Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 196 views

    CASE #13 Dominic Inocentes, Et - Al Vs R. Syjuco Construction, Inc. (Rsci) G.R. No. 237020, July 29, 2019

    Uploaded by

    Harlene Hemor
    Four construction workers filed a complaint against their employer, R. Syjuco Construction, Inc., claiming they were constructively dismissed without valid cause or due process. RSCI claimed the workers were project employees whose assignments ended with completed projects. The Labor Arbiter and Court of Appeals found the workers were regular employees because RSCI did not prove the workers were informed their employment was tied to specific projects. As regular employees, their dismissal was illegal since it lacked just cause and proper procedures. The Supreme Court affirmed the workers were illegally dismissed.

    Copyright:

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

    CASE #13 Dominic Inocentes, Et - Al Vs R. Syjuco Construction, Inc. (Rsci) G.R. No. 237020, July 29, 2019

    Uploaded by

    Harlene Hemor
    196 views2 pages
    Four construction workers filed a complaint against their employer, R. Syjuco Construction, Inc., claiming they were constructively dismissed without valid cause or due process. RSCI claimed the workers were project employees whose assignments ended with completed projects. The Labor Arbiter and Court of Appeals found the workers were regular employees because RSCI did not prove the workers were informed their employment was tied to specific projects. As regular employees, their dismissal was illegal since it lacked just cause and proper procedures. The Supreme Court affirmed the workers were illegally dismissed.

    Original Title

    13. 300 2019

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Four construction workers filed a complaint against their employer, R. Syjuco Construction, Inc., claiming they were constructively dismissed without valid cause or due process. RSCI claimed the workers were project employees whose assignments ended with completed projects. The Labor Arbiter and Court of Appeals found the workers were regular employees because RSCI did not prove the workers were informed their employment was tied to specific projects. As regular employees, their dismissal was illegal since it lacked just cause and proper procedures. The Supreme Court affirmed the workers were illegally dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    196 views2 pages

    CASE #13 Dominic Inocentes, Et - Al Vs R. Syjuco Construction, Inc. (Rsci) G.R. No. 237020, July 29, 2019

    Uploaded by

    Harlene Hemor
    Four construction workers filed a complaint against their employer, R. Syjuco Construction, Inc., claiming they were constructively dismissed without valid cause or due process. RSCI claimed the workers were project employees whose assignments ended with completed projects. The Labor Arbiter and Court of Appeals found the workers were regular employees because RSCI did not prove the workers were informed their employment was tied to specific projects. As regular employees, their dismissal was illegal since it lacked just cause and proper procedures. The Supreme Court affirmed the workers were illegally dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    CASE #13

    DOMINIC INOCENTES, et.al vs R. SYJUCO CONSTRUCTION, INC. (RSCI)


    G.R. No. 237020, July 29, 2019

    FACTS:

    Petitioners Dominic Inocentes, Reymark Catangui, Jeffrey Inocentes, and Joseph


    Cornelio filed a complaint against R. Syjuco Construction, Inc. (RSCI) and its owner,
    Ryan Syjuco, for constructive dismissal and money claims. Petitioners claimed that
    RSCI, a construction corporation, employed them as construction workers and was
    terminated on separate dates in September 2015.

    Petitioners averred that respondents did not present any employment contract
    evidencing that petitioners' work was coterminous with any project that respondents
    contracted. They also stressed that respondents did not report to the DOLE the
    termination of their supposed project employment. In sum, petitioners remained firm that
    they were regular employees and that they were terminated without any valid cause and
    without observance of due process of law. Respondents asserted that petitioners were
    under project employment and that they did not work continuously because their
    assignments depended on the availability of projects. Respondents maintained that they
    did not constructively dismiss petitioners but were separated from work due to the
    completion of their respective project assignments.

    The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal but nevertheless
    ordered RSCI to pay all petitioners the underpayment of salaries. NLRC partly granted
    the appeal ruling that petitioners were regular employees and that RSCI illegally
    dismissed them. Court of Appeals reinstated the decision of Labor Arbiter.

    ISSUE:

    Whether petitioners were illegally dismissed.

    HELD:

    YES. Respondents did not prove that they informed petitioners, at the time of
    engagement, that they were being engaged as project employees. The duration and
    scope of their work was without prior notice to petitioners. While the lack of a written
    contract does not necessarily make one a regular employee, a written contract serves
    as proof that employees were informed of the duration and scope of their work and their
    status as project employee at the commencement of their engagement. There being
    none that was adduced here, the presumption that the employees are regular
    employees prevails. It thus follows that as regular employees, petitioners may only be
    dismissed for a just or authorized cause and upon observance of due process of law. As
    these requirements were not observed, the petitioners were illegally dismissed.

    Respondents themselves admitted to such essentiality of the work because in


    their Reply, respondents confirmed that days or a few months after a repair or
    renovation project, they would inform petitioners that they would be called upon when a
    new project commences. This matter only shows that petitioners' work for respondents
    did not end by the supposed completion of a project because respondents coordinated
    with and notified them that their services would still be necessary for respondents.

    You might also like