Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 62 views

    05) William Construction Corp. V Trinidad

    Uploaded by

    Adrian Kit
    William Construction Corp. hired Trinidad as a project employee for 16 years to work on various construction projects. When projects ended, so did Trinidad's employment contracts. Trinidad claimed he was illegally dismissed without benefits from his last project. However, the court found that as a project employee, Trinidad's employment was tied to completion of specific projects, not continuous service. While length of service typically determines regularization, this does not apply to the construction industry as employment depends on securing new projects which companies have no guarantee of. Therefore, Trinidad remained a project employee and was not entitled to regularization or claims of illegal dismissal since his last contract simply ended with the completed project.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    05) William Construction Corp. V Trinidad

    Uploaded by

    Adrian Kit
    62 views1 page
    William Construction Corp. hired Trinidad as a project employee for 16 years to work on various construction projects. When projects ended, so did Trinidad's employment contracts. Trinidad claimed he was illegally dismissed without benefits from his last project. However, the court found that as a project employee, Trinidad's employment was tied to completion of specific projects, not continuous service. While length of service typically determines regularization, this does not apply to the construction industry as employment depends on securing new projects which companies have no guarantee of. Therefore, Trinidad remained a project employee and was not entitled to regularization or claims of illegal dismissal since his last contract simply ended with the completed project.

    Original Title

    05) William Construction Corp. v Trinidad.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    William Construction Corp. hired Trinidad as a project employee for 16 years to work on various construction projects. When projects ended, so did Trinidad's employment contracts. Trinidad claimed he was illegally dismissed without benefits from his last project. However, the court found that as a project employee, Trinidad's employment was tied to completion of specific projects, not continuous service. While length of service typically determines regularization, this does not apply to the construction industry as employment depends on securing new projects which companies have no guarantee of. Therefore, Trinidad remained a project employee and was not entitled to regularization or claims of illegal dismissal since his last contract simply ended with the completed project.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    62 views1 page

    05) William Construction Corp. V Trinidad

    Uploaded by

    Adrian Kit
    William Construction Corp. hired Trinidad as a project employee for 16 years to work on various construction projects. When projects ended, so did Trinidad's employment contracts. Trinidad claimed he was illegally dismissed without benefits from his last project. However, the court found that as a project employee, Trinidad's employment was tied to completion of specific projects, not continuous service. While length of service typically determines regularization, this does not apply to the construction industry as employment depends on securing new projects which companies have no guarantee of. Therefore, Trinidad remained a project employee and was not entitled to regularization or claims of illegal dismissal since his last contract simply ended with the completed project.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    5.) William Construction Corp. v. Trinidad | G.R. No.

    183250 | March 12, 2010 depended on decisions and developments over which construction companies
    have no say.
    FACTS:
    Trinidad filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and unpaid benefits against
    William Construction Corp. claiming that he had been working with the latter For this reason, the Court held in Caseres v. Universal Robina Sugar Milling
    company for 16 years as a driver of its service vehicle, dump truck, and trailer Corporation that the repeated and successive rehiring of project employees do
    mixer and that he had signed several contracts with the company identifying not qualify them as regular employees, as length of service is not the
    him as project employee although he had always been assigned to work on controlling determinant of the employment tenure of a project employee, but
    one project after another with some intervals. whether the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking,
    its completion has been determined at the time of the engagement of the
    William Construction Corp. countered that since it was in the business of employee.
    construction, it had to hire and engage the services of project construction
    workers whose employment had to be co-terminous with the completion of In this case, respondent Trinidads series of employments with petitioner
    specific company projects. For this reason, every time the company company were co-terminous with its projects. When its Boni Serrano-
    employed Trinidad, he had to execute an employment contract with it, Katipunan Interchange Project was finished in December 2004, Trinidads
    called Appointment as Project Worker. employment ended with it. He was not dismissed. His employment contract
    simply ended with the project for which he had signed up. His employment
    LA: dismissed the complaint of illegal dismissal history belies the claim that he continuously worked for the company. Intervals
    NLRC: upheld the decision of LA or gaps separated one contract from another.
    CA: reversed the decision of the NLRC

    ISSUE:
    W/N the repeated hiring of Trinidad in several projects automatically entitled
    him to the status of a regular employee?

    HELD: NO.
    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
    undertaking, with the duration and scope of his engagement specified at the
    time his service is contracted.

    Here, it is not disputed that petitioner company contracted


    respondent Trinidad’s service by specific projects with the duration of his work
    clearly set out in his employment contracts. He remained a project employee
    regardless of the number of years and the various projects he worked for the
    company.

    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

    You might also like