GR 109902; (August, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 109902 August 2, 1994
ALU-TUCP, Representing Members: ALAN BARINQUE, ET AL., petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION (NSC), respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners were employed by National Steel Corporation (NSC) for varying periods, ranging from several years to over a decade, in connection with NSC’s Five Year Expansion Program (FAYEP I & II). They performed roles such as engineers, survey aides, and utilitymen. Their services were terminated upon the completion or phase of the expansion project. They filed complaints for regularization and monetary benefits before the Labor Arbiter, who declared them “regular project employees” entitled to the salary of a regular employee per the collective bargaining agreement. Both parties appealed to the NLRC.
The NLRC modified the Labor Arbiter’s decision. It affirmed that petitioners were project employees, hired for the specific undertaking of the Five Year Expansion Program, the completion of which was determined at the time of their engagement. However, it set aside the award of regular employee benefits for lack of legal basis. Petitioners filed this Petition for Certiorari, arguing they should be deemed regular employees because their jobs were necessary to NSC’s steel-making business and they had rendered service for six or more years.
ISSUE
Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring petitioners as project employees and not regular employees of NSC.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC. The legal logic hinges on the proper application of Article 280 of the Labor Code. The first paragraph of Article 280 defines regular employment as engagement in activities usually necessary or desirable in the employer’s usual business, except where employment is fixed for a specific project, the completion of which is determined at the time of engagement. The Court held that petitioners were hired for a specific project—the FAYEP—which, although related to NSC’s business, was a distinct undertaking with a determined completion period. Their status as project employees is not altered merely because the project lasted for several years.
Petitioners’ argument that their lengthy service (over six years) converted them into regular employees is legally untenable. The Court clarified that the second paragraph of Article 280, which states that an employee who has rendered at least one year of service shall be considered a regular employee, applies only to casual employees, not to project employees as defined in the first paragraph. This interpretation is based on the grammatical rule that a proviso qualifies only the immediately preceding clause. Since petitioners were correctly classified under the project employee exception in the first paragraph, the one-year rule for regularization does not apply to them. Consequently, their employment was legitimately co-terminous with the project.