PROJECT EMPLOYMENT DIGEST

A project employee has been defined to be one whose employment has been fixed for a specific
project or undertaking, the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time
of the engagement of the employee, or where the work or service to be performed is seasonal in
nature and the employment is for the duration of the season, as in the present case.
-Leyte Geothermal Power Progressive Employees Union v. Philippine National Oil
Company - Energy Development Corporation (G.R. No. 170351, March 30, 2011)

G.R. No. 170181 June 26, 2008

HANJIN HEAVY INDUSTRIES AND CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., HAK KON KIM and/or
JHUNIE ADAJAR,petitioners,
vs.
FELICITO IBAEZ, ALIGWAS CAROLINO, ELMER GACULA, ENRIQUE DAGOTDOT AND
RUEL CALDA,respondents.

Facts:
Petitioner HANJIN is a foreign company duly registered with the Securities and Exchange
Commission to engage in the construction business in the Philippines. Petitioners Hak Kon Kim
and Jhunie Adajar were employed as Project Director and Supervisor, respectively, by HANJIN.
On 11 April 2002, respondents Felicito Ibaez, Aligwas Carolino, Elmer Gacula, Enrique
Dagotdot, Ruel Calda, and four other co-workers filed a complaint before the NLRC for illegal
dismissal with prayer for reinstatement. Respondents stated that their tasks were usual and
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of HANJIN. Respondents additionally
averred that they were employed as members of a work pool from which HANJIN draws the
workers to be dispatched to its various construction projects. Petitioners maintained that
respondents were hired as project employees for the construction of the LRT/MRT Line 2
Package 2 and 3 Project. HANJIN and respondents purportedly executed contracts of
employment, in which it was clearly stipulated that the respondents were to be hired as project
employees for a period of only three months, but that the contracts may be renewed. However,
petitioners failed to furnish the Labor Arbiter a copy of said contracts of employment. The LA
ruled for respondents but the decision was reversed by the NLRC. On appeal, the CA reinstated
the LAs ruling. Hence this recourse.
Issue:

Whether or not respondents are regular employees of the petitioner.

Ruling:

Yes. The principal test for determining whether particular employees are properly characterized
as "project employees" as distinguished from "regular employees" is whether or not the project
employees were assigned to carry out a "specific project or undertaking," the duration and
scope of which were specified at the time the employees were engaged for that project. Even
though the absence of a written contract does not by itself grant regular status to respondents,
such a contract is evidence that respondents were informed of the duration and scope of their
work and their status as project employees. In this case, where no other evidence was offered,
the absence of an employment contract puts into serious question whether the employees were
properly informed at the onset of their employment status as project employees. It is doctrinally
entrenched that in illegal dismissal cases, the employer has the burden of proving with clear,
accurate, consistent and convincing evidence that a dismissal was valid. Had respondents'
allegations been false, petitioners could simply present as evidence documents and records in
their custody to disprove the same, i.e., payroll for such projects or termination reports, which do
not bear respondents' names. Petitioners, instead, chose to remain vague as to the
circumstances surrounding the hiring of the respondents. This Court finds it unusual that
petitioners cannot even categorically state the exact year when HANJIN employed respondents.
Due to petitioners' failure to adduce any evidence showing that petitioners were project
employees who had been informed of the duration and scope of their employment, they were
unable to discharge the burden of proof required to establish that respondents' dismissal was
legal and valid. Furthermore, it is a well-settled doctrine that if doubts exist between the
evidence presented by the employer and that by the employee, the scales of justice must be
tilted in favor of the latter. For these reasons, respondents are to be considered regular
employees of HANJIN. Finally, in the instant case, records failed to show that HANJIN afforded
respondents, as regular employees, due process prior to their dismissal, through the twin
requirements of notice and hearing. Respondents were not served notices informing them of the
particular acts for which their dismissal was sought. Nor were they required to give their side
regarding the charges made against them. Certainly, the respondents' dismissal was not carried
out in accordance with law and was, therefore, illegal. Affirmed CAs ruling.
G.R. No. 167045 August 29, 2008

COCOMANGAS HOTEL BEACH RESORT and/or SUSAN MUNRO, petitioners,

vs.
FEDERICO F. VISCA, JOHNNY G. BAREDO, RONALD Q. TIBUS, RICHARD G. VISCA and
RAFFIE G. VISCA, respondents.

Facts:

The present controversy stemmed from five individual complaints for illegal dismissal filed on
June 15, 1999 by Federico F. Visca (Visca), Johnny G. Barredo, Ronald Q. Tibus, Richard G.
Visca and Raffie G. Visca (respondents) against Cocomangas Hotel Beach Resort and/or its
owner-manager, Susan Munro (petitioners). respondents alleged that they were regular
employees of petitioners and tasked with the maintenance and repair of the resort facilities; on
May 8, 1999, Maria Nida Iigo-Taala, the Front Desk Officer/Sales Manager, informed them not
to report for work since the ongoing constructions and repairs would be temporarily suspended
because they caused irritation and annoyance to the resort's guests; as instructed, they did not
report for work the succeeding days; John Munro, husband of petitioner Susan Munro,
subsequently visited respondent foreman Visca and informed him that the work suspension was
due to budgetary constraints; when respondent Visca later discovered that four new workers
were hired to do respondents' tasks, he confronted petitioner Munro who explained that
respondents' resumption of work was not possible due to budgetary constraints; when not less
than ten workers were subsequently hired by petitioners to do repairs in two cottages of the
resort and two workers were retained after the completion without respondents being allowed to
resume work, they filed their individual complaints for illegal dismissal. Petitioners denied any
employer-employee relationship with respondents and countered that respondent Visca was an
independent contractor who was called upon from time to time when some repairs in the resort
facilities were needed and the other respondents were selected and hired by him. Both the LA
and NLRC dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the CA reversed the findings. Hence this case.

Issue:

Whether or not respondents are project employees.

