-,:iii•<'¾'}, ..... -.. - ...... '" ·--.

,,~~
1.§;1.,r-'7'-·'-v,
..~1 ..-f.),:'>'-,.
-r.,... j!
t·, \ . '
t.f,Ii
~~-~
OCT 2 5 2021 , :i ,
3&.epublic of tbe ~bilippine%
$upreme (I.Court b, " .. " -v--idf' .&:!;
JI ..
II i
fflanila T IME: 'f. 4() mfl l4Jj

TIDRD DIVISION

RUBEN CARPIO, G.R. No. 239622

Petitioner,
Present:

LEONEN, J., *
HERNANDO, Acting
- versus - Chairperson,**
INTING;
DELOS SANTOS, and
LOPEZ, J., JJ

MODAIR MANILA CO. LTD., Promulgated:

June 21 , 20 21
INC., Respondent. \..\, ~S'S:::'l>_esi\ ________________x
x ------------------------ ------ ------------------- -------- ---- -

DECISION

LOPEZ, J., J.:

Ruben Carpio (Carpio) filed the instant Petition for Review on

Certiorari 1 dated July 18, 2018, assailing the Decision2 dated December 27,
2017 and the Resolution3 dated April 30, 2018, rendered by the Court of
Appeals Seventh Division (Court of Appeals) in CA-G.R. SP No. 143736,
both of which granted the Petition for Certiorari4 dated January 7, 2016 filed
by Modair Manila Co. Ltd., Inc. (1'vfodair), which assailed the Decision 5
dated September 29, 2015 and Resolution6 dated October 30, 2015 , rendered
by the National Labor Relations Commission Sixth Division (NLRC) in
NLRC LAC Case No. 06-001497-15 , which reversed the ruling 7 of the
Labor Arbiter in NLRC Case No. RAB-IV-10-01443-13-L, dismissing
Carpio's Complaint for illegal dismissal and regularization.

On wellness leave.
Per Special Order No. 2828 dated June 2 1, 2021.
Rollo, pp. I 1-299.
2
Penm:d by Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco (retired), with Associate Justices Rodi! V.
Zalameda (now a member of this Court) and Japar B. Dimaampao, concurring; id. at 273-285.
1
· Id. at 293-299.
Id. at 40-59.
Id. at 60-70.

~
6
Id. at 73-74.
Id. at 223-226.
 C

Decision -2- G.R. No. 239622

Factual and Procedural Antecedents

Carpio's Work Engagements

withModair

A Certificate of Employment dated May 23, 2013 issued by Modair's

Deputy General Manager indicates that Carpio has been employed as a
"contractor's employee (per project basis)," designated as "Electrician 3,"
from October 27, 1998 to April 10, 2013. 8 Apart from the Certificate of
Employment, the evidence provides no further information regarding
Carpio's employment between 1998 to 2008, only providing details from
2008 onwards.

In a Memorandum dated August 1, 2008, Modair informed Carpio that

the "IBIDEN BACK END EXPANSION Project will soon cease operation
due to its project completion[,]" (Back End Expansion Project) for which
Carpio's "services will be terminated effective August 15, 2008" and that he
will be "notified accordingly for re-contract if [his] services will again be
needed." Identical language is found in a Memorandum dated November 30,
2009, terminating his services for the "PIL GREEN CONSTRUCTION
Project" (PIL Green Project) effective December 15, 2009; and a
Memorandum dated September 25, 2010, terminating his services for the
"FAC D. UTIL. WORKS Project" (UTIL. Works Project) effective October 9,
2010. 9

Apart from the foregoing, Modair also engaged Carpio for the
"IBIDEN CPU S3 Project" (Ibiden CPU Project), for which Modair issued a
Memorandum dated July 25, 2012, terminating his services effective August
10, 2012. 10 Modair submitted an Establishment Employment Report to the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Mak:ati City Field Office,
informing said office of the completion of the Ibiden CPU Project. 11
Accordingly, Carpio executed an Affidavit of Release and Quitclaim dated
August 25, 2012, acknowledging that his project employment ceased upon
termination of the project, stating that he had no claims against Modair, and
that said affidavit was explained to him by a Modair official. 12

Modair again hired Carpio for the "NYK TECH PARK project" (NYK
Project), with his engagement covered by a Project Agreement dated August
8, 2012 (NYK Project Agreement), notably indicating that: Carpio would be
hired "as the ELECTRICIA.."I\J 3 for the duration of the project undertaken by
the company x x x effective August 26, 2012 with scheduled date of
completion on Iv1arch 25, 2013 or upon the completion of the phase of the
8
Rollo, p. 123.
9
Id. at 125-127.
" !d at 128.

~
11 ld. at 208.
:2 Id. at 209.
Decision -3 - G.R. No. 239622

work [for] which he is assigned"; that Carpio "shall work for the duration of
the project unless he/she is terminated"; that the contract "is deemed
terminated upon the completion of the project," mnong other eventualities;
and that "[t]wo weeks prior to project completion, [Carpio] will receive a
notice of project completion x x x to remind [Carpio] that the phase of the
said project where [he is] assigned will soon be finished and therefore [his]
services with the company will also be cessated." 13

Modair issued a Memorandum dated March 25, 2013, with language

similar to those above-enumerated, informing Carpio of the termination of
his services effective April 10, 2013. 14 Modair also submitted an
Establishment Employment Report to the DOLE Mak:ati City Field Office,
informing such office of the completion of the NYK Project. 15 Subsequently,
Carpio signed his Final Release of Pay dated April 25, 2013, which
incorporated a Quit Claim whereby he waived any claims against Modair
and confirmed the full payment of everything due him from the NYK
Project. 16 He also executed an Affidavit of Release and Quitclaim dated May
24, 2013, similar to that for the Ibiden CPU Project. 17

Proceedings Before the Labor

Arbiter

Despite executing the above instruments, Carpio filed against

Modair a Complaint for illegal dismissal and regularization before
Regional Arbitration Branch No. IV of the NLRC, docketed as NLRC
Case No. RAB-IV-10-01443-13-L. 18 Sometime in December 2013, during
the pendency of these proceedings, Carpio had gone to the Modair office,
although minor details regarding this interaction (e.g., who had initiated
contact, what representations or promises were made, and what assurances
and apprehensions were exchanged) remain contested.

