G.R. No. 74969 . May 7, 1990. TELESFORO MAGANTE, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and CONSTRESS PHILIPPINES, INC., respondents.
FACTS:

Petitioner Telesforo Magante was employed by private respondent Constress Philippines, Inc., a concrete structural business, as a carpenter from April 17, 1980, until his dismissal on March 6, 1982. His work involved making molds for various construction projects, and he consistently worked long hours at the company’s plant. Throughout his employment, he was made to sign fixed-term contracts every three months, written in English, which he allegedly did not understand. His last contract was dated December 7, 1981. On March 6, 1982, his termination was posted on the company bulletin board, with the company claiming his project employment had ended and citing his age.
Magante filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor, ordering reinstatement with full backwages, finding the successive contracts were a scheme to evade regular employment obligations. The NLRC reversed this decision on appeal, dismissing the complaint. It held Magante was a project employee whose employment legally terminated upon completion of the specific project phase, citing Policy Instructions No. 20 governing the construction industry.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that petitioner was a project employee and not a regular employee, thereby dismissing his complaint for illegal dismissal.

RULING

Yes, the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, declaring Magante a regular employee. The legal logic hinges on the nature of the work performed and the circumstances of employment, not merely the labels in contracts. An employee is considered regular under Article 280 of the Labor Code when the work performed is usually necessary or desirable in the employer’s usual business. Magante performed carpentry work essential to Constress’s concrete structural business continuously for nearly two years, indicating his role was integral and not limited to a specific, time-bound project.
The Court emphasized that the successive short-term contracts, which the petitioner did not fully comprehend, could not override the reality of his continuous service. Furthermore, the employer failed to comply with the procedural requirement under Policy Instructions No. 20 for project employment, which mandates a report to the public employment office upon the termination of every project. The absence of such reports throughout Magante’s tenure belied the claim of project-based employment. The NLRC’s reliance solely on the contract’s face value, while ignoring the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the indicia of regular employment, constituted a grave abuse of discretion.