considered projects within the purview of the
GMA NETWORK, INC. v. PABRIGA
FACTS
On July 1999, due to the miserable working
conditions, private respondents (who were television
technicians) were forced to file a complaint against
the petitioner before the NLRC Arbitration Branch in
Cebu. After receiving a notice of hearing of the
complaint, the petitioner's engineering manager
confronted the private respondents. The latter were
summoned to the office of the Are Manager, and
they were made to explain why they filed the
complaint. The next day, respondents were barred
from entering and reporting for work without any
notice.
 Head of personnel relations admitted non-
payment of benefits but did not mention the
request of the respondents to be allowed to
return to work.
 Sent another letter, but their request was still
ignored.
 Filed a complaint for unfair labor practice,
illegal dismissal, and damages
 Futile mandatory conference --> filing of
position papers
LABOR ARBITER: dismissed complaint for illegal
dismissal and unfair labor practice but held petitioner
liable for 13th month pay.
APPEAL TO NLRC: reversed decision of the labor
arbiter.
 All complainants are regular employees with
respect to the particular activity to which they
were assigned, until it ceased to exist.
ISSUE
WON the respondents are regular employees
and not project employees.
RULING
YES. Their jobs and undertakings are clearly within
the regular or usual business of the employer
company and are not identifiably distinct or separate
from the other undertakings of the company. There
is no denying that the manning of the operations
center to air commercials, acting as transmitter/VTR
men, maintaining the equipment, and acting as
cameramen are not undertakings separate or
distinct from the business of a broadcasting
company.
 Petitioner’s allegation that respondents were
merely substitutes or what they call pinch-
hitters (which means that they were employed
to take the place of regular employees of
petitioner who were absent or on leave) does
not change the fact that their jobs cannot be
law.
 Jurisprudence abounds with the consistent
rule that the failure of an employer to report to
the nearest Public Employment Office the
termination of its workers’ services every time
a project or a phase thereof is completed
indicates that said workers are not project
employees.
 In the extant case, petitioner should have filed
as many reports of termination as there were
projects actually finished if private respondents
were indeed project employees, considering
that the latter were hired and again rehired
from 1996 up to 1999. Its failure to submit
reports of termination cannot but sufficiently
convince us further that private respondents
are truly regular employees.
The Supreme Court ruled that a 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 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.
SAN MIGUEL CORP. v. NLRC
FACTS
In November 1990, respondent was hired by
petitioner as helper/bricklayer for a specific project,
the repair and upgrading of furnace C at its Manila
Glass Plant.
 CoE provided that said temporary employment
was for approx. 4 months.
 Respondent was able to complete the repair
and upgrading of furnace C.
o Services were terminated on the same
day
o Employment contract also ended on that
day
 Was hired again for draining/cooling down of
furnace F and emergency repair of furnace E
for a period of approx. 3 months.
o After repair, services were terminated
 Complainant saw in a memorandum posted at
the BB as among those who were considered
dismissed.
 After 3 years from the last time he was hired,
respondent filed complaint for illegal dismissal.
LABOR ARBITER: dismissed the case for lack of
merit. He was a project employee. The position of a
helper does not fall within the classification of regular
employees. Silence of 3 years weakened his claim.
NLRC: reversed decision of the LA. Respondents
scheme of subsequently re-hiring complainant after
only ten (10) days from the last day of the expiration
of his contract of employment for a specific period,
and giving him again another contract of
employment for another specific period cannot be
countenanced. This is one way of doing violence to
the employees constitutional right to security of
tenure under which even employees under
probationary status are amply protected.
ISSUE
WON the nature of the employment of private
respondent is that of a project employee
RULING
YES. Public respondent NLRCs findings that herein
private respondent is a regular employee is
erroneous as the latter's employment clearly falls
within the definition of project employees under
paragraph 1 of Article 280 of the Labor Code and
such is a typical example of the second kind of
project employment in the ALU-TUCP case
discussed above.
 The process of manufacturing glass requires a
furnace, which has a limited operating life.
Petitioner resorted to hiring project or fixed
term employees in having said furnaces
repaired since said activity is not regularly
performed. Said furnaces are to be repaired or
overhauled only in case of need and after
being used continuously for a varying period of
five (5) to ten (10) years.