Ruling:

No. The Court finds that the CA did not err in finding that respondents were regular employees,
not project employees. A project employee is one whose "employment has been fixed for a
specific project or undertaking, the completion or termination of which has been determined at
the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or service to be performed is
seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season." Before an employee
hired on a per-project basis can be dismissed, a report must be made to the nearest
employment office, of the termination of the services of the workers every time completes a
project. In the present case, respondents cannot be classified as project employees, since they
worked continuously for petitioners from three to twelve years without any mention of a "project"
to which they were specifically assigned. While they had designations as "foreman," "carpenter"
and "mason," they performed work other than carpentry or masonry. They were tasked with the
maintenance and repair of the furniture, motor boats, cottages, and windbreakers and other
resort facilities. There is likewise no evidence of the project employment contracts covering
respondents' alleged periods of employment. More importantly, there is no evidence that
petitioners reported the termination of respondents' supposed project employment to the DOLE
as project employees. This Court has held that an employment ceases to be coterminous with
specific projects when the employee is continuously rehired due to the demands of employers
business and re-engaged for many more projects without interruption. The Court is not
persuaded by petitioners' submission that respondents' services are not necessary or desirable
to the usual trade or business of the resort. The repeated and continuing need for their services
is sufficient evidence of the necessity, if not indispensability, of their services to petitioners'
resort business. Once a project or work pool employee has been: (1) continuously, as opposed
to intermittently, rehired by the same employer for the same tasks or nature of tasks; and (2)
these tasks are vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the
employer, then the employee must be deemed a regular employee, pursuant to Article 280 of
the Labor Code and jurisprudence. That respondents were regular employees is further
bolstered by the following evidence: (a) the SSS Quarterly Summary of Contribution Payments
listing respondents as employees of petitioners; (b) the Service Record Certificates stating that
respondents were employees of petitioners for periods ranging from three to twelve years and
all have given "very satisfactory performance";(c) petty cash vouchers showing payment of
respondents' salaries and holiday and overtime pays. Thus, substantial evidence supported the
CA finding that respondents were regular employees. Being regular employees, they were
entitled to security of tenure, and their services may not be terminated except for causes
provided by law. The CAs decision is affirmed.

G.R. No. 141168 April 10, 2006

ABESCO CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and MR. OSCAR BANZON,

General Manager, Petitioners,
vs.
ALBERTO RAMIREZ, BERNARDO DIWA, MANUEL LOYOLA, REYNALDO P. ACODESIN,
ALEXANDER BAUTISTA, EDGAR TAJONERA and GARY DISON, * Respondents.

Facts:

Petitioner company was engaged in a construction business where respondents were hired on
different dates from 1976 to 1992 either as laborers, road roller operators, painters or drivers. In
1997, respondents filed two separate complaints for illegal dismissal against the company and
its General Manager, Oscar Banzon. Petitioners allegedly dismissed them without a valid
reason and without due process of law. Petitioners denied liability to respondents and countered
that respondents were "project employees" since their services were necessary only when the
company had projects to be completed. Petitioners argued that, being project employees,
respondents' employment was coterminous with the project to which they were assigned. They
were not regular employees who enjoyed security of tenure and entitlement to separation pay
upon termination from work. The LA, NLRC and CA all ruled in favor of respondents. Hence this
present recourse.

Issue:

Whether or not respondents are regular employees.

Ruling:

Yes. The SC clarified that employees (like respondents) who work under different project
employment contracts for several years do not automatically become regular employees; they
can remain as project employees regardless of the number of years they work. Length of
service is not a controlling factor in determining the nature of one's employment. Moreover,
employees who are members of a "work pool" from which a company (like petitioner
corporation) draws workers for deployment to its different projects do not become regular
employees by reason of that fact alone. The principal test for determining whether employees
are "project employees" or "regular employees" is whether they are assigned to carry out a
specific project or undertaking, the duration and scope of which are specified at the time they
are engaged for that project. Such duration, as well as the particular work/service to be
performed, is defined in an employment agreement and is made clear to the employees at the
time of hiring. In this case, petitioners did not have that kind of agreement with respondents.
Neither did they inform respondents of the nature of the latter's work at the time of hiring.
Hence, for failure of petitioners to substantiate their claim that respondents were project
employees, we are constrained to declare them as regular employees. On the issue of illegal
dismissal, we hold that petitioners failed to adhere to the "two-notice rule" which requires that
workers to be dismissed must be furnished with: (1) a notice informing them of the particular
acts for which they are being dismissed and (2) a notice advising them of the decision to
terminate the employment.12Respondents were never given such notices. The CAs ruling is
affirmed.

G.R. No. 114290 September 9, 1996

RAYCOR AIRCONTROL SYSTEMS, INC., petitioner,

vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ROLANDO LAYA, et al., respondents.

Facts:

Petitioner's sole line of business is installing airconditioning systems in the building of its clients.
In connection with such installation work, petitioner hired private respondents Roberto Fulgencio
et al, who worked in various capacities as tinsmith, leadman, aircon mechanic, installer, welder
and painter. Private respondents insist that they had been regular employees all along, but
petitioner maintains that they were project employees who were assigned to work on specific
projects of petitioner, and that the nature of petitioner's business mere installation (not
manufacturing) of aircon systems and equipment in buildings of its clients prevented
petitioner from hiring private respondents as regular employees. As found by the LA, their
average length of service with petitioner exceeded one year, with some ranging from two six
years (but private respondents claim much longer tenures, some allegedly exceeding ten
years). On different dates in 1992, they were served with uniformly-worded notices of
"Termination of Employment" by petitioner "due to our present business status", which
terminations were to be effective the day following the date of receipt of the notices. Private
respondent felt they were given their walking papers after they refused to sign a "Contract
Employment" providing for, among others, a fixed period of employment which "automatically
terminates without necessity of further notice" or even earlier at petitioner's sole discretion.
Because of the termination, private respondents filed three cases of illegal dismissal against
petitioner, alleging that the reason given for the termination of their employment was not one of
the valid grounds therefor under the Labor Code. They also claimed that the termination was
without benefit of due process. The LA dismissed the complaint, however the NLRC reversed
the findings. Hence, this petition.

Issue:

Whether or not private respondents were project employees or regular (non-project) employees,
and whether or not they were legally dismissed.