What remains uncontroverted, however, are the existence of: (1) a

Project Employment Agreement dated December 11, 2013 (FUNAI Project
Agreement), the terms of which are identical to the NYK Project Agreement,
except with Carpio being engaged for the "FUNAI" Project from December
16, 2013 to March 31, 2014; 19 (2) two (2) Petty Cash Vouchers, one dated
December 5, 2013, for Pl,000.00 particularized as "cash advance," and
another dated December 11, 2013, for Pl0,000.00, particularized as "for the
death of his brother";2° (3) an Affidavit of Desistance dated December 11,
2013, signed by Carpio, relative to NLRC Case No. RAB-IV-10-01443-13-

n Id at 87-90.
14
Id at 91.
15 Id at 94.
16
Id at 92.
n Id at 93.
18
Id at 122.
19

~
Id. at 97-100.
20
Id at 96, 102.
Decision -4- G.R. No. 239622

21
L; and (4) a Quitclaim and Release dated December 11, 2013, signed by
Carpio, stating therein that he is withdrawing his Complaint in exchange for
his acceptance of a new contract for project-based employment. 22

Much to Modair's surprise, Carpio still proceeded to submit a

"Sinumpaang Salaysay at Position Paper" dated January 8, 2014, wherein,
curiously enough, he attached the Affidavit of Desistance and the Quitclaim
and Release, both dated December 11, 2013. Additionally, Carpio argued
that he had attained regular status owing to his repeated re-hiring by Modair
for various construction projects; and that he was illegally dismissed since,
despite other available projects, he was not given any work following
completion of the NYK Project; ultimately praying for regularization, a
finding of illegal dismissal, reinstatement with backwages, damages, and
attorney's fees. 23 Modair prayed that the Complaint be dismissed, and argued
that Carpio remained a project-based employee despite recurrent re-hiring;
that he was not illegally dismissed as his engagement was co-terminus with
each project; and that, at any rate, Carpio freely and knowingly executed the
Affidavit ofDesistance and the Quitclaim and Release, both dated December
11, 2013. Modair also presented a Resignation Letter dated February 14,
2000 (Resignation Letter), showing that Carpio voluntarily resigned
effective February 19, 2000. 24

The Labor Arbiter dismissed Carpio's Complaint in a Decision25 dated

March 12, 2015, the dispositive of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the above-entitled case 1s

DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED. 26

The Labor Arbiter found that, not being covered then by any project
employment contract, Carpio's service from 1998 was in the nature of
regular employment, which, however, was interrupted when Carpio
submitted the Resignation Letter. Since then, Carpio's employment had been
covered by project-based contracts, making him a project-based employee
who was not illegally dismissed, but whose engagement concluded
following the completion of the respective projects.

Proceedings Before the NLRC

21
Id. at 132.
12
Id at 101.
23
Id at 108-142.
24
Id. at 143-222.
J.5
jd. at 223-226.

~
26
Id. at 226.
 Decision - 5- G.R. No. 239622

Carpio filed his Appeal Memorandum 27 dated April 10, 2015 with the
NLRC, eventually docketed as NLRC LAC Case No. 06-001497-15, arguing
that the Labor Arbiter misappreciated the facts and misapplied the law, since
the absence of project employment contracts covering several other
assignments made him a regular employee. In its Answer2 8 dated April 30,
2015, Modair insisted on the correctness of the Decision dated March 12,
2015, reiterating its arguments before the Labor Arbiter.

In its Decision 29 dated September 29, 2015, the NLRC reversed the
Labor Arbiter, disposing as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal filed by Complainant-

Ruben Carpio is hereby PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated 12 March
2015 of the Labor Arbiter a quo, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION
declaring Complainant to be a regular employee of Respondent-Modair
Manila Co. Ltd., Inc., and ORDERING the said Respondent to immediately
reinstate the Complainant to his former position, without loss of seniority
rights, but without backwages, and to assign him to its future projects, if
warranted under the circumstances.

SO ORDERED. 30

In so reversing, the NLRC downplayed the evidentiary weight of the

Resignation Letter, saying that Carpio's signature therein does not match his
other specimen signatures, and that the purported resignation is contradicted
by the Certificate of Employment, attesting to- Carpio's continuous
employment from October 27, 1998 to April 10, 2013. Moreover, Carpio's
employment from 2001 to 2010 was covered by continuous payslips, but
Modair had failed to present project-based contracts to prove such nature of
employment during this period. Nevertheless, the NLRC found that Carpio
was not illegally dismissed since his severance was a consequence of the
completion of the NYK Project. Despite both parties moving for partial
reconsideration, the NLRC, in its Resolution 31 dated October 30, 2015,
upheld its Decision dated September 29, 2015.

Proceedings Before the Court

ofAppeals

Modair filed a Petition for Certiorari3 2 dated January 7, 2016 before the
Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 143736, alleging grave
abuse of discretion as the NLRC vvrongly conferred Carpio with regular
status.

"
28
Id. at 227-238.
Id at 239-247.
29
Id. at 60-70.
30
Id. at 69-70.
31
Id. at 73-74.
32
/d. at 40-59. ~
Decision -6- G.R. No. 239622

The Court of Appeals granted Modair's Petition for Certiorari in its

Decision33 dated December 27, 2017, the dispositive of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The

Decision dated 29 September 2015 and the Resolution dated 3 0 October 2015
of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC LAC No. 06-001497-
15 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated 12 March 2015 of
Labor Arbiter Renell Joseph R. Dela Cruz in NLRC Case No. RAB-N-10-
01443-13-L is REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED. 34

The Court of Appeals ruled that Carpio is a project employee,

considering that he signed the NYK Project Agreement knowing that it
covered only a specific project for a definite duration; that Modair had duly
submitted the Establishment Employment Reports, indicative of project-
based employment; and, despite successive re-hiring, length of time is not
decisive on whether an employee is project-based or regular. While Carpio
moved for reconsideration, the Court of Appeals, in its Resolution35 dated
April 30, 2018, upheld its Decision dated December 27, 2017.

Carpio now comes before the Court via the instant Petition for Review
on Certiorari36 dated July 18, 2018. Modair filed its Comment to the Petition
for Review 37 dated October 23, 2018, to which Carpio responded with
a Reply to Respondent's Comrnent 38 dated June 11, 2019. Both parties
essentially rehash their arguments from the proceedings below.

Issues

The Court resolves the interlocking issues of: (1) whether Carpio is a
project-based or regular employee of Modair; and (2) whether Carpio was
illegally dismissed.

Ruling

The Court partially grants the Petition for Review on Certiorari,

resolving the first issue in favor o( and the second issue against, Carpio.

Granted, the above issues are factual questions which generally lie
beyond the scope of the Court's review in a Rule 45 Petition for Review on
Certiorari. Nevertheless, the Comt may, in the exercise of its equity

33 Id. at 273-285.
34 Id at 285.
"
36
Id
Id
at 298-299.
at 11°299.
37
Id at401-416.

'
38 Id. at 428-434.
 1 - '

Decision -7- G.R. No. 239622

jurisdiction, revie:w the facts and re-examine the records of the case, where
there is a conflict between the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the
Court of Appeals, on one hand, and those of the NLRC, on the other. In the
present case, the NLRC and the Court of Appeals have opposing views. 39

Regular Employment and

Project-Based Employments,.
Distinguished

Both regular and project employments find basis in Article 295

(previously Article 280) of the Labor Code, which provides:

ARTICLE 295. [280] Regular and Casual Employment. - The

provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and
regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an 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 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 or where the
work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is
for the duration of the season.

