DM Consunji Inc., v.
Estelito
Jamin
FACTS: Petitioner D.M. Consunji, Inc. (DMCI), a construction company, hired respondent Estelito
L. Jamin as a laborer. Since his initial hiring, Jamin’s employment contract had been renewed a
number of times. However, 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. Jamin filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, with several money claims against
DMCI. Jamin alleged that DMCI terminated his employment without a just and authorized cause.
He also claimed that he rendered service to DMCI continuously for almost 31 years. DMCI denied
liability. It argued that it hired Jamin on a project-to-project basis, from the start of his engagement
in 1968 until the completion of its SM Manila project on March 20, 1999 where Jamin last worked.
With the completion of the project, it terminated Jamin’s employment. It alleged that it submitted a
report to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) every time it terminated Jamin’s
services.
Labor Arbiter Francisco A. Robles dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. He sustained
DMCI’s position that Jamin was a project employee whose services had been terminated due to
the completion of the project where he was assigned. The labor arbiter added that every time
DMCI rehired Jamin, it entered into a contract of employment with him. Moreover, upon completion
of the phase of the project for which Jamin was hired or upon completion of the project itself, the
company served a notice of termination to him and a termination report to the DOLE Regional
Office. The labor arbiter also noted that Jamin had to file an application if he wanted to be re-hired.
On appeal by Jamin, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), dismissed the appeal and
affirmed the labor arbiter’s finding that Jamin was a project employee. Jamin moved for
reconsideration, but the NLRC denied the motion in a resolution dated May 30, 2007.9 Jamin sought
relief from the CA through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
The CA Special Fourth Division rendered the disputed decision10 reversing the compulsory
arbitration rulings. It held that Jamin was a regular employee. It based its conclusion on: (1) Jamin’s
repeated and successive rehiring in DMCI’s various projects; and (2) the nature of his work in the
projects — he was performing activities necessary or desirable in DMCI’s construction business.
Invoking the Court’s ruling in an earlier case,11 the CA declared that the pattern of Jamin’s rehiring
and the recurring need for his services are sufficient evidence of the necessity and indispensability of
such services to DMCI’s business or trade, a key indicator of regular employment. It opined that
although Jamin started as a project employee, the circumstances of his employment made it regular
or, at the very least, has ripened into a regular employment.
Issue: Whether or not respondent is a project-based and not regular employee.
Ruling: Yes. The Labor Code states that once a project or work pool employee has been: (1)
continuously, as opposed to intermittently, rehired by the same employer for the same tasks or nature
of tasks; and (2) these tasks are vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of
the employer, then the employee must be deemed a regular employee.
Further, as the Court stressed in Liganza, respondent capitalizes on the ruling in D.M.
Consunji, Inc. v. NLRC which reiterates the rule that the length of service of a project employee is not
the controlling test of employment tenure but whether or not the employment has been fixed for a
specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the
time of the engagement of the employee." Surely, length of time is not the controlling test for project
employment. Nevertheless, it is vital in determining if the employee was hired fora specific
undertaking or tasked to perform functions vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business
or trade of the employer. Here, private respondent had been a project employee several times over.
His employment ceased to be coterminous with specific projects when he was repeatedly re-hired
due to the demands of petitioner’s business. Without doubt, Jamins case fits squarely into the
employment situation just quoted.
