Minsola vs. New City Builders

G.R. No.
207613, January 31, 2018
REYMAN G. MINSOLA, Petitioner, v. NEW CITY BUILDERS, INC. AND ENGR.

ERNEL FAJARDO, Respondents.
DECISION
REYES, JR., J.:
The Antecedents
New City Builders, Inc. (New City) is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the
Philippines engaged in the construction business, specializing in structural and design
works.4
On December 16, 2008, New City hired Minsola as a laborer for the structural phase of
its Avida Tower 3 Project (Avida 3).5 Minsola was given a salary of Two Hundred Sixty
Pesos (Php 260.00) per day.6 The employment contract stated that the duration of
Minsola's employment will last until the completion of the structural phase.7
Subsequently, on August 24, 2009, the structural phase of the Avida 3 was
completed.8 Thus, Minsola received a notice of termination, which stated that his
employment shall be effectively terminated at the end of working hours at 5:00 p.m. on
even date.
On August 25, 2009, New City re-hired Minsola as a mason for the architectural phase
of the Avida 3.9
Meanwhile, sometime in December 2009, upon reviewing Minsola's employment record,

New City noticed that Minsola had no appointment paper as a mason for the
architectural phase. Consequently, New City instructed Minsola to update his
employment record. However, the latter ignored New City's instructions, and continued
to work without an appointment paper.
On January 20, 2010, Minsola was again summoned to the office of New City to sign his
appointment paper. Minsola adamantly refused to comply with the directive. He
stormed out of the office, and never reported back for work.10
On January 26, 2010, Minsola filed a Complaint for Illegal Dismissal, Underpayment of
Salary, Non-Payment of 13th Month Pay, Separation Pay and Refund of Cash Bond.11 In
his position paper,12 Minsola claimed that he was a regular employee of New City as he
rendered work for more than one year and that his work as a laborer/mason is
necessary and desirable to the former's business. He claimed that he was constructively
dismissed by New City.
The Issues
The instant legal conundrum rests on the following issues, to wit: (i) whether or not
Minsola was a project employee;
On the other hand, New City counters that Minsola was hired as a project employee to
work for the structural phase, and thereafter, the architectural phase of the Avida 3. His
work as a laborer was completely different from his tasks as a mason.34 In this regard,
his subsequent re-hiring cannot be construed as a continuation of his former
employment. Furthermore, the simple fact that his employment has gone beyond one
year does not automatically convert his employment status. Finally, New City maintains
that Minsola failed to present any proof to substantiate his claim of illegal dismissal. It
did not dismiss Minsola, nor did it prevent the latter from reporting for work.35
Ruling of the Court
Minsola is a Project Employee of

New City
Parenthetically, in a project-based employment, the employee is assigned to a

particular project or phase, which begins and ends at a determined or determinable
time. Consequently, the services of the project employee may be lawfully terminated
upon the completion of such project or phase.38 For employment to be regarded as
project-based, it is incumbent upon the employer to prove that (i) the employee was
hired to carry out a specific project or undertaking, and (ii) the employee was notified
of the duration and scope of the project.39 In order to safeguard the rights of workers
against the arbitrary use of the word "project" as a means to prevent employees from
attaining regular status, employers must prove that the duration and scope of the
employment were specified at the time the employees were engaged, and prove the
existence of the project.40
In the case at bar, Minsola was hired by New City Builders to perform work for two
different phases in the construction of the Avida 3. The records show that he was hired
as a laborer for the structural phase of the Avida 3 from December 16, 2008 until
August 24, 2009. Upon the completion of the structural phase, he was again employed
on August 25, 2009, by New City, this time for the architectural phase of the same
project. There is no quibbling that Minsola was adequately informed of his employment
status (as a project employee) at the time of his engagement. This is clearly
substantiated by the latter's employment contracts, stating that: (i) he was hired as a
project employee; and (ii) his employment was for the indicated starting dates therein,
and will end on the completion of the project.41 The said contract sufficiently apprised
Minsola that his security of tenure with New City would only last as long as the specific
phase for which he was assigned.

Minsola vs. New City Builders

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Minsola vs. New City Builders

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Minsola vs. New City Builders

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

207613, January 31, 2018

REYMAN G. MINSOLA, Petitioner, v. NEW CITY BUILDERS, INC. AND ENGR.

Meanwhile, sometime in December 2009, upon reviewing Minsola's employment record,

Ruling of the Court

Minsola is a Project Employee of

Parenthetically, in a project-based employment, the employee is assigned to a

You might also like