A,n 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 a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is
employed and his employment shall continue while such activity exists.40

As characterized, regular employment exists when the employee is: (a)

engaged to perform activities that are usually necessary or desirable in the
usual business or trade of the employer; or (b) a casual employee whose
activities are not usually necessary or desirable in the employer's usual
business or trade, and has rendered at least one year of service, whether
continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in which he is employed;
while project employment exists when the employee is hired under a
contract which specifies t.hat the employment will last only for a specific
project or undertaking, the completion or tem1ination of which is determined
at the time of engagement. 41

As regards security of tenure, regular employment may be terminated

for just or authorized causes; 42 whereas, for project employment, lawful
dismissal is brought about by the completion of the project or contract for

39 JRHaulingServices v. Gavino L Solarno, G.R. No 214294, September 30, 2020.

,o Underscoring supplied.
41 Freyssinet Filipinas Corp. v. Amado R. Lapuz, GR. No, 226722, March 18, 2019.
42 Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Department Order (D.O.) No. 147-15, Series of
2015, Amending the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Bock VI of the Labor Code of the Philippines,
As Amended.

~
Decision -8- G.R. No. 239622

which the employee was engaged, unless terminated during the life of the
project, in which case, only just or authorized causes may be invoked, 43

Regarding payment _of backwages in cases of illegal dismissal, for

regular employment, backwages are computed from the time of dismissal
until reinstatement, if such is ordered, or until finality of the decision
ordering separation pay, if reinstatement is infeasible; 44 while for project
employment, backwages are computed from the date of the termination of
employment until the actual completion of the work. 45

Upon the employer lies the burden_ of proof to establish project

employment by showing that: (1) the employee was assigned to carry out a
specific project or undertaking; and (2) the duration and scope of which were
specified at the time the employee was engaged for such project. 46 Moreover,
the employer must also prove that there was indeed a project undertaken. 47
Failing these, the worker will be presumed a regular employee. 48

For the instant controversy, the foregoing concepts must be

contextualized within the construction industry, the governing rule being
DOLE Department Order (D.O.) No. 19-93, Series of 1993 (D.O. 19-93), the
"Guidelines Governing the Employment of Workers in the Construction
Industry". D.O. 19-93 provides for two employment categories: project-
based, pertaining to "those employed in connection with a particular
construction project or phase thereof and whose employment is co-terminus
with each project or phase of the project to which they are assigned"; and
non-project based, "are those employed without reference to any particular
cons_truction project or phase of a project," 49 particularly, probationary,
casual, and regular employees. 50

Moreover, Section 2.2 of D.O. 19-93 lays dmvn indicators of

project employment, which, while phrased in permissive language, must still
be read in relation to Article 295 of the Labor Code and the distinctions
afore-discussed:

2.2 Indicators ofproject employment. -- Either one or more

of the following circumstances, among others, may be considered
as indicators that an employee is a project employee.

43 O1mlibus Rules to Implement the Labor Code. as amended by DOLE D.O. No. 9. Series of 1997,
Rule XX!ll, Section l(c).
44 Aro v. National Labor R,dations Commission~ 633 Phil. 605 (2012).
45 Bani Rural Bank, Inc. v. De Guzman, 721 Phil 84- (2013).
46 Dacfas v. J.vl.i!lenium Erector$ Corc. 763 Phil. 55_0, 558 (2015).
1
47 0mm Hauling Servites. Jnc. v. B0n, 742 Phil. 335 1 344 (20]4).
48
Quebral v. Angbus Construction, Inc., 798 P!lil. 179, 192 (2016).
49 DOLE D.O. No. 19-93 (D.O. 19-93), the Guidelines Governing tbe Employment of Workers in the
Construction Industry, Se:ctior+ 2.1.
50
D.O. No. 19-93, Section ?.A. t
Decision -9- G.R. No. 239622

(a) The duration of the specific/identified undertaking for which the

worker is engaged i~ reasonably determinable.

(b) Such duration, as well as the specific work/service to be performed,

is· defined in an employment agreement and is made clear to the employee at
the time of hiring.

(c) The work/service performed by the employee is in connection with

the particular project/undertaking for which he.is engaged.

(d) The employee, while not employed and awaiting engagement, is

free to offer his services to any other employer. · ·

(e) The termination . of · his employment in the particular

project/undertaking is reported to the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE) Regional Office having jurisdiction over the workplace within 30
days following the date of his separation from work, using the prescribed
form on employees' terminations/dismissals/suspensions.

(f) An undertaking in the employment contract by the employer to pay

completion bonus to the project employee as practiced by most construction
compames.

Workers naturally prefer to be accorded regular status, due to the

greater protection and benefits resultant therefrom. Still, the delineation
between the two (2) types of employment hardly remains fixed. Issues
regarding the true nature of employment, as well as how and when project-
based employees may be regularized, abound such work relations.
Considering the conflicting interpretations of the herein litigants and lower
tribunals, as well as the diversity of the Court's previous rulings on such
matters, the instant controversy is an opportunity to closely scrutinize the
body of pertinent jurisprudence and synthesize guiding principles.

Employment Deemed Regular

from the Beginning, Despite
Insinuations of Project
Employment

In the first strand of jurisprudence, despite the employer's claims of

project-based employment, the vvorkers were deemed regular employees
from the beginning because: (a) despite the execution of employment
contracts for certain projects, the workers were actually engaged to work
in-house, for services vital and necessary to the employer's usual trade or
business; or (b) the employer failed to substantiate the allegations of
project-based employment, even if for just a fraction of the employee's
service.

~
Decision - 10 - GR. No. 239622

In Capitol Industrial ,Construction Groups v. National Labor Relations

Comniission 51 (Capitol Industrial), therein employees were made to sign
various agreements as contract workers for various construction projects. 52
The Court observed that the employees did not just work in the project sites,
but were also made to work in-house. as welders; inventory clerks, truck
helpers, machinists, batterymen, and · warehousemen in the contractor's
Central Shop, Central Warehouse, and Central Office, thereby performing
work that is "usually necessary and desirable in the employer's usual
business or trade." Moreover, the employer had failed to submit termination
reports in accordance with the then-prevailing DOLE Policy Instruction No.
20, Series of 1976 (Policy Instruction No. 20), Finally, the Court ruled that
the employees "worked for the petitioner not only for a specific period of
time, but long after their supposed projects had been finished[.]" 53 Although
not explicitly, the Court essentially ruled that, to begin with, the workers
were engaged as regular and not just project employees.

