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 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 projects such as the L. Towers, PNB Finance Complex, and SMC Complex, with each engagement evidenced by individual assignment slips and employment application forms. These documents explicitly stated their employment was effective only for the duration of the particular project to which they were assigned and would terminate upon its completion or stoppage. On July 12, 1986, they were temporarily laid off following the suspension of the PNB Finance Center project. They subsequently filed a complaint for illegal dismissal but were rehired and assigned to a new project at Robinson-EDSA later that same August.
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 entitled to security of tenure, as initially found by the Labor Arbiter.
RULING
The Supreme Court upheld the NLRC’s finding that the petitioners were legitimate project employees. The legal logic rests on the application of Article 280 of the Labor Code, which defines regular and casual employment. The Court emphasized that the nature of the employer’s business is crucial. Romago’s operations are project-based, dependent on securing discrete construction contracts. Consequently, the duration of its workforce’s employment is inherently not permanent but co-terminous with the specific projects for which they are hired. The Court reasoned that it would be excessively burdensome to obligate such a company to maintain workers as permanent employees and pay them during periods when it has no ongoing projects.
The petitioners’ repeated rehiring over several years for different projects did not convert their status to regular employees. The Court, citing the precedent in Sandoval Shipyards, Inc. vs. NLRC, clarified that a project employee remains as such regardless of the number of successive projects undertaken, provided each employment contract is fixed for a specific undertaking determined at the time of engagement. The documentary evidence, including assignment slips and signed agreements, substantiated that each hiring was for a distinct project. The Court also distinguished a prior Romago case involving union certification, finding it inapplicable here. Applying the settled doctrine that factual findings of labor tribunals supported by substantial evidence are conclusive, the Court found no abuse of discretion and dismissed the petition.