G.R. No. L-54083 February 28, 1983
REYNALDO E. FEGURIN, ISIDRO D. RIVERA, JAIME J. HERMOSURA, JAIME G. BOCO, ELPIDIO G. BOCO, PABLO L. CABASOG and PEDRO G. BARBERO, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and FRANCISCO CACHO & CO., INC., respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners were workers hired by Francisco Cacho & Co., a construction firm, on various dates. They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice, alleging they were regular employees dismissed due to union activities on September 28, 1977. They sought reinstatement with backwages. The company countered that the petitioners were project employees, hired under individual contracts specifying that their employment would be automatically terminated upon completion of the specific project or phase of work to which they were assigned. The company submitted a termination report to the Ministry of Labor, asserting the dismissals were due to project completion, not unionism.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding the petitioners were project employees and thus their termination was lawful. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed this decision but ordered the company to rehire the petitioners in future projects. The petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari, challenging the NLRC resolution.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the petitioners are regular employees or merely project employees whose employment was validly terminated upon project completion.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring them regular employees. The legal logic hinges on the application of Article 281 of the Labor Code (now Article 295). The Court emphasized that an employee shall be deemed regular where they perform activities usually necessary or desirable in the employer’s usual business, or where they have rendered at least one year of service, regardless of any written agreement stating otherwise.
The Court found the company’s reliance on the “Notices of Employment” unpersuasive. These notices inaccurately reflected the petitioners’ start dates as being only a few months before their 1977 dismissal. In contrast, evidence from the Social Security System (SSS) records, submitted by the petitioners, proved their employment commenced years earlier—some as far back as 1968 or 1969, with the shortest tenure being three years. This demonstrated they had rendered service far exceeding one year. Furthermore, their work as carpenters, masons, and laborers was integral to the company’s regular construction business.
The Court held that the nature of their long-term employment, performing necessary work for the company’s trade, qualified them as regular employees under the law. Their status could not be negated by contracts labeling them as “project employees” when the factual circumstances proved otherwise. Consequently, their dismissal was illegal. The NLRC resolution was set aside. The company was ordered to reinstate the petitioners and pay each of them three years’ worth of backwages.