construction company.—With our ruling that

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Jamin as a laborer. Sometime in 1975, Jamin became a helper

VOL. 670, APRIL 18, 2012 239

The Compulsory Arbitration Rulings

On February 26, 2010, the CA Special Fourth Division rendered

on: (1) Jamin’s repeated and successive rehiring in DMCI’s various

240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Invoking the Court’s ruling in an earlier case,11 the CA declared

VOL. 670, APRIL 18, 2012 241

Jamin’s immediate reinstatement with backwages, and without loss

DMCI seeks a reversal of the CA rulings on the ground that the

242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

2. There is no work pool in DMCI’s roster of project

VOL. 670, APRIL 18, 2012 243

The Case for Jamin

244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

that inasmuch as the documentary evidence clearly showed gaps of a

project is completed proves that the employees are not project

VOL. 670, APRIL 18, 2012 245

The Court’s Ruling

246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

As earlier mentioned, Jamin worked for DMCI for almost 31

VOL. 670, APRIL 18, 2012 247

he was hired on December 17, 1968 or for a total of 38 times—35 as

We reviewed Jamin’s employment contracts as the CA did and

248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

non-disclosure might not have constituted suppression of evidence

43 348 Phil. 580; 284 SCRA 539 (1998).

VOL. 670, APRIL 18, 2012 249

“Project employees are not entitled to termination pay if they are

250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

termination. What is required of the company is a report to the nearest

To set the records straight, DMCI indeed submitted reports to the

DMCI’s President/General Manager, a co-petitioner with the

VOL. 670, APRIL 18, 2012 251

decision merely accomplishes is a judicial recognition of the employment

Carpio (Chairperson), Peralta,** Perez and Sereno, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

Notes.—The test for distinguishing a “project employee” from a

© Copyright 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like