DISPOSITIVE:
ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED
for lack of merit. The Decision dated August 10, 2022 and the Resolution
dated December 12, 2022 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 167930
are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that Dave B. Maningo,
Justino E. Perez, Antonino G. Quirante, Christopher Bryan R. Maiie, Mike G.
Quirante, and Mark Kemuel B. Hernandez are declared illegally dismissed
from employment and entitled to the following reliefs:
- Reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, if the project
is still ongoing. Otherwise, they should be paid separation pay
equivalent to their salaries for the unexpired portion of their
Project Employment Contract; - Backwages reckoned from the dismissal ofDave B. Maningo,
Justino E. Perez, Antonino G. Quirante, Christopher Bryan R.
Marte, Mike G. Quirante, and Mark Kemuel B. Hernandez on
February 20, 2019 until their reinstatement or completion of
the structural works of the project for which they were hired; - Holiday and service incentive leave pay as computed by the
Labor Arbiter; - l!Ioral and exemplary damages m the amount of PHP
25,000.00 each; and - Attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary
awards.
Legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum shall be imposed on the total
monetary award from the date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.
The case is hereby REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for the
recomputation of the total monetary benefits due to Dave B. Maningo, Justino E. Perez, Antonino G. Quirante, Christopher Bryan R. Marte, Mike G. Quirante, and Mark Kemuel B. Hernandez.
SO ORDERED.
SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:
The accommodation letters were signed by Coo gee’s Human Resource
Assistant and the bearer/worker named in the letter. Of the four letters, two
were dated February 6, 2019, one was dated February 8, 2019, and one was
dated February 20, 2019 – the same date that Maningo et al.’s employment
was terminated due to the alleged completion of the structural works of the Project Mall. This fourth letter provided that the worker named therein shall start as helper on February 22, 2019. Coogee did not explain why it is still hiring after the supposed date of completion of the structural works of the Project Mall.
Even if the Court disregards the accommodation letters, the outcome is
the same. As stated earlier, the PECs of Maningo et al. did not state that they
were only hired for the structural works for Lot 1 Phase 1 of the Project Mall.
Hence, Maningo et al. are deemed engaged for the entire structural works.
Coo gee miserably failed to prove by substantial evidence that Maningo et al.’ s employment was terminated due to the completion of the undertaking for which they were hired.
…………………………………………
The Court finds that the CA correctly ordered (1) the reinstatement of
Maningo et al. without loss of seniority rights to their former positions, if the
project is still ongoing, and (2) the payment of backwages to Maningo et al.
reckoned from February 20, 2019 until their reinstatement or completion of
the structural works of the Project Mall.
Nevertheless, the CA’s award of separation pay if reinstatement is no
longer feasible should be modified. Per Section 3.3(b) of DO No. 19, when
reinstatement is no longer possible, the employee is entitled to his/her salaries
for the unexpired portion of the agreement; not from the time of hiring until
completion of the project as granted by the CA. Applied here, Maningo et al.
should be paid their salaries for the unexpired portion of their PECs. The PECs
are coterminous with the end or completion of the structural works of the
Project Mall, which Coo gee may prove upon remand of the case to the LA.
Meanwhile, the Court grants Maningo et al.’ s prayer for moral and
exemplary damages. In Buenaffor v. Stolt-Nielsen Philippines, Inc., 54 the
Court recounted that in a catena of cases, moral and exemplary damages have
been awarded to illegally dismissed employees once it has been shown, or the
courts have found, that their dismissal or the acts of the employer relative to
the dismissal are tainted with bad faith or fraud or where it constituted an act
oppressive to labor, and done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs,
or public policy or effected in a wanton, oppressive, or malevolent manner.
The amount of moral and exemplary damages is determined by the Court
according to the circumstances of each case. 55
In this case, the Court finds that Coo gee’s dismissal of Maningo et al.
shows a calculated act of bad faith. As astutely pointed out by Associate
Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, while Coogee dismissed Maningo et al.
under the guise of project completion, its own Human Resources department
was simultaneously trying to hire their replacements. . . . . . . . . . .
TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.
NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.
J.A.B. Bulao & Associates 