Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

MANO ANDRES is not an employee of Architect Ruby but of the Archdiocese of Palo,

Cemetery Department. Arch. Ruby merely supervises the construction/development of

the Palo Catholic Cemetery.
Employment of MANO ANDRES was for a specific period of time only corresponding to
the completion of a certain project, as such, he is considered as a project employee.
MANO ANDRES was informed that a new project is starting and was asked to report for
duty. However, he failed to receive the text message. Upon his complaint he was informed to
report for duty but he does not want to work again and is demanding for a separation pay.

Clearly, MANO Andres was not illegally dismissed or terminated.

The Supreme Court in the case of Archbuild Masters and Construction, Inc. and Joaquin
C. Regala vs. NLRC and Rogelio Cayanga held that:

(I)f a project employee is dismissed his removal must still comply with the substantive
and procedural requirements of due process. Sec. 3, Art. XIII, of the Constitution
mandates that the State shall afford full protection to labor and declares that all workers
shall be entitled to security of tenure. The fundamental guarantee of security of tenure
and due process dictates that no worker shall be dismissed except for a just and
authorized cause provided by law and after due process has been properly complied
with. Therefore, a project employee hired for a specific task also enjoys security of
tenure. A termination of his employment must be for a lawful cause and must be done in
a manner which affords him the proper notice and hearing. Thus, a project employee
must be duly furnished a written notice of his impending dismissal and must be given the
opportunity to dispute the legality of his removal (G.R. No. 108142, December 26,

Thus, if a project employee is removed before the completion of the project without any
just or authorized cause therefor, then said project employee is considered to have been
illegally dismissed.

It is worthy to note that separation pay is required to be given to an employee in cases of

termination due to authorized causes provided for under Article 283 of the Labor Code of
the Philippines, which states that:

Art. 283. Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. The employer may also
terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor-saving
devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of
operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of
circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the workers and
the Ministry of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date
thereof. In case of termination due to the installation of labor-saving devices or
redundancy, the worker affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent
to at least his one (1) month pay or to at least one (1) month pay for every year of
service, whichever is higher. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of
closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious
business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1)
month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is
higher. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered one (1) whole year.

Based on the above, MANO ANDRES is not entitled to a separation pay.