Tomas Lao Construction v. National Labor Relations Commission 54

(Tomas Lao Construction) concerned various construction workers whose
services with the Lao Group of Companies spanned between seven (7) to
twe11ty (20) years. Years into their employment relations, the management
issued a memorandum requiring all workers and company personnel to sign
employment contract forms · and clearances which, notably, expressly
described the construction workers as project employees whose
employments were for a definite period. To enforce assent, salary was
withheld for those who would not sign. The Court observed that the Lao
Group of Companies "had engaged in various joint venture agreements in
the past without having to draft project employment contracts," and that to
require the belated execution of such contracts would be "farcical" as an
attempt to circumvent the workers' tenurial security. Finally, citing as
authority Capitol Industrial's observation regarding work extensions long
after the projects had been completed, the Court ruled that, although initially
hired as project employees, repeated re-hiring had conferred on them regular
status. In the proper context, and illumined by the wisdom of subsequent
jurisprudence, the foregoing point on repeated re-hiring is really a
surplusage because the absence of the project employment contracts
conferred regular status at the onset.

Subsequent cases were more resolute on requiring employers prove the

fact of project employment. In Brahm Industries, Inc. v. National Labor
Relations Commission 55 (Brahm Industries), spanning five (5) to nine (9)
years, therein employees perfonned welding works for a small-scale
51
293 Phil. 508 (1993 ).
52 While the Court devoted no dis:c:nssion thereon, the projects contracts significantly stipulated that
the empioyees may be assigned to "such other projects as t.1e company may designate'\ a detail which
would have been material in the lens ofsubsequentjll17sprudence.
53 This observation would later on be cited as doctrine in the seminal cases of Tomas Lao
Construction v. National Labor Relaiions Commissio•z) 344 Phil. 268, 279 (1997), a11d by extension,
Maraguino1; Jr." NLRC, 348 Phil. 580 (1998).
54
Id.
55
345 Phil. lon(1997). 7'
 Decision .. ll. G.R. No. 239622

enterprise engaged in contracting for water purifiers and waste control

devices. Faulting the employer for failing to substantiate the exact nature of
employment, the Court ruled:

As employer, BRAHM has unlimited access to all pertinent documents

and records on the status ·of employment of its workers. Yet, even as it
stubhomly insists that ·orivate respondents were project employees only, no
contract, payroll or any other convincing evidence which may attest to the
nature of their employment was. ever presented to substantiate its claim.
Instead, what was offered as evidence were merely self~servirig affidavits of
petitioner's other employees declaring that private respondents were project
employees like them, which affidavits were inadequate to buttress its claim. 56

Apart from the foregoing, in basically ruling that the workers were
considered regular to begin with, the Court also observed the employer's
failure to observe the requirements of Policy Instruction No. 20, the
reasonable connection between the workers' activities and the usual business
and trade of the employer, and the practice of repeatedly re-hiring the
workers after the completion of each project.

Then, in Violeta v. National Labor Relations Commission, 57 the Court

established the principle that, absent any showing of an agreement that
conforms with the requirements of then Article 280 (now Article 295) of the
Labor Code, a worker is presumed to be a regular employee:

. To be exempted from the presumption of regularity of employment,

therefore, the agreement between a project employee and his employer must
strictly conform with the requirements and conditions provided in Article 280 ..
It is not enough that an employee is hired for a specific project or phase of
work. There must also be a determination of or a clear agreement on the
completion or termination of the project at the time the employee is engaged
if the objective . of Article 280 is to be achieved. Since this second
requirement was not met in petitioners' case, they should be considered as
regular employees despite their admissions and declarations that tliey are
project employees made under ci;cumstances unclear to us. 58

This presumption was used in Chua v. Court of Appeals, 59 where the

employer omitted "a detennination of, or a clear agreement on, the
completion or termination of the project at the time the employee was
engaged[,]" and "was unable to &how that private respondents were apprised
of the project nature ofth.eir employment, the specific projects themselves or
any phase thereof undertaken by petitioner and for which private
respondents ,vere hired," much less "employment contracts ~rid employment
records that would indicate the dates of hiring and tem1ination in relation to
the particular construction project or phases in which they were employed."

56
Id at 1085. (Underscoring supplied)
50
345 Phit 762 (1997).
58
Id. at 774. (Underscoring supplied)
;59
483 Phil. 126 (2004). ~
Decision - 12 - G.R. No. 239622

Thus, the presurnption ofregular employment, absent any showing of a

project employment agreement;' was firmly entrenched in subsequent
jurisprudence, 60 the lateSt of which being the twin Inocentes v. R. Syjuco
Construction, Inc. 61 cases. In the first Decision, the Court stressed "that the
employer has the burden~ to prove that the employee is indeed a project
employee" and found that the employer's evidence consisted of a summary
which "only listed the projects after petitioners were assigned to them, but it
did not reflect that petitioners' were informed at the time of engagement that
their work was onlyfor the duration of a project."

The foregoing doctrine was also fortified in jurisprudence wherein,

despite the employer being able to present project employment contracts
covering some portions of the work relatlons, the Court still deemed the
worker a regular employee through and through. In these cases, project
employment contracts must have covered the entire duration of the work
relations, such that any gap therein would set off the presumption of regular
employment. Thus, in Liganza v. RBL Shipyard Corp. 62 (Liganza), the Court
noted that the employer presented employment contracts covering only the
period from 1997 to 2000, but not as far back as 1991, when the employee
was first engaged:

To begin with, respondent has been unable to refute petitioner's

allegation that he did not sign any contract when he started working for the
company. The four employment contracts are not sufficient to reach the
conclusion that petitioner was, and has been, a project employee earlier since
1991. The Court is not satisfied with the explanation that the other
employment contracts were destroyed by floods and rains. Respondent could
have used other evidence to prove project employment, but it did not do so,
seemingly content with the convenient excuse of "destroyed documents."

Apart from the foregoing, the Court pointed out that the successive
employment contracts were spaced too narrowly apart [e.g., four (4) to
seventeen (17) days], providing no real opportunity for the employee to seek
gainful employment elsewhere while in between projects.

