Case Digest: Exodus International & Javalera v.

Biscocho,
Pereda, Mariano, Bellita & Bobillo
G.R. No. 166109 : February 23, 2011

EXODUS INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION and ANTONIO P. JAVALERA,

Petitioners, v.GUILLERMO BISCOCHO, FERNANDO PEREDA, FERDINAND MARIANO, GREGORIO
BELLITA and MIGUEL BOBILLO, Respondent.

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

FACTS:

Petitioner Exodus International Construction Corporation (Exodus) is a duly licensed labor contractor for
the painting of residential houses, condominium units and commercial buildings.

In the furtherance of its business, Exodus hired respondents as painters on different dates. Guillermo,
Fernando, Ferdinand, and Miguel filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of holiday pay,
service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay and night-shift differential pay.

The Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision exonerating petitioners from the charge of illegal dismissal as
respondents chose not to report for work. However, she allowed the claims for holiday pay, service
incentive leave pay and 13th month pay. The Decision was affirmed by the NLRC and the CA. They
opined that in a situation where the employer has complete control over the records and could thus easily
rebut any monetary claims against it but opted not to lift any finger, the burden is on the employer and not
on the complainants.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred and committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the
reinstatement of respondents to their former positions and affirming the award granted by the lower
tribunals.

HELD:

The petition is partly meritorious.

LABOR LAW: Illegal dismissal

In illegal dismissal cases, it is incumbent upon the employees to first establish the fact of their dismissal
before the burden is shifted to the employer to prove that the dismissal was legal. Here, there was no
evidence that respondents were dismissed nor were they prevented from returning to their work. It was
only respondents unsubstantiated conclusion that they were dismissed.

Clearly therefore, there was no dismissal, much less illegal, and there was also no abandonment of job to
speak of. The Labor Arbiter is therefore correct in ordering that respondents be reinstated but without any
backwages.

However, petitioners are of the position that the reinstatement of respondents to their former positions,
which were no longer existing, is impossible, highly unfair and unjust. Petitioners are misguided. They
forgot that there are two types of employees in the construction industry. The first is referred to as project
employees or those employed in connection with a particular construction project or phase thereof and
such employment is coterminous with each project or phase of the project to which they are assigned.
The second is known as non-project employees or those employed without reference to any particular
construction project or phase of a project. The second category is where respondents are classified.

Petition is PARTLY GRANTED.