BY ATTY. JULIUS GREGORY B. DELGADO
COOGEE INTERNATIONAL, INC. VS. DAVE B. MANINGO, ET AL., G.R. NO. 264881 (JULY 16, 2025): CONSTRUCTION COMPANY MUST ESTABLISH COMPLETION OF PROJECT TO VALIDLY TERMINATE ITS PROJECT EMPLOYEES
Respondents Dave B. Maningo, Justino E. Perez, Antonino G. Quirante, Christopher Bryan R. Mante, Mike G. Quirante, and Mark Kemuel B. Hernandez (respondents Maningo, et al.) were hired by petitioner Coogee International, Inc. (petitioner Coogee) for their Manila Bay Project Mall. Their Project Employment Contracts uniformly stated that the duration of their employment shall be up to the project completion of “structural works”. Respondents Maningo, et al. were then served Notices of Project Completion stating that their services with petitioner Coogee shall end effective February 20, 2019. On March 1, 2019, they filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of salary/wages, non-payment of holiday pay, holiday premium, service incentive leave pay (SILP), separation pay, emergency cost of living allowance (ECOLA), moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
Respondents Maningo, et al. alleged that they were regular employees of petitioner Coogee since they had been working for the latter for more than a year. They claimed that they were dismissed without just cause and without due process. They averred that they protested the Notice of Project Completion because the Project Mall is ongoing and Coogee was still hiring employees. For its part, petitioner Coogee countered that Maningo, et al. were validly terminated from employment upon completion of the structural works of the Project Mall. It argued that Maningo, et al. were aware at the time of their hiring that the nature of their employment is project-based as indicated in their Project Employment Contracts. Petitioner Coogee also argued that they submitted the required Establishment Employment Report (EER) to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) regarding the termination of employment of Maningo, et al.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint holding that respondents Maningo, et al. were project employees of petitioner Coogee. The Labor Arbiter found that they were informed of the status of their employment at the time of their hiring, and it was made clear that their employment were up to structural works only. The Labor Arbiter, however, granted the prayer for holiday pay and SILP for failure of petitioner Coogee to prove payment thereof. However, it denied the claim for 13th month pay since Maningo, et al.’s payroll showed that Coogee had paid the same. Maningo, et al.’s claim for overtime pay and holiday pay as well as attorney’s fees were rejected for lack of basis. The NLRC partially granted the appeal and modified the Labor Arbiter’s Decision holding Coogee further liable of attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals modified the ruling of the NLRC and held that Maningo, et al. were illegally dismissed. Hence, petitioner Coogee filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.
On the procedural issue, petitioner Coogee asserts that the Court of Appeals should have dismissed the Petition for Certiorari of Maningo, et al. because they failed to attach Coogee’s Answer. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals correctly gave due course to the Petition for Certiorari because it attached Coogee’s Position Paper. The said Position Paper reiterated the arguments in the Answer, hence, the Court of Appeals could judiciously determine the merits of Maningo, et al.’s petition.
On the substantive issue, the Supreme Court ruled that the requisites of project employment are present in the instant case, to wit: (1) the employee was assigned to carry out a specific project or unde1iaking; (2) the duration and scope of which were specified at the time the employee was engaged for such project; and (3) there was indeed a project undertaken. The Supreme Court held:
“First, Maningo et al. were assigned in various capacities (i.e., safety crew, helper, and carpenter) in the structural works of the Project Mall. Second, they were sufficiently informed of the duration and scope of their employment at the time of hiring. Except for the start date, which differs for each among Maningo et al., their PECs contained a similarly worded sentence in Filipino that their employment is coterminous with the completion of the structural works of the Project Mall. The pertinent portions of the PEC states: ‘[m]aliban kung ang PROJECT EMPLOYEE ay na tanggal dahil sa anumang ‘just or authorized cause ‘ na isinasaad ng Labor Code, ang PROJECT EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT na ito ay matatapos kasabay ng pagtatapos ng Structural works project.’ Third, it is undisputed that the Project Mall exists, and Maningo et al. were engaged for the structural works phase. Factual findings of the LA and the NLRC, when confirmed by the CA, are conclusive on this Court.”
The Supreme Court proceeded to discuss whether Maningo, et al. were illegally dismissed since the structural works were not yet completed when they were served Notice of Project Completion. The Court held that Maningo, et al. were illegally dismissed since the evidence adduced by petitioner Coogee, i.e., Certificate of Final Acceptance issued by their general contractor, Makati Development Corporation (MDC) pertains to scope of work in Lot 1, Phase 1, Structural Works. The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the Project Employment Contracts of Maningo, et al. did not indicate that their scope of work on “structural works” pertains only to Lot 1, Phase 1, Structural Works. The Court held:
“The Court agrees with the CA that these documents are insufficient to prove that the structural works for which Maningo et al. were hired are already completed as of February 20, 2019, the date of Maningo et al. ‘s dismissal. Foremost, Coogee failed to allege and prove that Maningo et al. were assigned to Lot 1, Phase 1, of the structural works of the Project Mall. A reading of the PECs would readily show that Maningo et al. were engaged for ‘structural works’ without any qualification as to the lot or phase of the structural works of the Project Mall. It may be safely assumed that the PEC refers to the whole structural works of the Project Mall. Otherwise, the PECs would have specifically stated that Maningo et al.’ s employment is limited to a specific lot or phase. On the contrary, the Certificate of Final Acceptance particularly stated that what was completed is only ‘Lot 1, Phase 1 Structural Works.’”
Finally, the Supreme Court also found credence on the Accommodation Letters submitted by Maningo, et al. to prove that Coogee was still hiring workers when they were dismissed for supposed project completion. The case clearly shows that submission of Establishment Employment Report, while may be considered, is not a conclusive proof that a project employment was validly terminated. In this case, Coogee failed to further specify the area or segment of the structural works of their project.