Similarly, Freyssinet Filipinas Corp. v. Lapuz63 (Fre-yssinet) instructs

that, failure to substantiate the purported project-based employment earlv in
the employmeni_relations confers regular status to the emoloyee:

However, for the first three (3) proiects, petitioners failed to show that
respondent was hired on a project basis ax1d that he was informed of the
duration and scope of his work. ln fact, no employment contracts for the said

'° Hanjin Heavy Industries & Construction Co. ltd v Ibanez. 578 Phil. 497 (2008); and Quebral v.
Angbus Construction, Inc., 798 Phil. 179 (2016).
61
G.R. No. 237020, July 29, 2019.
~
62
535 Phil. 662, 670 (2006).
63 ;.
G.R ..l\lo. -267
•J
..,y'l, 7,,,v!.arct,
·
,8. r,n
". r ·i ,
kV.9. .'
 Decision - 13 - G.R. No. 239622

projects were presented to.substantiate their claim. While the. absence of a

written contract does not per- .se grant regular status to respondent, it is
nonetheless evidence that he ~vas informed of the duration and scope of his
work and his status as project employee. 64

Significantly, in both Lzgama and Freyssinet, the Court found the

workers to be of regular status for the entire duration of their engagement,
despite being covered by project employment contracts for a fraction thereof.
Expressed differently, the Court did not find that the nature of employment
was partly regular and partly project-based. Notably, the Court found the
successive project contracts demonstrated that the workers performed vital
and indispensable tasks to the employer's business, thereby vesting them
with regular status. But if the Court were to take the reasoning in Liganza
and Freyssinet a few steps further, once the employee has obtained regular
status, even if by reason of the employer's omission to substantiate the
project-based engagement, then the security of tenure characteristic of
regular employment already attaches, and the subsequent execution of
project employment contracts will undermine such tenurial security. In other
words, the supervening execution of project employment contracts should
not strip the employee of regular status already conferred, and such
subsequent projects will simply be considered a continuation of the regular
employment.

Finally, PNOC-Energy Development Corporation v. National Labor

Relations Commission 65 sets the standards for the language that must be used
for project employment contracts, in order that the same comply with Article
295 of the Labor Code. Finding that the employer had simply submitted a
list of employees along with the projects to which they were assigned, the
Court remarked:

x x x However, petitioner failed to substantiate its claim that

respondents were hired merely as project employees. A perusal of the records
of the case reveals that the supposed specific project or undertaking of
petitioner was not satisfactorfu:_ identified in the contracts of respondents. To
illustrate, the follov,ing is a list of the names of respondents and the projects
written !_n their employment contracts:

xxxx

Unmistakably, the a!kged _nroiects stated in the employment contracts

were either too vague or imprecise to be considered as the 'specific
undertaking' contemplated by law. Petitioner's act of repeatedly and
continuously hiring respondents to do the same kind of work belies its
conterrtion that respondents were hired for a specific project or undertaking.
The absence of a definite duration for the projeci/s has led the Court to
conclude that respondents ;u:e, in fact, reguiar empioyees. 60

ti4
Id. (Empha~is, undersLo:i"ing, and italics. in the vriglnal)
55
549 Phil_ 733 (2007)
" Id. at 743-744. (Undcn.coring supplied)
~
Decision - 14 - G.R. No. 239622

Aside from form, fixed-term employment under project contracts may

be upheld provided that "the period was agreed upon knowingly and
voluntarily by the parties, without any force, duress or improper pressure
being brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other circumstances
vitiating his consent, or where it satisfactorily appears that the employer and
employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral
dominance whatever being exercised by the former over the latter." 67

Extracting vital principles from this strand of jurisprudence, these cases

demonstrate that, despite the employer's claims of project-based employment,
the workers were still deemed regular employees to begin with because: (1)
despite the execution of employment contracts for certain projects, the
workers were actually engaged to work in-house, for services vital and
necessary to the- employer's usual trade or business; 68 or (2) the employer
failed to substantiate the allegations of project-based employment, even if
for just a fraction of the employee's service. Thus, benefitting from the
accumulated wisdom of subsequent jurisprudence, the earlier cases of Tomas
Lao Construction and Brahm Industries must be understood in that, while
not explicitly ruling as such, therein workers were deemed regular
employees from the start for failure of the employer to substantiate the
project-based engagements. Consequently, discussions in these cases on the
ripening of project-based to regular status must properly be appraised as a
secondary argument; no ripening would be necessary if the employees were
conferred regular status to begin with.

Cases Where Initially Project-

Based Employment Ripened
into Regular Employment

Under the second strand of jurisprudence, workers initially engaged as

project employees may attain regular status. · Notably, however, despite
factual similarity with the latter set of cases, a sub-strand of jurisprudence
held that therein project employees remained as such.

Caramol v. National Labor Relations Commission 69 (Caramol)

involved a rigger hired on a project-to-project basis, whose engagement was
renewed forty-four (44) times, spanning thirteen (13) years of service. The
Court found that the employer had failed to submit termination reports, and
considered the successive re-hiring of the employee as evidence that his
tasks were usually necessary or desirable to the usual trade or business of the
employer. Most importantly, the Court upheld the validity of fixed-term
employment, provided the parties had dealt on equal terms, but imposed a
caveat "where from the circumstances it is apparent that periods have been
imposed to preclude the acquisition of tenurial security by the employee,
67
Caramol v. National Labor Relations Commission, 296-A Phil. 609, 615 (1993).
"
69
Capitol Industrial Construction Groups v. NLRC, Third Division, 293 Phil. 508,513 (1993).
Supra.

'
 Decision - 15 - G.R. No. 239622

they should be struck down as contrary to public policy, morals, good

custom or public order." 70 Thus, while initially engaged as a project
employee, his status ripened into regular employment.

This doctrine was reiterated in Salinas v. National Labor Relations

Commission, 71 where, while the workers were hired as laborers, bulk cement
operators, plant or carrier operators, crane drivers, lubemen operators,
carpenters, and forklift operators for several projects over the course of five
(5) to ten (10) years, the Court observed that the periods were imposed to
undermine tenurial security and that the gaps between the project contracts
spanned only a day or so.

In Phesco, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 72 apart from

the employer's failure to submit termination reports, the Court found that the
workers were engaged as project employees to work on a project site but,
due to a strike, were later reassigned to the employer's aggregate processing
plant. While the project site sourced its crushed rock inputs from the
aggregate processing plant, the Court found that the plant also supplied to
the general public, thereby untethering the initially-project employees' work
from just the project site.

Samson v. National Labor Relations Commission 73 involved a rigger

engaged for various projects for almost thirty (30) years. The Court
distinguished the import of the submission of termination reports in the then-
prevailing Policy Instruction No. 20 and the present D.O. 19-93, noting that
non-submission of such reports under the former constituted a "clear
indication" of non-project employment, whereas such was only among the
"indicators" in the latter rule. Moreover, the Court found the worker's
successive contracts for the same kind of work over twenty-eight (28) years
as evidence of the necessity and indispensability of his services to the
employer. In applying Caramol's doctrine regarding circumvention of
tenurial security, the Court found that the worker was hired on a "continuing
basis", and that he would be re-hired immediately, save for gaps of one (1)
day to one (1) week, in between projects.

