Scribd
Upload
16 views

D.M. Consunji, Inc. And/Or David M. Consunji vs. Estelito L. Jamin G.R. No. 192514 April 18, 2012 Brion, J.

1) Estelito Jamin worked for D.M. Consunji Inc. (DMCI) as a laborer and carpenter from 1968 to 1999 on various construction projects. 2) In 1999, DMCI terminated Jamin's employment after completing the SM Manila project, claiming his employment was project-based. 3) Jamin filed a complaint arguing he was a regular employee illegally dismissed without cause after working continuously for DMCI for 31 years. 4) Both the trial court and the NLRC dismissed Jamin's complaint, finding he was a project-based employee. However, the Court of Appeals reversed and found Jamin was a regular employee.

Uploaded by

Gui Esh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
16 views

D.M. Consunji, Inc. And/Or David M. Consunji vs. Estelito L. Jamin G.R. No. 192514 April 18, 2012 Brion, J.

1) Estelito Jamin worked for D.M. Consunji Inc. (DMCI) as a laborer and carpenter from 1968 to 1999 on various construction projects. 2) In 1999, DMCI terminated Jamin's employment after completing the SM Manila project, claiming his employment was project-based. 3) Jamin filed a complaint arguing he was a regular employee illegally dismissed without cause after working continuously for DMCI for 31 years. 4) Both the trial court and the NLRC dismissed Jamin's complaint, finding he was a project-based employee. However, the Court of Appeals reversed and found Jamin was a regular employee.

Uploaded by

Gui Esh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

D.M. CONSUNJI, INC. and/or DAVID M. CONSUNJI vs. ESTELITO L.

JAMIN

G.R. No. 192514 April 18, 2012

BRION, J.:

Facts: P is a construction company, hired R as a laborer. Sometime in 1975, R became a


helper carpenter. Since his initial hiring, R’s employment contract had been
renewed a number of times. On March 20, 1999, his work at DMCI was
terminated due to the completion of the SM Manila project. This termination
marked the end of his employment with DMCI as he was not rehired again.

R complaint P for illegal dismissal, with several money claims

On the grounds that P terminated his employment without a just and authorized cause at a time
when he was already 55 years old and had no independent source of livelihood.

R presented to claiming that he rendered service to DMCI continuously for almost 31 years.
the court the
following
proposition

P counter it hired R on a project-to-project basis, from the start of his engagement in 1968
argued this until the completion of its SM Manila project on March 20, 1999 where R last
proposition by worked. With the completion of the project, it terminated R’s employment.
presenting that

The MTC / LA Dismissed R’s complaint for lack of merit and that R was a project employee
whose services had been terminated due to the completion of the project where
he was assigned.

The RTC / NLRC Affirmed the LA.

Whereas the CA Reversed the compulsory arbitration rulings. It held that Jamin was a regular
employee.

Issue: Whether or not Jamin is a regular employee.

The SC Held Yes. R is a regular employee.


that:

The SC J. Brion The CA pierced the cover of Jamin’s project employment contract and declared
him a regular employee who had been dismissed without cause and without
notice. To reiterate, the CA’s findings were based on: (1) Jamin’s repeated 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.

The FF. Laws are


the basis.

It Was
Concluded

The same is also In Liganza v. RBL Shipyard Corporation


affirmed

Under this the Court held that "[a]ssuming, without granting[,] that [the] petitioner was
circumstance initially hired for specific projects or undertakings, the repeated re-hiring and
continuing need for his services for over eight (8) years have undeniably made
him a regular employee."

Synthesis (if any)

Conclusion +
Facts

therefore To reiterate, Jamin’s employment history with DMCI stands out for his
continuous, repeated and successive rehiring in the company’s construction
projects. In all the 38 projects where DMCI engaged Jamin’s services, the tasks he
performed as a carpenter were indisputably necessary and desirable in DMCI’s
construction business. He might not have been a member of a work pool as DMCI
insisted that it does not maintain a work pool, but his continuous rehiring and the
nature of his work unmistakably made him a regular employee.

wherefore the petition is hereby DENIED for late filing and for lack of merit. The decision of
the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.

You might also like