G.R. No. 153832 . March 18, 2005
FILIPINAS PRE-FABRICATED BUILDING SYSTEMS (FILSYSTEMS), INC., and FELIPE A. CRUZ JR., Petitioners, vs. ROGER D. PUENTE, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Roger Puente was employed by petitioner Filsystems, Inc., a construction firm, starting June 12, 1989. He was initially hired as an installer and later promoted to mobile crane operator. Puente contended that his work was continuous for ten years, primarily assigned at the company plant to maintain all mobile cranes, and was not dependent on the completion of any specific construction project. On October 1, 1999, he was dismissed on the ground that he was a project employee. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
Petitioners asserted that Puente was a project employee hired for various specific projects, as evidenced by successive employment contracts. They claimed that his employment was coterminous with each project and that terminations were reported to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). The Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissed Puente’s complaint, upholding his status as a project employee. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed, finding him to be a regular employee performing tasks vital to the company’s usual business over a prolonged period, and ordered his reinstatement with full back wages.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether respondent Roger Puente is a project employee or a regular employee. A corollary issue is the propriety of the remedy granted for his illegal dismissal.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that Puente is a regular employee, not a project employee. The legal logic hinges on the application of Article 280 of the Labor Code and established jurisprudence distinguishing regular from project employment. A project employee is hired for a specific project with a foreseeable end. The Court found petitioners’ evidence insufficient to prove this status. The employment contracts presented did not specify the duration of each project or Puente’s specific involvement therein. Crucially, his long-term assignment (ten years) at the company plant, performing maintenance work on equipment essential to the employer’s construction business, demonstrated that his activities were “usually necessary or desirable” in the usual trade of the employer. This continuous service, without being tied to a discrete, time-bound project, qualifies him as a regular employee under the law.
Regarding the remedy, the Court modified the CA’s award. While Puente was illegally dismissed and generally entitled to reinstatement with full back wages, the completion of the specific project to which he was allegedly assigned (the World Finance Plaza project) during the pendency of the case rendered reinstatement impracticable. Applying the doctrine for project employees illegally dismissed before project completion, the Court analogously limited the monetary award. Consequently, petitioners were ordered to pay Puente full back wages and benefits computed only from the date of his illegal dismissal (October 1, 1999) until the actual completion date of the World Finance Plaza project, not until actual reinstatement. The award of attorney’s fees was sustained.