 Clearly, private respondent was hired for a
specific project that was not within the regular
business of the corporation. For petitioner is
not engaged in the business of repairing
furnaces. Although the activity was necessary
to enable petitioner to continue manufacturing
glass, the necessity therefor arose only when
a particular furnace reached the end of its life
or operating cycle. Or, as in the second
undertaking, when a particular furnace
required an emergency repair. In other words,
the undertakings where private respondent
was hired primarily as helper/bricklayer have
specified goals and purposes which are
fulfilled once the designated work was
completed.
GADIA v. SYKES ASIA
FACTS
Sykes Asia is a corporation engaged in BPO which
provides support to its int'l clients from various
sectors by carrying on some of their operations,
governed by service contracts that it enters with
them.
 On 2003, Alltel Comm. Inc. (Alltel) a US based
telecomm. firm, contracted the former to
accommodate the needs and demands of the
latter's clients for its postpaid and prepaid
services.
 On different dates, Sykes Asia hired petitioners
as customer service representatives, team
leaders, and trainers for the Alltel Project.
 It was going smoothly until Alltel sent 2 letters
to Sykes Asia informing the latter that it was
terminating all support services the latter
provided.
o Sykes Asia sent each of the petitioners
end-of-life notices, informing them of
their dismissal from employment due to
the termination of such project
o Petitioners filed separate complaints for
illegal dismissal.
LABOR ARBITER: ruled in favor of the respondents
NLRC: petitioners are regular employees but were
validly terminated due to redundancy. They could
not have been project employees because it was
made known to petitioners that their employment
would be co-terminus to the Alltel Project.
CA: contract shows that they were hired from such
project and that it was specifically stated that their
employment would be project-based.
ISSUE
WON petitioners are project employees
RULING
YES. In this case, records reveal that Sykes Asia
adequately informed petitioners of their employment
status at the time of their engagement, as evidenced
by the latter’s employment contracts which similarly
provide that they were hired in connection with the
Alltel Project, and that their positions were "project-
based and as such is co-terminus to the project." In
this light, the CA correctly ruled that petitioners were
indeed project-based employees, considering that:
(a) they were hired to carry out a specific
undertaking, i.e., the Alltel Project; and (b) the
duration and scope of such project were made
known to them at the time of their engagement, i.e.,
"co-terminus with the project."
 To the mind of the Court, this caveat
sufficiently apprised petitioners that their
security of tenure with Sykes Asia would only
last as long as the Alltel Project was subsisting.
In other words, when the Alltel Project was
terminated, petitioners no longer had any
project to work on, and hence, Sykes Asia may
 validly terminate them from employment.
Further, the Court likewise notes the fact that
Sykes Asia duly submitted an Establishment
Employment Report and an Establishment
Termination Report to the Department of Labor
and Employment Makati-Pasay Field Office
regarding the cessation of the Alltel Project
and the list of employees that would be
affected by such cessation.
UST v. SAMAHANG MANGGAWA NG UST
FACTS
The instant case stemmed from a complaint for
regularization and illegal dismissal filed by
respondents Samahang Manggagawa ng UST and
Pontesor, et al. (respondents) against petitioner
before the NLRC. Respondents alleged that on
various periods spanning the years 1990-1999,
petitioner repeatedly hired Pontesor, et al. to
perform various maintenance duties within its
campus, i.e., as laborer, mason, tinsmith, painter,
electrician, welder, carpenter. Essentially,
respondents insisted that in view of Pontesor, et al.'s
performance of such maintenance tasks throughout
the years, they should be deemed regular
employees of petitioner. Respondents further
argued that for as long as petitioner continues to
operate and exist as an educational institution, with
rooms, buildings, and facilities to maintain, the latter
could not dispense with Pontesor, et al.'s services
which are necessary and desirable to the business
of petitioner.
 On the other hand, while petitioner admitted
that it repeatedly hired Pontesor, et al. in
different capacities throughout the aforesaid
years, it nevertheless maintained that they
were merely hired on a per-project basis, as
evidenced by numerous Contractual
Employee Appointments (CEAs) signed by
them.
 In accordance with the express provisions of
said CEAs, Pontesor, et al.'s project
employment were automatically terminated:
(a) upon the expiration of the specific term
specified in the CEA; (b) when the project is
completed ahead of such expiration; or (c) in
cases when their employment was extended
due to the non- completion of the specific
project for which they were hired, upon the
completion of the said project.
LABOR ARBITER: they are regular employees.
Ordered reinstatement because (a) they have
rendered at least one (1) year of service to petitioner
as its employees; (b) the activities for which they
were hired for are vital or inherently indispensable to
the maintenance of the buildings or classrooms
where petitioner's classes were held; and (c) their
CEAs were contrived to preclude them from
obtaining security of tenure.