70
This pronouncement would later on be cited as aut.7.ority in similar cases. See Samson v. National
Labor Relations ·Commission, 323 Phil. 135 (1996); Palomares v. National Labor Relations Commission,
343 PhiL 213 (1997); Tomas Lao Construction v. National Labor Relations Commission,, supra note 53;
Salinas v. National Labor Reiations Commission, 377 Phil. 55 (1999); E. Ganzon, Inc. v. National Labor
Relations Commission, 378 Phil. J048 (1999); Integrated Contractor and Plumbing Works, Inc. v. National
Labor Relations Commission, 503 Phil. 875 (2005); Hanjin v. Court Q{ Appeals, 521 Phil. 224 (2006);
Ligan.za v. RBL Shipyard Corp., supra note 63; San ]Vfiguel Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission,
539 Phil. 236 (2006); Agusan Del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Cagampang, 589 Phil.. 306 (2008);
and Fre-yssinet Filipinas Corp. v. Lapuz, supra note 41.
71
337 Phil. 55 (1999).
72
309 Phil. 402 (1994). ~
73
323 Phil. 135 (1996). 1
 •

Decision ·_ 16 - G.R. No. 239622

Then came the seminal case of Maraguinot, Jr. v. National Labor

Relations Commission 74 (Maraguinot), which, while involving the film
production industry, neverthekss cited numerous decisions factually
grounded in the construction industry, and would be oft-cited in cases
involving said industry. The Court laid down the twin requisites so project
employees can acquire regular status: "l) There is a continuous rehiring of
project employees even after cessation of a project; and 2) The tasks
performed by the alleged 'project employee' are vital, necessary and
indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer[,]" 75 adding as a
caveat that "the length of time -during which the employee was continuously
re-hired is not controlling, but merely serves as a badge of regular
employment." Sensing the adjustments such ruling would require of
businesses, the Court made assurances to balance the interests of workers
and employers:

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 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.
Let it not be said that this decision 'coddles' labor, for as Lao has ruled,
project or work pool employees who have gained the status of regular
· employees are subject to the 'no work-no pay' principle, xx x. 76

The doctrines distilled in Maraguinot would eventually revert

applicability in the construction industry. Thus, Integrated Contractor and
Plumbing Works, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission 77 concerned a
worker repeatedly hired for various construction projects for four (4) years.
The Court was convinced that the worker was initially a project employee,
considering the duration and scope of each project to which he was hired.
Nevertheless, the Court appreciated "the pattern of re-hiring and the
recurring need for his services" as an indication of the necessity and
indispensability of such services to the employer's business, and that his
employment "ceased to be coterminous with specific projects when he was
repeatedly re-hired due to the demands of petitioner's business." 78

Then, in D.lvl Consunji v. Jamin, 79 the worker was engaged as a laborer

and carpenter for various construction projects, each covered by separate
contracts, for which the employer submitted the necessary termination
reports to the DOLE Field Office. The Court found that "(l) Jamin's repeated
74 348 Phil. 580 (] 998).
75
Id. at 601. (Underscoring supplied)
76
Id at 605. (Underscoring supplied)
77
503 Phil. 875 (2005).
78
Id at 882-883. (Underscoring supplied)
79
686 Phil. 220 (2012). ~
 Decision - 17 - G.R. No. 239622

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" had conferred him with regular status. Notable was that
the worker's "employment history with DMCI stands out for his continuous,
repeated and successive rehiring in the company's construction projects" so
as to constitute an "unbroken string" 80 of rehiring.

Finally, D.M Consunji Corp. v. Bello 81 (Bello) concerned a mason who

was engaged for various projects, his service spanning around eight (8) years.
The Court conceded that the worker was a project employee at the start, but
ruled that he had "acquired in time the status of a regular employee by virtue
of his continuous. work as a mason[.]" 82 How the employer "chose to
categorize the employment status of Bello was not _decisive[.]" The Court
rejected the employer's insistence that each engagement be "treated
separately" over the eight (8) years of service, considering that the
"successive re-engagement in order to perform the same kind of work as a
mason firmly manifested the necessity and desirability of his work[.]" 83

A common thread in all the foregoing is that a project employee may

attain regular status if he performs functions usually necessary or desirable
to the employer's usual trade or business. Indeed, a "project" may pertain to
(a) "a particular job or undertaking that is within the regular or usual
business of the employer company, but which is distinct and separate, and
identifiable as such, from the other undertakings of the company" or (b) "a
particular job or undertaking that is not within the regular business of the
corporation." 84 Only project employment of the first type may ripen into
regularity, while project employees of the second type-e.g., engineers and
surveyors hired to construct structure.s only to augment the capacity of a
steel manufacturing firm, 85 and a bricklayer who was engaged specifically to
repair and upgrade a glass manufacturer's plant86-may not do so, relative to
such employer.

As an added layer of analysis, the Court would also disregard the

project contracts, even if the same clearly set forth the nature and limited
duration of employment, if the same were mere pretenses to hinder the
project employee from obtaining the tenurial security endowed to a regular
employee.

Ultimately, the most prominent circumstance from the above cases is

the employee's repeated and successive re-hiring for the same nature of work,

80
Id at 232-233. (Underscoring supplied)
81
715 Phil. 335 (2013).
"
83
Id at 345. (Underscoring supplied)
Id at 346. (Underscoring supplied)
84
Associated Labor Unions-Trade Union Congress of the Philippines v. National Labor Relations
Commission, 304 Phil. 844 (1994).
85
Id. at 851-852.
86
San Miguel v. National Labor Relations Commission, 357 Phil. 954 (1998).
?
 ' ' '
.,

Decision - 18 - G.R. No. 239622

such that the focal point for his engagement ceases to be with respect to
particular projects with specific durations, but shifts towards his continuing
vitality and indispensability to the ongoing business of the employer. To
ground the foregoing in the language ofD.O. 19-93, the construction worker
who remains project-based is one who is employed in connection with a
particular construction project or phase thereof and whose employment is
co-terminus therewith. Yet, the same project-based construction worker may
graduate into a regular employee if, due to the contractor's continuous
reliance on such worker, his engagement ceases to be with reference to any
particular construction project or phase thereof, but is pegged to the
employer's ongoing business.

However, there is a sub-strand of jurisprudence where, despite apparent

similarity with the facts of the foregoing cases, and notwithstanding the
existence of the foregoing doctrines in jurisprudence, the project employee
was deemed never to have acquired regular status.

Cioco, Jr. v. National Labor Relations Commission 87 (Cioco) involved

various laborers and carpenters engaged for various construction projects
over a span often (10) years, with each employment contract stipulating that
the employment would be co-terminus with each project. Significantly, the
Court stated that it would no longer resolve the issue on the nature of
employment, such being factual in nature, and considering that the Labor
Arbiter, the NLRC, and the Court of Appeals uniformly found that the
workers were project employees. The Court nevertheless made
pronouncements thereon, that despite finding the workers to have been
successively and repeatedly hired for the same nature of work, found that
such circumstance "did not confer" regular status. The Court downplayed
such practice as· "dictated by the practical consideration that experienced
construction workers are more preferred."

