G.R. No. L-56363 February 24, 1983
MARCELINO OCHOCO, petitioner, vs. HON. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, Manila, and MAÑALAC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Marcelino Ochoco was employed as a carpenter by private respondent Mañalac Construction Company from March 1964 to June 1978, a period of fourteen years, when his services were terminated. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and for service incentive leave pay, alleging his dismissal was due to his prior claim for holiday and 13th month pay under P.D. No. 851. The Labor Regional Director and, on appeal, the Deputy Minister of Labor dismissed his complaint, upholding the company’s defense that Ochoco was merely a project employee whose work ended with the completion of each construction project.

ISSUE

The sole issue is whether petitioner Ochoco was a regular employee or merely a project worker whose employment was co-terminous with specific construction projects.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling that Marcelino Ochoco was a regular employee. The legal logic is anchored on several compelling factors. First, the company did not deny Ochoco’s 14-year tenure in its pleadings, and it was uncontested that his SSS premiums were paid by the company from 1967 to 1978. Second, in a prior case for holiday and 13th month pay, the company did not contest his entitlement but only the computation, and an award was granted in his favor, indicating recognition of a continuous employment relationship.
Third, applying Article 281 of the Labor Code, an employee is deemed regular where engaged in activities usually necessary or desirable in the employer’s business. Having performed carpentry work, an activity integral to construction, for 14 years, he falls squarely under this definition. The exception for project employment requires that the termination date be determined at the time of engagement, which was not proven. Fourth, the company failed to comply with Policy Instruction No. 20, which mandates the submission of termination reports to the public employment office upon the completion of each project for project employees. The absence of such reports over 14 years belies the claim of project employment.
Finally, the Court agreed with the Solicitor General’s observation that the length of service and the continuous drawing of salaries justified the conclusion that Ochoco performed necessary and desirable functions for the company’s business. Consequently, the dismissal was illegal. The Court set aside the labor officials’ order and directed Ochoco’s reinstatement without loss of seniority, with payment of backwages equivalent to five years and his incentive leave pay.