NLRC: NLRC found that Pontesor, et al. cannot be
considered regular employees as they knowingly
and voluntarily entered into fixed term contracts of
employment with petitioner. As such, they could not
have been illegally dismissed upon the expiration of
their respective last valid and binding fixed term
employment contracts with petitioner. This
notwithstanding, the NLRC rejected petitioner's
contention that Pontesor, et al. should be deemed
project employees, ratiocinating that their work were
not usually necessary and desirable to petitioner's
main business or trade, which is to provide
elementary, secondary, tertiary, and post-graduate
education. As such, the NLRC classified Pontesor,
et al. as mere fixed term casual employees.
CA: reinstated LA ruling
ISSUE
WON respondents are regular employees.
RULING
YES. They are regularized casual employees. In the
case at bar, a review of Pontesor, et al.'s respective
CEAs reveal that petitioner repeatedly rehired them
for various positions in the nature of maintenance
workers, such as laborer, mason, painter, tinsmith,
electrician, carpenter, and welder, for various
periods spanning the years 1990-1999. Akin to the
situation of the employees in Kimberly, Pontesor, et
al.'s nature of work are not necessary and desirable
to petitioner's usual business as an educational
institution; hence, removing them from the ambit of
the first category of regular employees under Article
295 of the Labor Code. Nonetheless, it is clear that
their respective cumulative periods of employment
as per their respective CEAs each exceed one (1)
year. Thus, Pontesor, et al. fall under the second
category of regular employees under Article 295 of
the Labor Code. Accordingly, they should be
deemed as regular employees but only with respect
to the activities for which they were hired and for as
long as such activities exist.
HERMA SHIPYARD v. OLIVEROS
FACTS
Herma Shipyard is a domestic corporation engaged
in the business of shipbuilding and repair. The
respondents were its employees occupying various
positions such as welder, leadman, pipe fitter,
laborer, helper, etc. They filed before the Regional
Arbitration Branch III a complaint for illegal
dismissal, regularization, and non payment of SIL.
Respondents alleged that they are regular
employees who have been continuously performing
tasks usually necessary and desirable in its
business. On various dates, petitioners dismissed
them from employment. Respondents alleged that
as a condition to their continuous employment,
petitioners made them sign employment contracts
for a fixed period ranging from 1 to 4 months to make
it appear that they were project-based employees,
but there was never a time when they ceased
working for the same due to the expiration of the EC.
Petitioners never submitted a project completion
report.
For their defense, petitioners argued that
respondents were its project-based employees
in its shipbuilding projects and that the specific
project for which they were hired had already
been completed, In support thereof, Herma
Shipyard presented contracts of employment,
some of which are written in the vernacular and
denominated as kasunduang Paglilingkod
(Pang-Proyektong Kawani)
LABOR ARBITER: dismissed, they are project-
based employees.
NLRC: affirmed in toto the decision of the LA.
CA: set aside the decision of the labor tribunals. It
held that even if the contracts of employment
indicated that respondents were hired as project-
based workers, their employment status have
become regular since: they were performing tasks
that are necessary, desirable, and vital to the
operation of petitioners’ business; petitioners failed
to present proof that respondents were hired for a
specific period or that their employment was
coterminous with specific project; it is not clear from
the contracts of employment presented that the
completion or termination of the project or
undertaking was already determined at the time
petitioners engaged the services of respondents;
respondents were made to work not only in one
project but also in different projects and were
assigned to different departments of Herma
Shipyard; respondents were repeatedly and
successively rehired as employees of Herma
Shipyard; except with regard to respondent’s last
employment, petitioners failed to represent proof
that they reported to the nearest public employment
office the termination of respondents’ previous
employment or every time a project or a phase
thereof had been completed; and, petitioners failed
to file as many reports of termination as there were
shipbuilding and repair projects actually completed,
The CA concluded that the project employment
contracts were indeed used as a device to
circumvent respondents’ right to security of tenure.
RULING
The records of this case reveal that for each and
every project respondents were hired. They were
adequately informed of their employment status as
project-based employees at least at the time they
signed their employment contracts. They were fully
apprised of the nature and scope of their work
whenever they affixed their signature to their
employment contract. Their contracts of
employment (mostly written in the vernacular)
provide in no uncertain terms that they were hired as
project-based employees whose services are
coterminous with the completion date thereof. They
also contain a provision expressly stating that
respondents’ employment shall end upon the arrival
of the target completion date or upon the completion
of such project.
