Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 90 views

    23.) Kiamco

    Uploaded by

    Chelle Ong
    1) Cisell Kiamco was hired by PNOC-EDC for multiple fixed-term contracts to work on a geothermal project until November 1993, when he was placed on preventive suspension pending an investigation into alleged infractions. 2) On December 1, 1993, Kiamco attempted to return to work but was prevented from entering by security guards. PNOC-EDC later reported he was terminated on November 1, 1993 due to expiration of his contract. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that as a project employee, Kiamco was still entitled to reinstatement and back wages if his dismissal was illegal, as his employment status did not preclude this. It found PNOC-

    Copyright:

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

    23.) Kiamco

    Uploaded by

    Chelle Ong
    90 views2 pages
    1) Cisell Kiamco was hired by PNOC-EDC for multiple fixed-term contracts to work on a geothermal project until November 1993, when he was placed on preventive suspension pending an investigation into alleged infractions. 2) On December 1, 1993, Kiamco attempted to return to work but was prevented from entering by security guards. PNOC-EDC later reported he was terminated on November 1, 1993 due to expiration of his contract. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that as a project employee, Kiamco was still entitled to reinstatement and back wages if his dismissal was illegal, as his employment status did not preclude this. It found PNOC-

    Original Description:

    DIGEST

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Cisell Kiamco was hired by PNOC-EDC for multiple fixed-term contracts to work on a geothermal project until November 1993, when he was placed on preventive suspension pending an investigation into alleged infractions. 2) On December 1, 1993, Kiamco attempted to return to work but was prevented from entering by security guards. PNOC-EDC later reported he was terminated on November 1, 1993 due to expiration of his contract. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that as a project employee, Kiamco was still entitled to reinstatement and back wages if his dismissal was illegal, as his employment status did not preclude this. It found PNOC-

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as rtf, pdf, or txt
    90 views2 pages

    23.) Kiamco

    Uploaded by

    Chelle Ong
    1) Cisell Kiamco was hired by PNOC-EDC for multiple fixed-term contracts to work on a geothermal project until November 1993, when he was placed on preventive suspension pending an investigation into alleged infractions. 2) On December 1, 1993, Kiamco attempted to return to work but was prevented from entering by security guards. PNOC-EDC later reported he was terminated on November 1, 1993 due to expiration of his contract. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that as a project employee, Kiamco was still entitled to reinstatement and back wages if his dismissal was illegal, as his employment status did not preclude this. It found PNOC-

    Copyright:

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

    Kiamco vs.

    NLRC, PNOC & PNOC-EDC


    GRN 129449 June 29, 1999
    J. Bellosillo
    Facts:
    Private respondent PHILIPPINE NATIONAL OIL COMPANY
    (PNOC), through its PNOC-ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (PNOCEDC), hired petitioner Cisell Kiamco as a project employee in its Geothermal
    Agro-Industrial Plant Project in Valencia, Negros Oriental. The Contract of
    Employment was for a period of five (5) months from 1 July 1992 to 30
    November 1992. After the termination of the contract, a second one was
    entered into by the parties for the period starting 1 December 1992 to 30
    April 1993. Thereafter, Kiamco was again re-hired for six (6) months
    spanning 1 May 1993 to 30 November 1993.
    However, on 28 October 1993, Kiamco was placed under preventive
    suspension from 1 November 1993 to 30 November 1993 in connection with
    certain infractions he allegedly committed pending further investigation
    thereof.
    On 1 December 1993 Kiamco reported back to work but was prevented
    by security guards from entering the company premises. On 27 May 1994
    private respondent PNOC-EDC reported to the DOLE that petitioner Kiamco
    was terminated on 1 November 1993 due to the expiration of his
    employment contract and the abolition of his position. Thus, on 25 April
    1994, Kiamco filed before the NLRC Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch a
    complaint for illegal suspension and dismissal against the PNOC. On 30 June
    1995, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit since
    Kiamco could not question his dismissal because it was in accordance with
    his employment contract.
    Kiamco appealed the decision of the Labor Arbiter to public respondent
    NLRC which eventually declared that complainant-appellant is a project
    employee of the respondent and not a regular employee, ruling out the
    reinstatement of the complainant with full back wages.
    Thus, this petition for certiorari filed by Kiamco before this Court.
    Issue:
    Whether an illegally dismissed project employee may be
    entitled to reinstatement and payment of back wages.
    Ruling:
    The normal consequences of a finding that an employee
    has been illegally dismissed are that the employee becomes entitled to
    reinstatement to his former position without loss of seniority rights and the

    payment of back wages (Santos v. NLRC).


    Reinstatement restores the employee who was unjustly dismissed to
    the position from which he was removed, that is, to his status quo ante
    dismissal; while the grant of back wages allows the same employee to
    recover from the employer that which he had lost by way of wages as a
    result of his dismissal.
    These rights of an employee do not depend on the status of his
    employment prior to his dismissal but rather to the legality and validity of his
    termination. The fact that an employee is not a regular employee does not
    mean that he can be dismissed any time, even illegally, by his employer.
    In termination cases, the burden of proving just and valid cause for
    dismissing an employee from his employment rests upon the employer, and
    the latter's failure to do so results in finding that the dismissal is unjustified.
    Due process in termination cases requires the employer to furnish the worker
    or employee sought to be dismissed with two (2) written notices, i.e., a
    notice which apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for
    which his dismissal is sought, and a subsequent notice which informs the
    employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him (De la Cruz v. NLRC).
    The failure of herein private respondents to comply with the due
    process requirement further tainted Kiamco's dismissal with irregularity.
    Additionally, it is established that the complainant's service is needed
    until the full completion of the so-called Geothermal Agroindustrial
    Demonstration Project. It is unrefuted on record that when complainant's
    service was terminated, work in the project was still going on.
    Assailed Resolution MODIFIED. PNOC and PNOC-EDC are ORDERED to
    REINSTATE petitioner Cisell A. Kiamco immediately to his former position
    without loss of seniority rights and privileges with full back wages from the
    date of his dismissal until his actual reinstatement.

    You might also like