SABEROLA V. SUAREZ (LABOR)

Petitioner's business, specializing in installing electrical devices, needs electricians only when there are electrical devices to be installed in subdivision homes or buildings covered by an appropriate contract. Petitioner, as an electrical contractor, depends for his business on contracts that he is able to obtain from real estate developers and builders. Thus, the work provided by petitioner depends on the availability of such contracts or projects. The duration of the employment of his work force is not permanent but coterminous with the projects to which the workers are assigned. Viewed in this context, the respondents are considered as project employees of petitioner. Indeed, the status of respondents as project employees was upheld by the CA based on the findings of facts of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC.

A PROJECT EMPLOYEE is one whose 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 or where the work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.

However, respondents, even if working as project employees, enjoy security of tenure. Section 3, Article XIII of the Constitution guarantees the right of workers to security of tenure, and because of this, an employee may only be terminated for just or authorized causes that must comply with the due process requirements mandated by law.

When a project employee is dismissed, such dismissal must still comply with the substantive and procedural requirements of due process. 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.

In this regard, we hold that respondent Suarez was illegally terminated by petitioner. A project employee must be furnished a written notice of his impending dismissal and must be given the opportunity to dispute the legality of his removal. In termination cases, the burden of proof rests on the employer to show that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause. employers who hire project employees are mandated to state and prove the actual basis for the employee's dismissal once its veracity is challenged.

Petitioner failed to present any evidence to disprove the claim of illegal dismissal. No evidence was presented by petitioner to show the termination of the project which would justify the cessation of the work or respondents. Neither was there proof that petitioner complied with the substantive and procedural requirements of due process.

As to the payment of monetary claim, in the instant case, the burden of proving payment rests on petitioner, being the employer of respondents. This is because the pertinent personnel files, payrolls, records, etc., that would show that the claims have been paid or not are not in the possession of the workers but in the custody and absolute control of the employer. Sadly, the petitioner failed to do so.