GR 82973; (September, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 82973 September 15, 1989
MARIO CARTAGENAS, JESUS N. MIRABALLES, VICTOR C. MONSOD and VICENTE BARROA, petitioners, vs. ROMAGO ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (Fifth Division), respondents.
FACTS
The petitioners, Mario Cartagenas, Jesus Miraballes, Victor Monsod, and Vicente Barroa, were employed by Romago Electric Company, Inc., a general contractor for electrical and construction projects. Their employment history, as documented by the company, showed they were hired for specific, discrete construction projects such as the L. Towers, PNB Finance Complex, and SMC Complex. Each hiring was evidenced by an employment application form containing an agreement that the employment was for a fixed period and for the mentioned project only, accompanied by assignment slips stating their work would terminate upon the project’s completion or stoppage. They were temporarily laid off on July 12, 1986, due to the suspension of the PNB Finance Center project, after which they filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. However, they were subsequently rehired and assigned to a new project at Robinson-EDSA between August 2 and 11, 1986.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the petitioners are project employees, as classified by the respondent company and affirmed by the NLRC, or regular employees, as initially found by the Labor Arbiter.
RULING
The Supreme Court upheld the NLRC’s finding that the petitioners were project employees, not regular employees. The legal logic centers on the application of Article 280 of the Labor Code, which defines regular employment. The Court emphasized that the exception under Article 280 applies: employment is deemed regular unless it is fixed for a specific project, the termination of which is determined at the time of engagement. Romago’s business as an electrical contractor is inherently project-dependent; it secures contracts for specific construction undertakings. The duration of its workforce’s employment is logically co-terminus with these discrete projects. The documentary evidence, including project-specific application forms and assignment slips, substantiated that each engagement was for a particular project with a defined end.
The Court rejected the argument that the petitioners’ repeated rehiring over many years converted them into regular employees. Following precedent, such as Sandoval Shipyards, Inc. vs. NLRC, an employee remains a project employee regardless of the number of successive projects, provided each employment contract is for a specific undertaking. The nature of the employer’s business does not allow for permanent employment, as it carries no obligation to pay wages during periods when no projects are available. The Court found no abuse of discretion by the NLRC, as its decision was supported by substantial evidence, and reiterated the policy of respecting factual findings of labor tribunals when so supported. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.