G.R. No. 118853 October 16, 1997
BRAHM INDUSTRIES, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, REYNALDO C. GAGARINO, ROBERTO M. DURIAN and JONE M. COMENDADOR, respondents.

FACTS

Roberto M. Durian, Jone M. Comendador, and Reynaldo C. Gagarino filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and other monetary claims against their employer, Brahm Industries, Inc. (BRAHM). Durian and Comendador claimed they were dismissed without cause and due process in December 1992, while Gagarino was terminated in October 1990. BRAHM contended that Gagarino left to work abroad, and that Durian and Comendador abandoned their jobs after being reprimanded for not finishing assigned welding work and for their inability to account for tools worth P10,000. BRAHM also asserted that the complainants were not regular employees but were contractual project employees hired on a per-project basis for its business of constructing water purifiers and waste control devices. The Labor Arbiter found Durian and Comendador to have been illegally dismissed, ordering their reinstatement with back wages and other benefits, but dismissed Gagarino’s case for being filed beyond the prescriptive period. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision with a modification reducing the attorney’s fees. BRAHM appealed, arguing that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in finding that Durian and Comendador were regular employees, were illegally dismissed, and were entitled to attorney’s fees.

ISSUE

1. Whether private respondents Roberto M. Durian and Jone M. Comendador were regular employees or merely contractual project employees.
2. Whether they were illegally dismissed.
3. Whether the award of attorney’s fees was proper.

RULING

1. Yes, Durian and Comendador were regular employees, not project employees. The Supreme Court held that the primary standard for determining regular employment is the reasonable connection between the employee’s activity and the employer’s usual business. The work of Durian and Comendador as welders was necessary and desirable to BRAHM’s business of manufacturing water purifiers and waste control devices. Furthermore, BRAHM’s practice of re-hiring them after each project, spanning nine years for Comendador and five years for Durian, confirmed their status as regular employees. Critically, BRAHM failed to comply with Policy Instruction No. 20, which requires employers to report the termination of project employees to the nearest employment office upon completion of a project. This failure was considered proof that the employees were not project employees. BRAHM also failed to present any contract, payroll, or convincing evidence to substantiate its claim that they were project employees.
2. Yes, they were illegally dismissed. For a dismissal to be valid, it must be for a just or authorized cause and must comply with procedural due process. BRAHM alleged abandonment as the cause, but failed to prove a clear and deliberate intent by the employees to sever their employment. The filing of the complaint for illegal dismissal negated any intent to abandon. Moreover, even assuming abandonment, the dismissal was still illegal due to BRAHM’s failure to comply with the twin-notice requirement. The employer must furnish the employee with a first written notice specifying the grounds for dismissal and a second notice informing the employee of the decision to dismiss. BRAHM failed to serve the first notice at the employees’ last known addresses.
3. The Supreme Court did not find a need to modify the reduced award of attorney’s fees as affirmed by the NLRC, and thus implicitly sustained its propriety. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit, and the NLRC decision was affirmed. Costs were imposed against petitioner BRAHM.