GR 226920; (December, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 226920 , December 05, 2019
Pacific Metals Co., Ltd., Petitioner, vs. Edgar Allan Tamayo, Eramen Minerals, Inc., and Enrique Fernandez, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Pacific Metals Co., Ltd. (PAMCO), a Japanese company engaged in importing nickel ore, negotiated an Exploration Agreement with respondent Eramen Minerals, Inc. (ERAMEN) to explore a target area covered by ERAMEN’s Mineral Production Sharing Agreement. In preparation, PAMCO engaged the services of respondent Edgar Allan Tamayo, a licensed geologist, under a two-month employment contract starting September 2010, extended for another two months until January 31, 2011. On January 17, 2011, PAMCO and ERAMEN entered into the Exploration Agreement. Tamayo was designated manager for the ERAMEN/PAMCO Exploration Project without a new written contract. By letter dated November 29, 2011, Tamayo was informed that his services were terminated effective December 31, 2011 due to the completion of the exploration aspect. Tamayo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against PAMCO and ERAMEN. The Labor Arbiter ruled Tamayo was a project employee, not illegally dismissed, but ordered payment of his December 2011 salary and 13th month pay. The NLRC affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling Tamayo was PAMCO’s regular employee who was illegally dismissed, ordering reinstatement with backwages.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Edgar Allan Tamayo was a project employee or a regular employee of petitioner Pacific Metals Co., Ltd.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that Tamayo was a project employee. The Court found that Tamayo was hired for a specific undertaking—the exploration project—the duration and scope of which were determined at the time of his engagement. His initial two-month contract, extended for another two months, was in preparation for PAMCO’s joint venture with ERAMEN. Upon the execution of the Exploration Agreement, he was assigned as project manager for that specific exploration project. His termination upon the project’s completion, with prior notice, was valid. The Court reinstated the Labor Arbiter and NLRC decisions, holding that Tamayo was not illegally dismissed as his employment was co-terminous with the completion of the specific project for which he was hired.