Ruling:

Respondents are regular employees and are illegally dismissed. Project employees may or may
not be members of a work pool, (that is the employer may or may not have formed a work pool
at all), and in turn, members of a work pool could be either project employees or regular
employees. In the instant case, respondent NLRC did not indicate how private respondents
came to be considered members of a work pool as distinguished from ordinary (non-work pool)
employees. It did not establish that a work pool existed in the first place. In the realm of
business and industry, we note that "project" could refer to a particular job or undertaking that is
within the regular or usual business of the employer company, but which is distinct and separate
and identifiable as such, from the other undertakings of the company. Such job or undertaking
begins and ends at determined or determinable times. The typical example of this type of
project is a particular construction job or project of a construction company. A construction
company ordinarily carried out two or more discrete identifiable construction projects: e.g., a
twenty-five story hotel in Makati; a residential condominium building in Baguio City; and a
domestic air terminal in Iloilo City Employees who are hired for the carrying out of one of these
separate projects, the scope and duration of which has been determined and made known to
the employees at the time of employment, are properly treated as "project employees," and their
services may be lawfully terminated at completion of the project. petitioner in the case
undoubtedly could have presented additional evidence to buttress its claim. For instance,
petitioner could have presented copies of its contracts with its clients, to show the time, duration
and scope of past installation projects. The data from these contracts could then have been
correlated to the data which could be found in petitioner's payroll records for, let us say, the past
three years or so, to show that private respondents had been working intermittently as and
when they were assigned to said projects, and that their compensation had been computed on
the basis of such work. But petitioner did not produce such additional evidence, and we find it
failed to discharge its burden of proof. It is not so much that this Court cannot appreciate
petitioner's contentions about the nature of its business and its inability to maintain a large
workforce on its permanent payroll. Private respondents have admitted that petitioner is
engaged only in the installation (not manufacture) of aircon systems or units in buildings, and
since such a line of business would obviously be highly (if not wholly) dependent on the
availability of buildings or projects requiring such installation services, which factor no
businessman, no matter how savvy, can accurately forecast from year to year, it can be easily
surmised that petitioner, aware that its revenues and income would be unpredictable, would
always try to keep its overhead costs to a minimum, and would naturally want to engage
workers on a per-project or per-building basis only, retaining very few employees (if any) on its
permanent payroll. The aforesaid conflicting data have the net effect of casting doubt upon and
clouding the real nature of the private respondents' employment status. And we are mandated by law
to resolve all doubts in favor of labor. For which reason, we hereby hold that private respondents
were regular employees of the petitioner. In the instant case, petitioner did not afford them due
process thru the twin requirements of notice and hearing, as the terminations took effect the day
following receipt of the notices of termination. Ineluctably, the said terminations are not in
accordance with law and therefore illegal. Ruled in favor of the respondents.

G.R. No. 102973 August 24, 1993

ROGELIO CARAMOL, petitioner,

vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ATLANTIC GULF and PACIFIC CO. OF
MANILA, INC., respondents.

Facts:

Petitioner was hired by respondent ATLANTIC GULF on 2 June 1983 for the position of rigger. Until
the occurrence of the strike on 10 May 1986, his last assignment was at respondent ATLANTIC
GULF's plant in Batangas. Petitioner claims that because of his involvement in unionism, particularly
in actively manning the picket lines, he was among those who were not re-admitted after the strike.
Petitioner, a worker hired by respondent on a "project-to-project" basis but whose employment was
renewed forty-four (44) times by the latter. On the other hand, respondent ATLANTIC GULF
contends that petitioner was one of the several thousands of workers who were hired on a "project-
to-project" basis and whose employment was covered by Project Employment Contract for a
particular project and for a definite period of time. On 15 May 1986 private respondent dispensed
with the services of petitioner claiming as justification the completion of the Nauru project to which
petitioner was assigned and the consequent expiration of the employment contract. The LA ruled in
favor of petitioner only to be reversed by the NLRC. Thus this present recourse by petitioner.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioner is a regular employee.

Ruling:

Yes. There is no question that stipulation on employment contract providing for a fixed period of
employment such as "project-to-project" contract is valid provided the period was agreed upon
knowingly and voluntarily the parties, without any force, duress or improper pressure being brought
to bear upon the employee and absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent, or where it
satisfactorily appears that the employer and employee dealt with each other on more or less equal
terms with no moral dominance whatever being exercised by the former over the latter. However,
where from the circumstances it is apparent that periods have been imposed to preclude the
acquisition of tenurial security by the employee, they should be struck down as contrary tenurial
security by the employee, they should be struck down as contrary to public policy, morals, good
custom or public order. The case at bar sufficiently established circumstances showing that the
supposed fixed period of employment by way of a project-to-project contract has been imposed to
preclude acquisition of tenurial security by the petitioner. Accordingly, such arrangement must be
struck down as contrary to public policy. Admittedly, the "project-to-project" employment of petitioner
was renewed several times, forty-four (44) project contracts according to him. Private respondent
points to this successive employment as evidence that petitioner is a project employee in its
projects. It is asserted that being in the construction industry, it is not unusual for private respondent
and other similar companies to hire employees or workers for a definite period only, or whose
employment is co-terminus with the completion of a specific project as recognized by Art. 280 of the
Labor Code. However, with the successive contracts of employment where petitioner continued to
perform the same kind of work, i.e., as rigger throughout his period of employment, it is clearly
manifest that petitioner's tasks were usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of
private respondent. There can therefore be no escape from the conclusion that petitioner is a regular
employee of private respondent. The primary standard of determining a regular employment is the
reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the
usual business or trade of the employer. The test is whether the former is usually necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. The connection can be determined by
considering the nature of the work performed and its relation to the scheme of the particular
business or trade in its entirety. Also, if the employee has been performing the job for at least one
year, even if the performance is not continuous or merely intermittent, the law deems the repeated
and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity if not indispensability
of that activity to the business. Hence the employment is also considered regular, but only with
respect to such activity and while such activity exists. Ruled in favor of petitioner.

G.R. No. 152427. August 9, 2005

INTEGRATED CONTRACTOR AND PLUMBING WORKS, INC., Petitioners,

vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and GLEN SOLON, Respondent.

