G.R. No. 119523 October 10, 1997
Isabelo Violeta and Jovito Baltazar, petitioners, vs. National Labor Relations Commission, Fifth Division, and Dasmariñas Industrial and Steel Works Corporation, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Isabelo Violeta and Jovito Baltazar were former employees of private respondent Dasmariñas Industrial and Steelworks Corporation (DISC). Violeta was hired on November 10, 1982, and Baltazar was hired on October 1, 1981. Both were transferred from one construction project to another as regular project employees. Violeta’s last appointment was as a Handyman for the NSC ETL 3 Civil Works project, and his services were terminated on March 15, 1992, due to the completion of his specific item of work. Baltazar’s last appointment was as Leadman II in the same ETL 3 Civil Works project, and his services were terminated on December 20, 1991, also due to the completion of his item of work. Upon separation, both executed quitclaims. They filed complaints for illegal dismissal, contending they were regular employees. The Labor Arbiter dismissed their claims, ruling they were project employees whose employment was coterminous with the project, but awarded separation pay. The NLRC, in its initial resolution dated August 17, 1994, reversed the Labor Arbiter, declared petitioners as non-project employees, and found their dismissal illegal, ordering reinstatement and back wages. However, upon private respondent’s motion for reconsideration, the NLRC reversed itself in a resolution dated November 15, 1994, and held petitioners were project employees whose termination due to project completion was valid, denying separation pay.

ISSUE

Whether petitioners are regular employees or project employees.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that petitioners are regular employees, not project employees. The principal test for project employment is whether the employees were assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking, the duration and scope of which were specified at the time of engagement. The Court found that while petitioners were hired for a specific project (NSC ETL 3 Civil Works), the appointments did not specify a definite period or duration for the completion of the project at the time of their engagement. The appointments left the “DATE OF COVERAGE” blank and used terms like “co-terminus” and “subject to the provisions of Policy Instruction No. 20,” which did not clearly define a fixed period. Furthermore, the continual and successive rehiring of petitioners for different projects of the company and its sister company demonstrated that their services as Handyman and Erector II were necessary and desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. Consequently, they fall under the definition of regular employment in Article 280 of the Labor Code. Their dismissal, based solely on the completion of a specific item of work, was therefore illegal. The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari, reversed the NLRC resolution dated November 15, 1994, and reinstated the NLRC resolution dated August 17, 1994, which declared the dismissal illegal and ordered reinstatement with back wages, or separation pay if reinstatement is not possible, plus attorney’s fees.