G.R. No. 156748 & G.R. No. 156896; September 8, 2004
ISAAC CIOCO, JR., ET AL., petitioners, vs. C. E. CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION AND/OR JOHNNY TAN, respondents.

(Consolidated Cases)

FACTS

Petitioners Isaac Cioco, Jr., et al. (WORKERS) were hired by C.E. Construction Corporation (COMPANY) as carpenters and laborers on various construction projects from 1990 to 1999. For each project, including the final GTI Tower project, they signed employment contracts stating their employment was co-terminous with the project’s completion. In May and June 1999, the COMPANY terminated the WORKERS, citing the completion of the specific phases of the GTI Tower project for which they were hired. The WORKERS filed complaints for illegal dismissal and monetary claims, asserting they were regular employees.
The Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissed the complaints, ruling the WORKERS were project employees whose termination due to project completion was legal, and that the COMPANY had submitted the required termination reports to the DOLE. The Court of Appeals (CA), while affirming the project employment status, reversed the NLRC on the legality of dismissal. The CA held the dismissal illegal due to alleged lack of proof of project completion and prior notice to the WORKERS.

ISSUE

Whether the WORKERS, already declared project employees, were illegally dismissed.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the CA and reinstated the NLRC decision, declaring the termination valid and legal. The Court held that the factual finding of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC—that the WORKERS were project employees—was final and binding. The repeated rehiring over several years did not convert them into regular employees, as this practice is common in construction due to the preference for experienced workers and is explicitly allowed under the project employment exception in Article 280 of the Labor Code.
On the legality of dismissal, the Court found the CA erred in disregarding the evidence. The COMPANY presented individual notices of termination sent to each WORKER, which clearly stated the reason for termination—the completion of their assigned phase in the GTI Tower project. Furthermore, the COMPANY submitted Progress Billing reports and the required Monthly Reports of Employees’ Terminations to the DOLE, which substantiated the completion of the project phases. These documents satisfied both the substantive requirement (a valid cause based on project completion) and the procedural due process requirement (notice). Therefore, the termination complied with the law. The award of backwages by the CA was consequently set aside.