G.R. No. 125606 October 7, 1998
San Miguel Corporation, petitioner, vs. National Labor Relations Commission, Third Division, and Francisco de Guzman, Jr., respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Francisco de Guzman, Jr. was hired by petitioner San Miguel Corporation in November 1990 as a helper/bricklayer for the specific project of repairing and upgrading furnace C at its Manila Glass Plant. His employment contract stated the temporary employment was for approximately four months. His services were terminated on April 30, 1991, upon completion of the project. On May 10, 1991, he was re-hired for another specific undertaking—the draining/cooling down of furnace F and the emergency repair of furnace E—for approximately three months. His services were terminated again at the end of July 1991 upon completion of this task. On August 1, 1991, he saw his name in a dismissal memorandum posted on the company bulletin board. On August 12, 1994, more than three years later, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, ruling he was a project employee who never attained regular status. The NLRC reversed this decision, ordering reinstatement with backwages, finding the re-hiring scheme violated security of tenure and constituted illegal dismissal. San Miguel Corporation filed this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

1. What is the nature of private respondent’s employment—project employee or regular employee?
2. Was he legally terminated or illegally dismissed?

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED the NLRC decision, and REINSTATED the Labor Arbiter’s judgment.
1. Private respondent was a project employee. His employment fell under the second type of project employment discussed in ALU-TUCP vs. NLRC: a particular job not within the regular business of the employer, identifiably separate and distinct from ordinary operations, beginning and ending at determinable times. He was hired for specific, non-recurring projects (repair/upgrading of furnaces), which are not regularly performed in petitioner’s glass manufacturing business but are needed only after years of continuous use. The nature of employment depends on the activity performed, the employer’s business nature, and the work’s duration and scope, not merely on the employer’s designation or the hiring procedure.
2. His termination was legal, not an illegal dismissal. As a project employee, his employment was coterminous with the specific project for which he was hired. His employment legally ended upon each project’s completion. The NLRC’s finding of illegal dismissal and order for reinstatement constituted grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that while the Constitution protects labor, management also has rights, and justice must be dispensed based on established facts and applicable law.