G.R. No. 183250 ; March 10, 2010
WILLIAM UY CONSTRUCTION CORP. and/or TERESITA UY and WILLIAM UY, Petitioners, vs. JORGE R. TRINIDAD, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Jorge R. Trinidad filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and unpaid benefits against petitioner William Uy Construction Corporation. He claimed to have worked for the company for 16 years since 1988 as a driver of various vehicles, signing several employment contracts identifying him as a project employee, and was assigned to one project after another with some intervals. He alleged he was terminated in December 2004 after the company shut down operations due to lack of projects, but later learned it did not rehire him for a new project in Batangas. Petitioner company countered that it was in the construction business and hired project workers, including Trinidad, whose employment was co-terminous with specific projects, necessitating the execution of an “Appointment as Project Worker” contract each time. It stated that employment intervals were inherent in the business, and after the Boni Serrano-Katipunan Interchange Project ended in December 2004, Trinidad’s work also ended. The company submitted an establishment termination report to the DOLE. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for unjust dismissal but ordered payment of unpaid service incentive leave. The NLRC affirmed this decision. The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC, ruling that Trinidad’s repeated rehiring over 16 years for 35 projects automatically entitled him to regular employee status.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the petitioner company’s repeated rehiring of respondent Trinidad over several years as a project employee automatically entitled him to the status of a regular employee.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the CA decision, and reinstated the NLRC decision. The Court held that the test for distinguishing a project employee from a regular employee is whether the employee has been assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking, with the duration and scope specified at the time of engagement. It was undisputed that Trinidad’s service was contracted by specific projects with clear durations set in his employment contracts. He remained a project employee regardless of the number of years or various projects he worked on. The Court ruled that length of service is not the controlling determinant for project employees in the construction industry, as repeated and successive rehiring does not qualify them as regular employees. The completion of the specific project for which they were engaged determines the employment tenure. Trinidad’s employments were co-terminous with the company’s projects, and his last employment ended with the completion of the Boni Serrano-Katipunan Interchange Project in December 2004; he was not dismissed. The intervals between his contracts belied a claim of continuous work. The Court also found that the company’s submission of the termination report for the last project satisfied the DOLE reporting requirement, as Trinidad’s complaint was essentially about not being rehired from the last project due to a claim of regular status, not about illegal dismissal after each project.