Filipinas Pre-Fabricated Building Systems v. Puente 88 was decided

similarly, citing Cioco as authority. The worker served as an installer and
mobile crane operator stationed at the company premises for ten (10) years.
While hired for various projects, the Court found that his contracts expressly
made his tenure dependent on the duration of the project.

Then came William Uy Construction Corp. v. Trinidacf' 9 (VVilliam Uy)

where, while finding that the company had repeatedly hired the worker for
around thirty-five (35) projects that spanned around sixteen (16) years, the
Court pointed out that the worker was contracted for specific projects, the
durations of which were clearly set forth in his contracts. Thus, he remained
a project employee. The Court heavily emphasized the peculiar nature of the
constn1ction industry where, since obtaining projects is not a matter of
87
481 Phil. 270 (2004).
88
493 Phil. 923 (2005).
89 629 Phil. 185 (2010). -~
Decision - 19 - G.R. No. 239622

course and companies have no control over the decisions and resources of
project proponents or owners, length of service would not serve as a fair
yardstick in determining the nature of employment. Curiously, the Court did
not fault the employer for failing to regularly submit termination reports
most times a project was completed, finding sufficient that, for purposes
only of the most recent project, the employer had submitted such report. It
behooved the worker to file a complaint for illegal dismissal each time a
project was completed, if regular employment was the assertion. Finally, the
Court underscored the peculiar nature of the construction industry:

Generally, length of service provides a fair yardstick for determining

when an employee initially hired on a temporary basis becomes a permanent
one, entitled to the security and benefits of regularization. But this standard
will not be fair, if applied to the construction industry, simply because
construction firms cannot guarantee work and funding for its payrolls beyond
the life of each project. And getting projects is not a matter of course.
Construction companies have no control over the decisions and resources of
project proponents or owners. There is no construction company that does not
wish it has such control but the reality, understood by construction workers, is
that work depended on decisions and developments over which construction
companies have no say. 90

However, as discussed in Maraguinot, idle construction workers, even

if regularized, are still subject to the "no work, no pay" principle. In case the
contractor is faced with an oversupply of regularized construction workers,
then it can exercise its management prerogative in deciding whom to engage
for the limited projects and whom to consider as still "on leave." Indeed,
under such · principle, the "employer has the inherent right to regulate,
according to his own discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment,
including hiring, work assignments, working methods, the time, place and
manner of work, work supervision, transfer of employees, lay-off of workers,
and discipline, dismissal, and recall of employees." 91 Still, the employer
must use fair and reasonable standards in deciding, e.g., experience, skills-
match, availability.

In Felipe v. Tamayo, 92 construction aides, whose service spanned three

(3) to five (5) years were found to have retained their project-based status
despite repeated and continuous engagement. The Court found that they
were hired "for a specific task within a particular period already determined
at the time of their hiring[.]" Like Cioco, the Court herein found no reason to
depart from the uniform rulings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the
Court of Appeals, that the employees remained project-based.

90
Id. at 190.
91
Rural Bank ofCantilan, Inc. v. Julve, 545 Phil. 619, 624 (2007). (Underscoring supplied)

~
92
795 Phil. 891 (2016).
 ,
..
Decision - 20 - G.R. No. 239622

Finally, Bajaro v. Metro Stonerich Corp. 93 covered a concrete pump

operator hired for several construction projects over a period of six (6) years.
Citing William Uy, the Court underscored the peculiar nature of the
construction industry, concluding that the worker's "rendition of six years of
service, and his repeated re-hiring are not badges of regularization."

A deeper reading of this second sub-strand would show that, consistent

with the dichotomy set by D.O. 19-93, the employer consistently employed
the laborers with reference only to specific projects or phases, even if
successively, so that they never acquired regular status. In short, the
employer never treated them as an ongoing resource to be deployed for each
and every project it might perform. Hence, so long as the construction
worker was truly engaged as project-based, and between each successive
project, the employer made no manifestations of any intent to treat the
worker as a continuing resource for the main business, then the project-based
construction worker remains as such.

Evident from the two (2) strands of jurisprudence, including the

conflicting sub-strands in the second, are the competing interests between
laborers and businesses. On the side of the workers is their Constitutional
right to security of tenure, 94 for which, as discussed above, regular and
project employees are not similarly situated. Inasmuch as businesses benefit
from the increasing reliability and dependability of project workers, after
having worked numerous construction projects, they must deservedly be
assured more permanence and stability in their jobs. On the other hand,
construction businesses unavoidably experience contract booms and busts,
possibly leading to disproportionate labor resources for pending and
imminent projects. For such reason, Maraguinot pointed to the "no work, no
pay" principle as relief for such down-turns, whereby employers need not
pay idle workers and the latter, even if regularized, may seek gainful
employment elsewhere in the meantime.

Thus, synthesizing all the above-discussed jurisprudence, and to

obviate further confusion regarding the nature of employment for workers in
the construction industry, the Court articulates the following principles for
the guidance of workers, employers, labor tribunals, the bench, bar, and
public:

First, a worker is presumed a regular employee, unless the employer

establishes that (1) the employee was hired under a contract specifying that
the employment will last only for a specific undertaking, the termination of
which is determined at the time of engagement; (2) there was indeed a
project undertaken; and (3) the parties bargained on equal terms, with no
vices of consent..

93 830 PbiL 714 (2018).

'4 Constitution, Artide Xlll, Section 3. ~-
Decision - 21 - G.R. No. 239622

Second, if considered a regular employee at the outset, security of

tenure already attaches, and the subsequent execution of project employment
contracts cannot undermine such security, but will simply be considered a
continuation in the regular engagement of such employee.

Third, even if initially engaged as a project employee, such nature of

employment may ripen into regular status if (1) there is a continuous rehiring
of project employees even after cessation of a project; and (2) the tasks
performed by the alleged "project employee'; are vital, necessary and
indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer. Conversely,
project-based employment will not ripen into regularity if the construction
worker was truly engaged as a project-based employee, and between each
successive ·project, the employer made no manifestations of any intent to
treat the worker as a continuing resource for the main business.

Fourth, regularized construction workers are subject to the "no work,

no pay" principle, such that the employer is not obligated to pay them a
salary when "on leave." In case of an oversupply of regularized construction
workers, then the employer can exercise management prerogative to decide
whom to engage for the limited projects and whom to consider as still "on
leave."

Finally, submission of termination reports to the DOLE Field Office

"may be considered" only as an indicator of project employment; conversely,
non-submission does not automatically grant regular status. By themselves,
such circumstances do not determine the nature of employment.