Facts:

Petitioner is a plumbing contractor. Its business depends on the number and frequency of the
projects it is able to contract with its clients. Private respondent Solon worked for petitioner on
various occasions from December 1994-January. 1998. On February 23, 1998, while private
respondent was about to log out from work, he was informed by the warehouseman that the main
office had instructed them to tell him it was his last day of work as he had been terminated. When
private respondent went to the petitioners office on February 24, 1998 to verify his status, he found
out that indeed, he had been terminated. He went back to petitioners office on February 27, 1998 to
sign a clearance so he could claim his 13th month pay and tax refunds. However, he had second
thoughts and refused to sign the clearance when he read the clearance indicating he had resigned.
On March 6, 1998, he filed a complaint alleging that he was illegally dismissed without just cause
and without due process. The LA, NLRC and CA ruled in favor of private respondent.

Issue:
Whether or not private respondent is a regular employee.

Ruling:

Yes. The principal test in determining whether an employee is a "project employee" or "regular
employee," is, whether he is assigned to carry out a "specific project or undertaking," the duration
(and scope) of which are specified at the time the employee is engaged in the project. "Project"
refers to a particular job or undertaking that is within the regular or usual business of the employer,
but which is distinct and separate and identifiable from the undertakings of the company. Such job or
undertaking begins and ends at determined or determinable times. In the review of the employment
contracts of private respondent, the SC is convinced he was initially a project employee. The
services he rendered, the duration and scope of each project are clear indications that he was hired
as a project employee. We concur with the NLRC that while there were several employment
contracts between private respondent and petitioner, in all of them, private respondent performed
tasks which were usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of petitioner. A review
of private respondents work assignments patently showed he belonged to a work pool tapped from
where workers are and assigned whenever their services were needed. In a work pool, the workers
do not receive salaries and are free to seek other employment during temporary breaks in the
business. They are like regular seasonal workers insofar as the effect of temporary cessation of work
is concerned. This arrangement is beneficial to both the employer and employee for it prevents the
unjust situation of "coddling labor at the expense of capital" and at the same time enables the
workers to attain the status of regular employees. Nonetheless, the pattern of re-hiring and the
recurring need for his services are sufficient evidence of the necessity and indispensability of such
services to petitioners business or trade. The test to determine whether employment is regular or
not is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in
relation to the usual business or trade of the employer. Also, if the employee has been performing
the job for at least one year, even if the performance is not continuous or merely intermittent, the law
deems the repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity,
if not indispensability of that activity to the business. Thus, the SC held that where the employment
of project employees is extended long after the supposed project has been finished, the employees
are removed from the scope of project employees and are considered regular employees. Affirmed.
G.R. No. 125837 October 6, 2004

REYNALDO CANO CHUA, doing business under the name & style PRIME MOVER
CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM,
ANDRES PAGUIO, PABLO CANALE, RUEL PANGAN, AURELIO PAGUIO, ROLANDO
TRINIDAD, ROMEO TAPANG and CARLOS MALIWAT, respondents.

Facts:

On 20 August 1985, private respondents filed a Petition with the SSC for SSS coverage and
contributions against petitioner Reynaldo Chua, owner of Prime Mover Construction
Development, claiming that they were all regular employees of the petitioner in his construction
business. Private respondents claimed that they were assigned by petitioner in his various
construction projects, with the corresponding basic salaries. Private respondents alleged that
petitioner dismissed all of them without justifiable grounds and without notice to them and to the
then Ministry of Labor and Employment. They further alleged that petitioner did not report them
to the SSS for compulsory coverage in flagrant violation of the Social Security Act. Petitioner
claimed that private respondents had no cause of action against him, and assuming there was
any, the same was barred by prescription and laches. In addition, he claimed that private
respondents were not regular employees, but project employees whose work had been fixed for
a specific project or undertaking the completion of which was determined at the time of their
engagement. This being the case, he concluded that said employees were not entitled to
coverage under the Social Security Act. The SSC and CA ruled in favor of private respondents.
Hence, this recourse.

Issue:

Whether or not private respondents are project employees, hence not entitled to compulsory
SSS coverage.
Ruling:

No. The Social Security Act was enacted pursuant to the policy of the government "to develop,
establish gradually and perfect a social security system which shall be suitable to the needs of
the laborers throughout the Philippines, and shall provide protection against the hazards of
disability, sickness, old age and death." It provides for compulsory coverage of all employees
not over sixty years of age and their employers. Well-settled is the rule that the mandatory
coverage of Republic Act No. 1161, as amended, is premised on the existence of an employer-
employee relationship, the essential elements of which are: (a) selection and engagement of the
employee; (b) payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the power of control with
regard to the means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished, with the power of
control being the most determinative factor. There is no dispute that private respondents were
employees of petitioner. Petitioner himself admitted that they worked in his construction
projects, although the period of their employment was allegedly co-terminus with their phase of
work. Even without such admission from petitioner, the existence of an employer-employee
relationship between the parties can easily be determined by the application of the "control test,"
the elements of which are enumerated above. It is clear that private respondents are employees
of petitioner, the latter having control over the results of the work done, as well as the means
and methods by which the same were accomplished. Suffice it to say that regardless of the
nature of their employment, whether it is regular or project, private respondents are subject of
the compulsory coverage under the SSS Law, their employment not falling under the exceptions
provided by the law. Despite the insistence of petitioner that they were project employees, the facts
show that as masons, carpenters and fine graders in petitioners various construction projects, they
performed work which was usually necessary and desirable to petitioners business which involves
construction of roads and bridges. Moreover, while it may be true that private respondents were
initially hired for specific projects or undertakings, the repeated re-hiring and continuing need for
their services over a long span of timethe shortest being two years and the longest being eight
have undeniably made them regular employees. This Court has held that an employment ceases to
be co-terminus with specific projects when the employee is continuously rehired due to the demands
of the employers business and re-engaged for many more projects without interruption. Affirmed.
G.R. No. 178505 September 30, 2008

CHERRY J. PRICE, STEPHANIE G. DOMINGO AND LOLITA ARBILERA, Petitioners,

Vs.

INNODATA PHILS. INC.,/ INNODATA CORPORATION, LEO RABANG AND JANE

NAVARETTE, Respondents.

