G.R. No. 234691, December 07, 2022
Leonil Manallo Santor, Joseph Sangalang, Paul Giray, Rodolfo Ceñir, Sr., Jerson C. Velasco, Leo Hadap, Petitioners, vs. Arlo Aluminum Comp., Inc. and Galo Y. Lim, Jr., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners were hired by respondent Arlo Aluminum Company, Inc., a company fabricating customized aluminum moldings for construction companies, on a per-project basis. Their employment contracts specified the particular projects they were assigned to, the periods of each project, and their functions (e.g., survey aide, fabricator, helper). The projects were distinct, such as the Sonata project, BDO project, Texas Instruments Project, and others, with varying durations typically lasting several months. Their employment was terminated in November and December 2014 upon the completion of their respective project assignments. Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, claiming they were regular employees who performed necessary and desirable work for the company for over a year and were dismissed due to their union membership. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding them to be project employees. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this, declaring petitioners as regular employees who were illegally dismissed and ordering their reinstatement with backwages. The Court of Appeals subsequently nullified the NLRC Decision and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s ruling, upholding the validity of petitioners’ project employment and dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals was correct in declaring petitioners as project employees of Arlo Aluminum Company, Inc., and consequently, in holding their dismissal to be valid.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the validity of petitioners’ project employment and dismissal. The Court found that the respondents substantially complied with the requisites for project employment. The employment contracts clearly specified the particular project or undertaking and the duration of engagement for each petitioner. The nature of the company’s business, which involves securing contracts for specific construction projects, lends itself to project employment. The submission of Employment Establishment Reports to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) indicating the termination of project employees further supported their status as such. The repeated rehiring of petitioners for separate, distinct projects did not convert their employment into regular employment, as each rehiring was for a specific project with a defined period. The non-payment of a completion bonus was deemed inconsequential. Therefore, petitioners were validly dismissed upon the completion of the specific projects for which they were engaged.