G.R. No. 105359 . April 22, 1993.
CAPITOL INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION GROUPS, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, THIRD DIVISION, PERCIVAL GRANADO (in his capacity as Sheriff of the NLRC), NATIONAL FEDERATIONS OF LABOR UNIONS (NAFLU), HENRY D. MONTE, ARNEL V. LAPORE, JOSE PAINANDOS, JOEL BALLEBAS, ANTONIO DE GUZMAN, ROBERTO D. VILLA and FLORO CAGOMOC, respondents.

FACTS

The private respondents were hired by petitioner Capitol Industrial Construction Groups on different dates under employment contracts titled “Appointment as Project Contract Worker.” These contracts stipulated that their employment was temporary, terminating upon completion of the specific project (JO 1172 CS and others), and that they were not entitled to become regular employees. Despite these contracts, the private respondents were not always assigned to project sites. They performed work as welder, inventory clerk, truck helper, machinist, batteryman, or warehouseman at the Company’s Central Office, Central Shop, or Central Warehouse in Cainta, Rizal, which handled administration, engineering, auditing, financing, maintenance and repair of company equipment, and storage/issuance of materials for various projects. On November 1, 1990, petitioner terminated their services on the ground of project completion. The private respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled they were project employees but awarded separation benefits. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter, declaring the private respondents to be regular employees, their dismissal illegal, and ordering reinstatement with backwages. The NLRC noted that some employees were terminated in 1990 for projects completed in 1986 and 1989, belied the claim they were hired for particular projects, and found their work vital to all of the company’s projects. Petitioner filed this certiorari petition alleging the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the private respondents are regular employees or project employees of the petitioner.

RULING

The private respondents are regular employees. The Supreme Court upheld the NLRC’s findings. Article 280 of the Labor Code defines regular employment as one where the employee performs activities usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. The evidence showed the private respondents performed tasks vital and indispensable to the efficient administration and completion of the company’s various projects, such as working in the Central Shop, Central Warehouse, and Central Office, which serviced all projects, not just a specific one. The fact that they continued working long after their alleged projects were completed (e.g., terminated in 1990 for projects finished in 1986 and 1989) contradicted the claim of project employment. Their work was usually necessary and desirable in the petitioner’s construction business. Citing Magante vs. National Labor Relations Commission, the Court emphasized that the nature of the work and the place of assignment determine employment status, and the failure to submit termination reports to the public employment office upon each project’s completion, as required by Policy Instruction No. 20 for project employees, further supported their regular status. The NLRC’s factual findings, being supported by substantial evidence, are final. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.