Facts:

Respondent Innodata Philippines, Inc./Innodata Corporation (INNODATA) was a domestic

corporation engaged in the data encoding and data conversion business. It employed encoders,
indexers, formatters, programmers, quality/quantity staff, and others, to maintain its business
and accomplish the job orders of its clients. Respondent Leo Rabang was its Human Resources
and Development (HRAD) Manager, while respondent Jane Navarette was its Project Manager.
INNODATA had since ceased operations due to business losses in June 2002. Petitioners
Cherry J. Price, Stephanie G. Domingo, and Lolita Arbilera were employed as formatters by
INNODATA. The parties executed an employment contract denominated as a "Contract of
Employment for a Fixed Period," stipulating that the contract shall be for a period of one year.
On February 16, 2000, the HRAD Manager of INNODATA wrote petitioners informing them of
their last day of work. According to INNODATA, petitioners employment already ceased due to
the end of their contract. On 22 May 2000, petitioners filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal and
damages against respondents. Petitioners claimed that they should be considered regular
employees since their positions as formatters were necessary and desirable to the usual
business of INNODATA as an encoding, conversion and data processing company. On the other
hand, respondents explained that INNODATA was engaged in the business of data processing,
typesetting, indexing, and abstracting for its foreign clients. The bulk of the work was data
processing, which involved data encoding. Data encoding, or the typing of data into the
computer, included pre-encoding, encoding 1 and 2, editing, proofreading, and scanning. Almost
half of the employees of INNODATA did data encoding work, while the other half monitored
quality control. Due to the wide range of services rendered to its clients, INNODATA was
constrained to hire new employees for a fixed period of not more than one year. Respondents
asserted that petitioners were not illegally dismissed, for their employment was terminated due
to the expiration of their terms of employment. Petitioners contracts of employment with
INNODATA were for a limited period only, commencing on September 6, 1999 and ending on
February 16, 2000. Respondents further argued that petitioners were estopped from asserting a
position contrary to the contracts which they had knowingly, voluntarily, and willfully agreed to or
entered into. There being no illegal dismissal, respondents likewise maintained that petitioners
were not entitled to reinstatement and backwages. The LA ruled for petitioners. On appeal
however, both the NLRC and CA ruled in favor of respondent. Hence this petition.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioners were hired by INNODATA under valid fixed-term employment
contracts.

Ruling:

No. There were no valid fixed-term contracts and petitioners were regular employees of the
INNODATA who could not be dismissed except for just or authorized cause. The employment
status of a person is defined and prescribed by law and not by what the parties say it should be.
Equally important to consider is that a contract of employment is impressed with public interest
such that labor contracts must yield to the common good. Thus, provisions of applicable
statutes are deemed written into the contract, and the parties are not at liberty to insulate
themselves and their relationships from the impact of labor laws and regulations by simply
contracting with each other. An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by
Art. 280 of the Labor Code which defines regular employees. Provided, that, any employee who
has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall
be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his
employment shall continue while such activity exists. Based on the afore-quoted provision, the
following employees are accorded regular status: (1) those who are engaged to perform
activities which are necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer,
regardless of the length of their employment; and (2) those who were initially hired as casual
employees, but have rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, with
respect to the activity in which they are employed. Undoubtedly, petitioners belong to the first
type of regular employees. Under Art. 280 of the Labor Code, the applicable test to determine
whether an employment should be considered regular or non-regular is the reasonable
connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual
business or trade of the employer. In the case at bar, petitioners were employed by INNODATA
on February 17, 1999 as formatters. The primary business of INNODATA is data encoding, and
the formatting of the data entered into the computers is an essential part of the process of data
encoding. Formatting organizes the data encoded, making it easier to understand for the clients
and/or the intended end users thereof. Undeniably, the work performed by petitioners was
necessary or desirable in the business or trade of INNODATA. The Court defined "project
employees" as those workers hired (1) for a specific project or undertaking, and wherein (2)
the completion or termination of such project has been determined at the time of the
engagement of the employee. Scrutinizing petitioners employment contracts with INNODATA,
however, failed to reveal any mention therein of what specific project or undertaking petitioners
were hired for. Although the contracts made general references to a "project," such project was
neither named nor described at all therein. The conclusion by the Court of Appeals that
petitioners were hired for the Earthweb project is not supported by any evidence on record. The
one-year period for which petitioners were hired was simply fixed in the employment contracts
without reference or connection to the period required for the completion of a project. More
importantly, there is also a dearth of evidence that such project or undertaking had already been
completed or terminated to justify the dismissal of petitioners. In fact, petitioners alleged - and
respondents failed to dispute that petitioners did not work on just one project, but continuously
worked for a series of projects for various clients of INNODATA. Reversed in favor of petitioner.

G.R. No. 120969 January 22, 1998

ALEJANDRO MARAGUINOT, JR. and PAULINO ENERO, petitioners,

vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION) composed of Presiding
Commissioner RAUL T. AQUINO, Commissioner ROGELIO I. RAYALA and Commissioner
VICTORIANO R. CALAYCAY (Ponente), VIC DEL ROSARIO and VIVA FIMS, respondents.

Facts:

Petitioner Alejandro Maraguinot, Jr. maintains that he was employed by private respondents on
18 July 1989 as part of the filming crew with a salary of P375.00 per week. About four months
later, he was designated Assistant Electrician with a weekly salary of P400.00, which was
increased to P450.00 in May 1990. In June 1991, he was promoted to the rank of Electrician
with a weekly salary of P475.00, which was increased to P539.00 in September 1991.

