SANTO DOMINGO.- Engineer Leonel Simo yesterday questioned the ruling issued by the Second Chamber of the Labor Court of the National District , which condemned Constructora SimoPérez SRL to pay labor benefits to one of its subcontractors.
November 21 of this year improper , arguing that the court failed to consider notarized contracts and documents that, he claimed, demonstrated the worker had no direct employment relationship with his company. "These contractors formalized their contracts through notarized documents," he stated.
In an interview with El Inmobiliario, he stated that the decisions were issued "in favor of contractors' workers and against us only; the case corresponded to a contract for a specific project and not to an indefinite employment relationship.".
The beneficiary of the ruling is Elius Dorcilus , who filed the appeal that gave rise to the process and to whom the court recognized labor rights that, according to the employer, did not correspond because he was a subcontracted worker.
The engineer explained that, according to article 72 of the Labor Code, in contracts for a specific project "the worker only has the right to acquired rights, which are vacations and the payment of the Christmas salary", so he considered it inappropriate for the court to apply criteria specific to an indefinite contract.
He also pointed out that the court did not consider the contractor's contract date or documents that, he said, could confirm the worker's entry to the construction site. "The court did not take into account the contractor's contract date nor did it justify the worker's entry to the site with an attendance list," he stated.
He also indicated that there were inconsistencies in the process, noting that the last hearing had been scheduled for February 5, 2026, while the sentence was issued on December 5, 2025.
The professional noted that the initial ruling had only recognized acquired rights, but that the court overturned that decision. “The initial ruling was correct; now the court has dismissed this decision,” he said.
He also denied being held responsible for the contractor's alleged inability to pay. He asserted that he provided copies of checks totaling over two and a half million pesos, corresponding to work completed.
What the ruling says
FIRST: The appeal is declared regular and valid in form because it was filed in accordance with the law.
SECOND: Regarding the merits, the aforementioned appeal is upheld and consequently the judgment challenged by CONSTRUCTORA SIMO PEREZ SRL, ING. LEONEL SIMO MOTA and SANCIMENIO MONTERO SORENA is revoked, ordering them to pay the following fees jointly and severally:
a) 28 days' notice RD$18,900.00;
b) 42 days of unemployment RD$28,350.00;
c) 14 days of vacation RD$ 9,450.00;
d) Christmas salary RD$ 16,085.25;
e) 6 months' salary based on Article 95 of the Labor Code, RD$96,511.15; f) One month's unpaid salary, RD$16,085.25; g) plus RD$20,000.00 in compensation for damages. Based on a monthly salary of RD$16,085.25 and a work period of 2 years.
THIRD: The losing party, CONSTRUCTORA SIMO PEREZ SRL, ING. LEONEL SIMO MOTA, and SANCIMENIO MONTERO SORENA, are ordered to pay costs, which are then awarded to DR. Juan U. Diaz Tavera. And by this our judgment, it is so pronounced, ordered, and signed.