Carpio is a Regular
Employee of Modair for the
Entire Duration of His
Service

Applying the principles just laid down, the Court finds that Carpio was
a regular employee ofModair, from the time of his engagement in 1998 until
the completion of the NYK Project in 2013. In fact, the circumstances of the
instant controversy closely resemble that of Liganza and Freyssinet.

\vnile conclusive details on the nature of Carpio's engagement from

1998 to 2008 are unavailable, the existence of an employer-employee
relationship during such period stood unrebutted. The Certificate of
Employment indicated that Ca..7)io served as Modair's Electrician 3 since
1998, which Modaii- did not deny. Also, Carpio presented regular payslips
from 2001 to 20 l 0, Since Modair failed to present evidence showing his
purported project employment durix1g such time, he is presumed to be
l\,fodair's regular employee.

t;>
 ;
..
Decision - 22 - G.R. No. 239622

The· Memoranda between 2008 and 2013, providing notices of

completion of the Back End Extension Project, PIL Green Project, UTIL.
Works Project, Ibiden CPU Project and NYK Project, do not establish that
Carpio was hired under a contract specifying that his employment would last
only for such specific undertakings, the completion of which were
determined at the time of his engagement. These Memoranda were mere
notices issued in anticipation of the completion of the pertinent projects, and
did not embody the agreements, if any, covering Carpio's purported
project-based engagements.

Even while_ the Certificate of Employment designates Carpio as a

"contractor's employee (per project basis)," Bello instructs that the
employer's categorization of the worker's employment status is not decisive.

True, Modair managed to present project employment contracts

covering the tail-end of Carpio's engagement. Still, the Court finds that, by
this time, Carpio's successive service as Electrician 3 in numerous
construction projects manifested the vitality and indispensability of his work
to the construction business of Modair. Very revealing also are the terms of
Modair's Memoranda, which state that Carpio will be "notified accordingly
for re-contract if [his] services will again be needed." Such language
discloses Modair's continuing reliance on Carpio's services, for which he
would naturally make himself available at Modair's disposal. In sum,
Carpio's engagement, if it were at all project-based at the outset; had already
ripened to regular status.

Finally, the Court lends no evidentiary weight to the Resignation Letter

since a resignation without acceptance produces no legal effect. 95 While
Modair presented the Resignation Letter, it did not prove its assent thereto.
Going into the substance thereof, the Resignation Letter merely informed
Modair "that the undersigned will tender his voluntary resignation x x x due
to career advancement[,]" without so much as a reference to his then-
engagement. Finally, as aptly pointed out by the NLRC, the Resignation
Letter dated February 14, 2000 is contradicted by the Certificate of
Employment, attesting to Carpio's engagement from October 27, 1998 to
April 10, 2013.

Carpio Was ]'lot Illegally

Dismissed

Nevertheless, while the Court accords Carpio's regular employment

status, the Court finds that he was not illegally dismissed.

The point of reference of Carpio's cause of action for illegal dismissal

was the N'[K Project. Following completion thereof, Carpio claimed that

95 lntertrod Maritime, Inc. v, National Labor Relations Commission, 275 Phil. 351 (1991); and
Philippines Today, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 334 Phil. 854 (1997).
··7°
 Decision - 23 - G.R. No. 239622

Modair no longer provided him any work despite numerous pending

construction projects. However, Modair's Deputy General Manager
established that, after the NYK Project, Modair's ongoing projects had no
need for an electrician, and that, even when Carpio was offered a project in
Palawan, he declined, owing to the distance from his family. 96 Essentially
being a regular employee in the construction industry, Carpio was "on leave"
during such time.

While Modair's assertion, that Carpio never reported for the FUNAI
Project, 97 hints at Carpio's possible abandonment of work, such bare
assertion cannot support a finding of abandonment. To constitute work
abandonment, (1) the employee must have failed to report for work or must
have been absent without justifiable reason; and (2) there must have been a
clear intention on the part of the employee to sever the employer-employee
relationship as manifested by overt acts. 98 Abandonment as a just ground for
dismissal requires the deliberate, unjustified refusal of the employee to
perform his employment responsibilities. Mere absence or failure to work,
even after notice to return, is not tantamount to abandonment. 99 The
evidence provides no further details regarding Carpio's possible
abandonment, most damning of which would have been a return-to-work
order that deliberately went unheeded. In the absence of any evidence to the
contrary, Carpio remains to be Modair's regular employee.

Lastly, the Court clarifies that Carpio has no outstanding money claims
against Modair. Upon completing the NYK Project, Carpio signed his Final
Release of Pay dated April 25, 2013, which incorporated a Quit Claim
whereby he waived any claims against Modair and confirmed the full
payment of everything due him from the NYK Project. He also executed an
Affidavit of Release and Quitclaim dated May 24, 2013, acknowledging
cessation of his employment upon termination of the project, stating that he
had no claims against Modair, and that a Modair official explained the
affidavit to him.

Once an employee resigns and executes a quitclaim in favor of the

employer, he is thereby estopped from filing any further money claims
against the employer arising from his employment. Such money claims may
be given due course only when the voluntariness of the execution of the
quitclaim or release is put in issue, or when it is established that there is an
unwritten agreement between the employer and employee which would
entitle the employee to other renumeration or benefits upon his or her
resignation. 100 Tellingly, Carpio never renounced his. Final Release of Pay
dated April 25, 2013, with Quit Claim, and Affidavit of Release and
Quitclaim dated I\1ay 24, 2013.

96 Rollo, pp. 158-178.

97
ld. at 43.
98
RP. Dinglasan Construction, Inc. v. Atienza, 477 Phil. 305,314 (2004).
99 Minano v. Sta. Tomas General Hospital, G.R. No. 226338, June 17, 2020.
100
Philippine National Construction Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 345 Phil. 324,
330 (1997).
f
 ..
. '
Decision· - 24- G.R. No. 239622

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari dated July 18,

2018 is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Court of Appeals Seventh
Division's Decision dated December 27, 2017 and the Resolution dated
April 30, 2018 in CA-G.R. SP No. 143736 are MODIFIED in that: (1)
Ruben Carpio is deemed a regular employee of Modair Manila Co. Ltd.,
Inc.; and (2) while Carpio was not illegally dismissed, such conclusion is
not by reason of his lawful severance following the completion of the NYK
TECH PARK Project, but because he remains to be Modair's regular
employee.

SO ORDERED.

JHOSE~OPEZ
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

On wellness leave
MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN
Associate Justice
Chairperson

"~~~Du
Associate Justice
H E J ' I . ~ . INTING
Associate Justice

EDG~LOS SANTOS
Associate Justice

~
Decision - 25 - GR. No. 239622

AT T ES ·TAT I o N
.!attest that the condusfons in the above· Decision had been reached in
consultation before the cas~ was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division. · ·
...,,. ~.. .,

Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson, Third Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Third
•Division Acting Chairperson•~ Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in
the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

n"
~
G GESMUNDO

'