Petitioner Paulino Enero, on his part, claims that private respondents employed him in June
1990 as a member of the shooting crew with a weekly salary of P375.00, which was increased
to P425.00 in May 1991, then to P475.00 on 21 December 1991. Petitioners' tasks consisted of
loading, unloading and arranging movie equipment in the shooting area as instructed by the
cameraman, returning the equipment to Viva Films' warehouse, assisting in the "fixing" of the
lighting system, and performing other tasks that the cameraman and/or director may assign.
Sometime in May 1992, petitioners sought the assistance of their supervisors, Mrs. Alejandria
Cesario, to facilitate their request that private respondents adjust their salary in accordance with
the minimum wage law. In June 1992, Mrs. Cesario informed petitioners that Mr. Vic del Rosario
would agree to increase their salary only if they signed a blank employment contract. As
petitioners refused to sign, private respondents forced Enero to go on leave in June 1992, then
refused to take him back when he reported for work on 20 July 1992. Meanwhile, Maraguinot
was dropped from the company payroll from 8 to 21 June 1992, but was returned on 22 June
1992. He was again asked to sign a blank employment contract, and when he still refused,
private respondents terminated his services on 20 July 1992. On the other hand, private
respondents claim that Viva Films (hereafter VIVA) is the trade name of Viva Productions, Inc.,
and that it is primarily engaged in the distribution and exhibition of movies but not in the
business of making movies; in the same vein, private respondent Vic del Rosario is merely an
executive producer,i.e., the financier who invests a certain sum of money for the production of
movies distributed and exhibited by VIVA. Private respondents assert that they contract
persons called "producers" also referred to as "associate producers" to "produce" or
make movies for private respondents; and contend that petitioners are project employees of the
association producers who, in turn, act as independent contractors. As such, there is no
employer-employee relationship between petitioners and private respondents. Private
respondents further contend that it was the associate producer of the film "Mahirap Maging
Pogi," who hired petitioner Maraguinot. The movie shot from 2 July up to 22 July 1992, and it
was only then that Maraguinot was released upon payment of his last salary, as his services
were no longer needed. Anent petitioner Enero, he was hired for the movie entitled "Sigaw ng
Puso," later re-tired "Narito and Puso." He went on vacation on 8 June 1992, and by the time he
reported for work on 20 July 1992, shooting for the movie had already been completed. The LA
ruled that petitioners were illegally dismissed. However on appeal, the NLRC stated petitioners
were project employees and revered the LAs findings. Hence this petition.
Issue:

Whether or not petitioners are project employees.

Ruling:

No. The employer-employee relationship between petitioners and VIVA can be established by
the "control test." While four elements are usually considered in determining the existence of an
employment relationship, namely: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the
payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer's power to control of the
employee's conduct, the most important element is the employer's control of the employee's
conduct, not only as to the result of the work to be done but also as to the means and methods
to accomplish the same. These four elements are present here. VIVA's control is evident in its
mandate that the end result must be a "quality film acceptable to the company." The means and
methods to accomplish the result are likewise controlled by VIVA, viz., the movie project must
be finished within schedule without exceeding the budget, and additional expenses must be
justified; certain scenes are subject to change to suit the taste of the company; and the
Supervising Producer, the "eyes and ears" of VIVA and del Rosario, intervenes in the movie-
making process by assisting the associate producer in solving problems encountered in making
the film. It may not be validly argued then that petitioners are actually subject to the movie
director's control, and not VIVA's direction. The director merely instructs petitioners on how to
better comply with VIVA's requirements to ensure that a quality film is completed within
schedule and without exceeding the budget. At bottom, the director is akin to a supervisor who
merely oversees the activities of rank-and-file employees with control ultimately resting on the
employer. The words "supervisors" and "Top Management" can only refer to the "supervisors"
and "Top Management" of VIVA. By commanding crew members to observe the rules and
regulations promulgated by VIVA, the appointment slips only emphasize VIVA's control over
petitioners. Aside from control, the element of selection and engagement is likewise present in
the instant case and exercised by VIVA. All the circumstances indicate an employment
relationship between petitioners and VIVA alone, thus the inevitable conclusion is that
petitioners are employees only of VIVA. Reversed in favor of petitioners.
G.R. No. 116781 September 5, 1997

TOMAS LAO CONSTRUCTION, LVM CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, THOMAS and JAMES

DEVELOPERS (PHIL.), INC., petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, MARIO O. LABENDIA, SR., ROBERTO
LABENDIA, NARCISO ADAN, FLORENCIO GOMEZ, ERNESTO BAGATSOLON, SALVADOR
BABON, PATERNO BISNAR, CIRPRIANO BERNALES, ANGEL MABUHAY, SR., LEO SURIGAO,
and ROQUE MORILLO, respondents.

Facts:

TLC, T&J and LVM are engaged in the construction of public roads and bridges. Under joint
venture agreements they entered into among each other, they would undertake their projects
either simultaneously or successively so that, whenever necessary, they would lease tools and
equipment to one another. Each one would also allow the utilization of their employees by the
other two (2). With this arrangement, workers were transferred whenever necessary to on-going
projects of the same company or of the others, or were rehired after the completion of the
project or project phase to which they were assigned. Soon after, however, TLC ceased its
operations while T&J and LVM stayed on. Sometime in 1989 Andres Lao, Managing Director of
LVM and President of T&J, issued a memorandum requiring all workers and company personnel
to sign employment contract forms and clearances which were issued on 1 July 1989 but
antedated 10 January 1989. These were to be used allegedly for audit purposes pursuant to a
joint venture agreement between LVM and T&J. To ensure compliance with the directive, the
company ordered the withholding of the salary of any employee who refused to sign. Quite
notably, the contracts expressly described the construction workers as project employees
whose employments were for a definite period, i.e., upon the expiration of the contract period or
the completion of the project for which the workers was hired. Except for Florencio Gomez all
private respondents refused to sign contending that this scheme was designed by their
employer to downgrade their status from regular employees to mere project employees.
Resultantly, their salaries were withheld. They were also required to explain why their services
should not be terminated for violating company rules and warned that failure to satisfactorily
explain would be construed as "disinterest" in continued employment with the company. Since
the workers stood firm in their refusal to comply with the directives their services were
terminated. The LA dismissed the complaint filed by private respondents. On appeal, the CA
reversed the findings of the LA. Hence this recourse.

Issue:

Whether or not private respondents are regular employees.

