Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 106 views

    Cioco Vs C.E. - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Manuel Potrido
    The workers were hired by C.E. Construction Corporation for various construction projects from 1990 to 1999, with their employment contracts stipulating that their employment was co-terminus with project completion. In 1999, they were terminated due to completion of the GTI Tower project phases. While the workers claimed they were regular employees, courts found they were project employees based on their contracts. However, the appellate court also found their dismissal was illegal as the company did not properly notify them or conclusively prove project completion. But the Supreme Court reversed, finding the company did submit adequate evidence of project progress and completion, so the dismissal of project employees was valid and they were not entitled to back wages.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Cioco Vs C.E. - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Manuel Potrido
    106 views2 pages
    The workers were hired by C.E. Construction Corporation for various construction projects from 1990 to 1999, with their employment contracts stipulating that their employment was co-terminus with project completion. In 1999, they were terminated due to completion of the GTI Tower project phases. While the workers claimed they were regular employees, courts found they were project employees based on their contracts. However, the appellate court also found their dismissal was illegal as the company did not properly notify them or conclusively prove project completion. But the Supreme Court reversed, finding the company did submit adequate evidence of project progress and completion, so the dismissal of project employees was valid and they were not entitled to back wages.

    Original Description:

    Labor Case

    Original Title

    Cioco vs C.E. -Digest

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The workers were hired by C.E. Construction Corporation for various construction projects from 1990 to 1999, with their employment contracts stipulating that their employment was co-terminus with project completion. In 1999, they were terminated due to completion of the GTI Tower project phases. While the workers claimed they were regular employees, courts found they were project employees based on their contracts. However, the appellate court also found their dismissal was illegal as the company did not properly notify them or conclusively prove project completion. But the Supreme Court reversed, finding the company did submit adequate evidence of project progress and completion, so the dismissal of project employees was valid and they were not entitled to back wages.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    106 views2 pages

    Cioco Vs C.E. - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Manuel Potrido
    The workers were hired by C.E. Construction Corporation for various construction projects from 1990 to 1999, with their employment contracts stipulating that their employment was co-terminus with project completion. In 1999, they were terminated due to completion of the GTI Tower project phases. While the workers claimed they were regular employees, courts found they were project employees based on their contracts. However, the appellate court also found their dismissal was illegal as the company did not properly notify them or conclusively prove project completion. But the Supreme Court reversed, finding the company did submit adequate evidence of project progress and completion, so the dismissal of project employees was valid and they were not entitled to back wages.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Cioco vs C.E. Construction Facts: Isaac Cioco, et al. were hired by C.E.

    Construction Corporation, a domestic corporation engaged in the construction business, hired workers as carpenters and laborers in various construction projects from 1990 to 1999. The latest of which was GTI Tower in Makati. Prior to the start of every project, the workers signed individual employment contracts. The contract stipulated that the period of employment shall be co-terminus with the completion of the project, unless sooner terminated by you prior to the completion of the projects. May and June 1999, workers were terminated by the company on the ground of completion of the phases of the GTI Tower project. Alleging that they were regular employees, they filed for illegal dismissal. LA arbiter rendered judgment in favor of the company on April 17, 2000. He ruled that the workers were project employees as evident in the employment contracts; that due notice were afforded; required termination reports were submitted to DOLE. The NLRC affirmed the LAs decision on appeal. The workers filed special civil action for certiorari with CA. On August 28, 2002, the CA rendered its now assailed decision, the dispositive portion of which is:
    WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is partially given DUE COURSE. The assailed Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission dated October 26, 2001 affirming the Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated April 17, 2000 dismissing the petitioners complaint for illegal dismissal and claims for under payment (sic) and non-payment of monetary benefits for lack of merit, and its Resolution of November 29, 2001 denying petitioners Motion for Reconsideration are hereby AFFIRMED, but MODIFIED, in that although petitioners were project employees, their dismissal as such project employees is hereby declared ILLEGAL, and private respondent C.E. Construction Corporation is directed to pay back wages computed from the date of termination, i.e., May 27, 1999 for petitioners Isaac Cioco, Jr., Carmelo Juanzo, Cecelio (sic) Soler and Benito Galvadores and from June 5, 1999 for petitioners Rebie Mercado, Baysa Benjamin (sic) and Rodrigo Napoles, up to the date of completion of the construction of the GTI Tower project.

    The workers contend that they are regular employees, hence entitled to reinstatement and back wages from the time of their illegal dismissal. The company, however, contends that the workers are its project employees, that they are not illegally dismissed.

    ISSUE: W/N the workers were regular employees of the company. W/N the workers were illegally dismissed.

    The LA, NLRC, CA unanimously found that the workers were project employees. They hold that fact the workers have been employed with company for several years, did not automatically make them regular employees considering that the definition of regular employment in Article 280 of the Labor Code, makes specific exception with respect to project employment. The re-hiring of petitioners on a project-to-project basis did not confer upon them regular employment status. The practice was dictated by the practical consideration that experienced construction workers are more preferred. It did not change their status as project employees

    The next issue is whether the WORKERS were illegally dismissed. The CA ruled that they were illegally dismissed as: There was no evidence presented by the COMPANY to show that the WORKERS had been duly notified or informed beforehand of their dismissal and the reasons therefor. Furthermore, the COMPANY allegedly failed to present evidence conclusively proving completion of the GTI Tower project or phases thereof for which the services of the WORKERS had been engaged. Individual notices of termination had been sent to the WORKERS Section 215 (III), Rule XXIII, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code provides that no prior notice of termination is required if the termination is brought about by completion of the contract or phase thereof for which the worker has been engaged. This is because completion of the work or project automatically terminates the employment, in which case, the employer is, under the law, only obliged to render a report to the DOLE on the termination of the employment. COMPANY failed to present evidence conclusively showing actual completion of the GTI Tower project or respective phases thereof for which the WORKERS had been hired The court again review the records and it shows that hat the COMPANY submitted the needed evidence. In its motion for reconsideration of the CAs decision, the COMPANY attached the following: a. Progress Billing Reports clearly showing that the GTI Tower project was already 80.9203% and 81.3747% accomplished as of May 31, 1999 and June 30, 1999, respectively b. Specifically, the particular form, concreting and masonry works for which the WORKERS had been hired and assigned were already completed or near completion The WORKERS did not question the veracity of the evidence presented and just insisted that they are regular employees of the COMPANY, hence, not liable for termination on mere ground of project completion. Considering the foregoing, we hold that the COMPANY complied with the procedural as well as the substantive requirements of due process with respect to the WORKERS termination, as found by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. We reverse the CA. The termination from employment of project employees Isaac Cioco, Jr., Their award of backwages computed from the date of their termination is set aside

    You might also like