G.R. No. 100518 . January 24, 2000.
ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNIONS (ATU), RODOLFO MONTECLARO and EDGAR JUESAN, petitioners, vs. HON. COMMISSIONERS OSCAR N. ABELLA, MUSIB N. BUAT, LEON GONZAGA JR., ALGON ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION CORP., ALEX GONZALES and EDITHA YAP, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners were workers engaged by respondent Algon Engineering Construction Corporation for various government road construction projects. Their contracts specified the particular project, duration, and daily wage. In 1989, they joined petitioner union, which subsequently filed a petition for certification election. The company opposed, claiming the workers were project employees. After the union made demands for wage differentials, the company terminated the workers, citing the completion of specific projects or the expiration of their contracts. The workers filed complaints for illegal dismissal and monetary claims, alleging their termination was due to union activities.
The Labor Arbiter declared the dismissals of five workers illegal, ordering their reinstatement with back wages, but dismissed the complaints of the others. Both parties appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The NLRC modified the decision, ruling that all complainants were project employees whose employment legally ended upon project completion. It also held that the Labor Arbiter should have resolved the wage differential claims. The petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a special civil action for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the petitioners were project employees and were not illegally dismissed.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the NLRC resolution. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion, as the NLRC’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and consistent with law. The legal logic centered on the distinction between regular and project employment. Project employees are hired for a specific project with a predetermined duration. Their employment is co-terminous with the project and is not considered illegal dismissal upon its completion, provided the termination is reported for statistical purposes.
Here, the employment contracts explicitly stated the workers were hired for specific government projects, with their tenure dependent on project duration. The company also regularly submitted termination reports as required. The nature of their work in construction, an industry where project employment is common, further supported this classification. Consequently, their employment legally terminated upon project completion, negating the claim of illegal dismissal. The Court also upheld the NLRC’s directive for the Labor Arbiter to resolve the wage differential claims, as these were properly raised and involved distinct monetary entitlements separate from the dismissal issue.