Ruling:

Yes. The principal test in determining whether particular employees are "project employees"
distinguished from "regular employees" is whether the "project employees" are assigned to
carry out "specific project or undertaking," the duration (and scope) of which are specified at the
time the employees are engaged for the project. "Project" in the realm of business and industry
refers to a particular job or undertaking that is within the regular or usual business of employer,
but which is distinct and separate and identifiable as such from the undertakings of the
company. Such job or undertaking begins and ends at determined or determinable times. While
it may be allowed that in the instant case the workers were initially hired for specific projects or
undertakings of the company and hence can be classified as project employees, the repeated
re-hiring and the continuing need for their services over a long span of time (the shortest, at
seven [7] years) have undeniably made them regular employees. Thus, we held that where the
employment of project employees is extended long after the supposed project has been
finished, the employees are removed from the scope of project employees and considered
regular employees. While length of time may not be a controlling test for project employment, it
can be a strong factor in determining whether the employee was hired for a specific undertaking
or in fact tasked to perform functions which are vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual
business or trade of the employer. In the case at bar, private respondents had already gone
through the status of project employees. But their employments became non-coterminous with
specific projects when they started to be continuously re-hired due to the demands of
petitioners' business and were re-engaged for many more projects without interruption. A work
pool may exist although the workers in the pool do not receive salaries and are free to seek
other employment during temporary breaks in the business, provided that the worker shall be
available when called to report for a project. Although primarily applicable to regular seasonal
workers, this set-up can likewise be applied to project workers insofar as the effect of temporary
cessation of work is concerned. This is beneficial to both the employer and employee for it
prevents the unjust situation of "coddling labor at the expense of capital" and at the same time
enables the workers to attain the status of regular employees. Clearly, the continuous rehiring of
the same set of employees within the framework of the Lao Group of Companies is strongly
indicative that private respondents were an integral part of a work pool from which petitioners
drew its workers for its various projects.

In a final attempt to convince the Court that private respondents were indeed project employees,
petitioners point out that the workers were not regularly maintained in the payroll and were free
to offer their services to other companies when there were no on-going projects. This argument
however cannot defeat the workers' status of regularity. Truly, the cessation of construction
activities at the end of every project is a foreseeable suspension of work. Of course, no
compensation can be demanded from the employer because the stoppage of operations at the
end of a project and before the start of a new one is regular and expected by both parties to the
labor relations. Similar to the case of regular seasonal employees, the employment relation is
not severed by merely being suspended. The employees are, strictly speaking, not separated
from services but merely on leave of absence without pay until they are reemployed. Thus we
cannot affirm the argument that non-payment of salary or non-inclusion in the payroll and the
opportunity to seek other employment denote project employment. Affirmed in favor of private
respondents.

G.R. No. 114734 March 31, 2000

VIVIAN Y. IMBUIDO, petitioner,

vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION SERVICES,
INC. and GABRIEL LIBRANDO, respondents.

Facts:

Petitioner was employed as a data encoder by private respondent International Information Services,
Inc., a domestic corporation engaged in the business of data encoding and keypunching, from
August 26, 1988 until October 18, 1991 when her services were terminated. From August 26, 1988
until October 18, 1991, petitioner entered into thirteen (13) separate employment contracts with
private respondent, each contract lasting only far a period of three (3) months. In September 1991,
petitioner and twelve (12) other, employees of private respondent allegedly agreed to the filing of a
petition for certification election involving the rank-and-file employees of private respondent. Thus,
on October 8, 1991, Lakas Manggagawa sa Pilipinas (LAKAS) filed a petition for certification election
with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), docketed as NCR-OD-M-9110-128. Subsequently, on
October 18, 1991, petitioner received a termination letter from Edna Kasilag, Administrative Officer of
private respondent, allegedly "due to low volume of work." Thus, on May 25, 1992, petitioner filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal. Petitioner alleged that her employment was terminated not due to the
alleged low volume of work but because she "signed a petition for certification election among the
rank and file employees of respondents," thus charging private respondent with committing unfair
labor practices. Maintained that it had valid reasons to terminate petitioner's employment and
disclaimed any knowledge of the existence or formation of a union among its rank-and-file
employees at the time petitioner's services were terminated. Private respondent stressed that its
business relies heavily on companies availing of its services. Its retention by client companies with
particular emphasis on data encoding is on a project to project basis, usually lasting for a period of
two (2) to five (5) months. Private respondent further argued that petitioner's employment was for a
specific project with a specified period of engagement. According to private respondent, the certainty
of the expiration of complainant's engagement has been determined at the time of their (sic)
engagement (until 27 November 1991) or when the project is earlier completed or when the client
withdraws, as provided in the contract. The happening of the second event [completion of the
project] has materialized, thus, her contract of employment is deemed terminated per the Brent
School ruling. The LA ruled for petitioners. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the findings of the LA.
Hence this petition.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioner is a project employee as found by NLRC.

Ruling:

No. Petitioner is a project employee only at the beginning but has then acquired the status of regular
employee. The principal test for determining whether an employee is a project employee or a regular
employee is whether the project employee was assigned to carry out a specific project or
undertaking, the duration and scope of which were specified at the time the employee was engaged
for that project. A project employee is one whose employment has been fixed for a specific project
or undertaking, the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the
engagement of the employee or where the work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and
the employment is for the duration of the season. In the instant case, petitioner was engaged to
perform activities which were usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the
employer, as admittedly, petitioner worked as a data encoder for private respondent, a corporation
engaged in the business of data encoding and keypunching, and her employment was fixed for a
specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which had been determined at the
time of her engagement, as may be observed from the series of employment contracts between
petitioner and private respondent, all of which contained a designation of the specific job contract
and a specific period of employment project employee or a member of a work pool may acquire the
status of a regular employee when the following concur:

1) There is a continuous rehiring of project employees even after [the] cessation of a

project; and

2) The tasks performed by the alleged "project employee" are vital, necessary and
indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer.

The evidence on record reveals that petitioner was employed by private respondent as a data
encoder, performing activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or
trade of her employer, continuously for a period of more than three (3) years, from August 26, 1988
to October 18, 1991 and contracted for a total of thirteen (13) successive projects. We have
previously ruled that "[h]owever, the length of time during which the employee was continuously re-
hired is not controlling, but merely serves as a badge of regular employment." Based on the
foregoing, we conclude that petitioner has attained the status of a regular employee of private
respondent. The petition is granted, the NLRCs finding is hereby reversed.

G.R. No. 100333 March 13, 1997

HILARIO MAGCALAS et al., petitioners,

vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and KOPPEL, INC., respondents.

