GR 97520; (February, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 97520 February 9, 1993
LETICIA MAMANSAG, ET AL., petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (2ND DIVISION), CONSUMER PULSE INC. AND ROSARIO CHEW, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Consumer Pulse Inc. is a market research firm conducting surveys for clients. Petitioners were hired as field interviewers to gather data. During their employment, they were required to sign contracts specifying the project name and duration. In February 1987, petitioners were told by the company’s Human Resources Director they would be transferred to a sub-contractor or could join the Rosie Chew Foundation. Petitioners objected, considering themselves regular employees. When they inquired about work in June and July 1987, they were informed no work was available. Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Private respondents denied dismissal, contending petitioners were project employees whose contracts ended upon project completion. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioners, ordering reinstatement with three years backwages. The NLRC reversed this decision, dismissing the complaint.
ISSUE
Whether petitioners are regular employees or project employees.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that petitioners are project employees. The nature of Consumer Pulse Inc.’s business is project-based, dependent on contracts from clients. Petitioners were hired for specific projects with determined completion dates. Their employment was intermittent, with idle periods between projects. The Court emphasized that requiring the company to keep petitioners on the payroll indefinitely without projects would be counter-productive and lead to financial losses. The fact that petitioners worked on several projects did not make them regular employees; they remained project employees due to the business’s inherent nature. The actual service rendered by petitioners, ranging from 3.23 months to 31.80 months, supported their contractual status. The NLRC did not abuse its discretion in classifying them as project employees. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.