Petitioner Engineering Construction Corp. of Asia (ECCA) is engaged in the construction business. Respondents Segundino Palle and five others were hired by ECCA on various dates to work in its construction business.
In a complaint for illegal dismissal, respondents claimed that ECCA hired them on different dates to perform tasks which are necessary and desirable in its construction business. Although they may have signed employment contracts for some of ECCA’s projects, they were asked to work in new projects or transferred to other existing projects without the benefit of corresponding employment contracts. Furthermore, ECCA failed to report the termination of their employment to the Department of Labor and Employment (Dole) every time that the company completed the project. Hence, they are regular employees.
On the other hand, ECCA argued that respondents were project employees since they were hired for specific project or undertaking, the termination of which was determined at the time of hiring. They were hired as project employees to work at its various construction projects from the year 1990. It informed them of the scope and duration of their work at the time they were engaged in each of those projects. They were separated from the service upon the completion of the specific project.
Whose claim is meritorious?
Ruling: That of respondents.
We find that ECCA failed to present substantial evidence to show that it informed respondents of the duration and scope of their work at the time of their hiring. Upon careful review of the company’s respective contracts of employment with respondents, this Court holds that the employment contracts were lacking in details to prove that respondents had been duly informed of the duration and scope of their work, and of their status as project employees at the time of their hiring. The respective contracts of respondents may have been dated at the time of their issuance, but nowhere did said contracts show as to when respondents supposedly signed or received the same or were informed of the contents thereof.
This gives rise to the distinct possibility that respondents were not informed of their status as project employees, as well as the scope and duration of the projects that were assigned to them at the time of their engagement. Thus, ECCA failed to refute respondents’ claim that they worked in new projects or they were transferred to other existing projects without the benefit of their corresponding employment contracts. Therefore, ECCA failed to persuasively show that respondents herein were informed at the time of their engagement that their work was only for the duration of the project.
Moreover, ECCA failed to present other evidence or other written contracts to show that it informed respondents of the duration and scope of their work. Settled is the rule that “although the absence of a written contract does not by itself grant regular status to the employees, it is evidence that they were informed of the duration and scope of their work and their status as project employees at the start of their engagement. When no other evidence is offered, the absence of employment contracts raises a serious question of whether the employees were sufficiently apprised at the start of their employment of their status as project employees.” In addition, we likewise note that the company did not submit a report with the Dole of the termination of respondents’ employment every time a project is completed, which is an indication that the workers were not project employees but regular ones. (Engineering Construction Corp. of Asia vs. Segundino Palle, et al., G.R. 201247, July 13, 2020)