Facts:

Petitioners alleged that they were all regular employees of the respondent company, having
rendered continuous services in various capacities, ranging from leadman, tinsmith, tradeshelper to
general clerk; that the respondent has been engaged in the business of installing air conditioning
(should be air-conditioning) and refrigeration equipment in its different projects and jobsites where
the complainants have been assigned; that the complainants have worked for a number of years, the
minimum of which was one and a half years and the maximum (was) eight years under several
supervisors; that on August 30, 1988, they were dismissed (en masse) without prior notice and
investigation, and that their dismissals were effected for no other cause than their persistent
demands for payment of money claims (as) mandated by law. On the other hand, the respondents
interposed the defense of contract/project employment. The LA ruled for petitioners only to be
reversed by the NLRC. Hence, this petition.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioners were regular workers under the contemplation of Art. 280 of the Labor
Code.

Ruling:

Yes. The SC finds that a mere provision in the CBA recognizing contract employment does not
sufficiently establish that petitioners were ipso facto contractual or project employees. In the same
vein, the invocation of Policy No. 20 governing the employment of project employees in the
construction industry does not, by itself, automatically classify private respondent as part of the
construction industry and entitle it to dismiss petitioners at the end of each project. These facts
cannot be presumed; they must be supported by substantial evidence. On the other hand, private
respondent did not even allege, much less did it seek to prove, that petitioners had been hired on a
project-to-project basis during the entire length of their employment. Rather, it merely sought to
establish that petitioners had been hired to install the air-conditioning equipment at Asian
Development Bank and Interbank and that they were legally dismissed upon the conclusion of these
projects. Private respondent did not even traverse, and public respondent did not controvert, the
labor arbiter's finding that petitioners were continuously employed without interruption, from the date
of their hiring up to the date of their dismissal, in spite of the alleged completion of the so-called
projects in which they had been hired. Regular employees cannot at the same time be project
employees. Article 280 of the Labor Code states that regular employees are those whose work is
necessary or desirable to the usual business of the employer. The two exceptions following the
general description of regular employees refer to either project or seasonal employees. The
overwhelming fact of petitioners' continuous employment as found by the labor arbiter ineludibly
shows that the petitioners were regular employees. On the other hand, we find that substantial
evidence, applicable laws and jurisprudence do not support the ruling in the assailed Decision that
petitioners were project employees. The Court here reiterates the rule that all doubts, uncertainties,
ambiguities and insufficiencies should be resolved in favor of labor. It is a well-entrenched doctrine
that in illegal dismissal cases, the employer has the burden of proof. This burden was not discharged
in the present case. Reversed in favor of petitioner.

G.R. No. 117043 January 14, 1998

FELIX VILLA et al., petitioners,

vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, Fifth Division and NATIONAL STEEL
CORPORATION, respondents.

Facts:

Respondent National Steel Corporation (NSC), one of the biggest modern steel mills in Southeast
Asia, produces hot rolled products, cold rolled products, tin plates and billets. In line with its program
to use 100% scrap, the NSC ventured into a shipbreaking operation. Under this operation,
ships/vessels at sea would be cut up into large chunks and brought to land to be cut further into
smaller sizes. However, due to scarcity of vessels/ships for salvaging, the higher costs of operation
and the unsuitability of raw materials, this experimental project was stopped after four or five ships
had been chopped. When the project was completely phased out in November 1986, the laborers
hired for said project were terminated. Prior to the phasing out of the project, the NSC had been
beset by labor problems. On May 2, 1986 the National Steel Corporation Employees Association-
Southern Philippines Federation of Labor (NSCEA-SPFL) filed a notice of strike. It charged the NSC
with unfair labor practices consisting of (a) wage discrimination, (b) interference with the employees'
right to self-organization, (c) non regularization of contractual employees, (d) illegal termination of
employees, (e) nonpayment of wage/benefit differentials, and (f) non recognition of NSCEA-SPFL as
the sole bargaining representative of the company. The then Ministry of Labor and Employment
exercising jurisdiction over the case, issued a return-to-work order. The LM finds that nothing therein
to support the union's contention that as to the nature of employment, its members should be
regularized. Masons, carpenters, laborers, electricians and painters cannot, by the nature of their
job, be considered as regular employees of the company under Article 281. The case was brought
before the SC. The SC remanded the case to the NLRC. On April 14, 1994, the NLRC rendered a
Resolution ruling that the project employees are not regular employees within the purview of Art. 280
of the Labor Code. Motion for reconsideration of petitioner was denied. Hence this recourse.

Issue:

Whether or not workers contracted as project employees may be considered as regular employees
on account of their performance of duties inherent in the business of the employer.

Ruling:

No. A project employment terminates as soon as the project is completed. Thus, an employer is
allowed by law to reduce the work force into a number suited for the remaining work to be done upon
the completion or proximate accomplishment of the project. However, the law requires that, upon
completion of the project, the employer must present proof of termination of the services of the
project employees at the nearest public employment office. The Court then distinguished two kinds
of projects which a business or industry may undertake. First, "a project could refer to a particular job
or undertaking that is within the regular or usual business of the employer company, but which is
distinct and separate, and identifiable as such, from the other undertakings of the company." The
example given is a construction company that may undertake two or more "projects" at the same
time in different places. Second, a project may refer to "a particular job or undertaking that is not
within the regular business of the corporation. Such a job or undertaking must also be identifiably
separate and distinct from the ordinary or regular business operations of the employer. The fact that
petitioners were required to render services necessary or desirable in the operation of NSC's
business for a specified duration did not in any way impair the validity of their contracts of
employment which stipulated a fixed duration therefor. Extant in the record are the findings of the
NLRC that the petitioners in this case were utilized in operations other than billet making or other
components of the FYEP I and II, such as shipbreaking. We are constrained to rule that while it is
true that they performed other activities which were necessary or desirable in the usual business of
the NSC and that the duration of their employment was for a period of more than one year, these
factors did not make them regular employees in contemplation of Article 280 of the Labor Code, as
amended. Thus, the fact that petitioners worked for NSC under different project employment
contracts for several years cannot be made a basis to consider them as regular employees, for they
remain project employees regardless of the number of projects in which they have worked. Length of
service is not the controlling determinant of the employment tenure of a project employee. The
petition is dismissed.