It is settled, however, that project-based employees
may or may not be performing tasks usually
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade
of the employer. The fact that the job is usually
necessary or desirable in the business operation of
the employer does not automatically imply regular
employment; neither does it impair the validity of the
project employment contract stipulating a fixed
duration of employment. Respondents were hired for
various projects which are distinct, separate, and
identifiable from each other. The rule that employees
initially hired on a temporary basis may become
permanent employees by reason of their length of
service is not applicable to project-based
employees.
It is significant to note that the corporation does not
construct vessels for sale or othe1wise which will
demand continuous productions of ships and will
need permanent or regular workers. It merely
accepts contracts for shipbuilding or for repair of
vessels from third parties and, only, on occasion
when it has work contract of this nature that it hires
workers to do the job which, needless to say, lasts
only for less than a year or longer.
LINGAT v. CCBPI
FACTS
Petitioners were plant drivers, forklift operators,
segregators and mixers of respondent Coca- Cola
Bottlers. Coca- Cola Bottlers was engaged in the
business of manufacturing, distributing, and
marketing of soft drinks and other beverage
products. They continually worked for CCBPI until
their illegal dismissal in 2005.
RULING
They are regular employees. Under the Labor
Code, specifically Article 295 of the Labor Code, as
amended and renumbered, a regular employee is a)
one that has been engaged to perform tasks
USUALLY NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE IN THE
EMPLOYER’S USUAL BUSINESS OR TRADE-
without falling within the category of either a fixed or
a project or a seasonal employee; or b) one that has
been engaged for a least one year, whether his or
her service is continuous or not, with respect to such
activity he or she is engaged, and the work of the
employee remains while such activity exists.
Relating petitioners' tasks to the nature of the
business of Coca- Cola Bottlers -which involved the
manufacture, distribution, and sale of soft drinks and
other beverages -it cannot be denied that mixing and
segregating as well as loading and bringing of Coca-
Cola Bottlers’ products to its customers involved
distribution and sale of these items. Simply put,
petitioners' duties were REASONABLY
CONNECTED TO THE VERY BUSINESS of Coca-
Cola Bottlers. They were indispensable to such
business because without them the products of
Coca- Cola Bottlers would not reach its customers.
ABS-CBN BROADCASTING v. NAZARENO
FACTS
Petitioner employed respondents Nazareno,
Gerzon, Deiparine, and Lerasan as production
assistants (PAs) on different dates. They were
assigned at the news and public affairs, for various
radio programs in the Cebu Broasting Station, with a
monthly compensation of P4,000. They were issued
ABS-CBN employees' identification cards and were
required to work for a minimum of eight hours a day,
including Sundays and holidays. On December 19,
1996, petitioner and the ABS-CBN Rank-and-File
Employees executed a Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA) to be effective during the period
from December 11, 1996 to December 11, 1999.
However, since petitioner refused to recognize PAs
as part of the bargaining unit, respondents were not
included to the CBA. On October 12, 2000,
respondents filed a Complaint for Recognition of
Regular Employment Status, Underpayment of
Overtime Pay, Holiday Pay, Premium Pay, Service
Incentive Pay, Sick Leave Pay, and 13th Month Pay
with Damages against the petitioner before the
NLRC. The Labor Arbiter rendered judgment in
favor of the respondents, and declared that they
were regular employees of petitioner as such, they
were awarded monetary benefits. NLRC affirmed
the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Petitioner filed a
motion for reconsideration but CA dismissed it.
RULING
They are regular employees. We agree with
respondents' contention that where a person has
rendered at least one year of service, regardless of
the nature of the activity performed, or where the
work is continuous or intermittent, the employment
is considered regular as long as the activity exists,
the reason being that a customary appointment is
not indispensable before one may be formally
declared as having attained regular status.
Additionally, respondents cannot be considered as
project or program employees because no evidence
was presented to show that the duration and scope
of the project were determined or specified at the
time of their engagement. In the case at bar,
however, the employer-employee relationship
between petitioner and respondents has been
proven. In the selection and engagement of
respondents, no peculiar or unique skill, talent or
celebrity status was required from them because
they were merely hired through petitioner’s
personnel department just like any ordinary
employee. Respondents did not have the power to
bargain for huge talent fees, a circumstance
negating independent contractual relationship.
Respondents are highly dependent on the petitioner
for continued work. The degree of control and
supervision exercised by petitioner over
respondents through its supervisors negates the
allegation that respondents are independent
contractors.
The presumption is that when the work done is an
integral part of the regular business of the employer
and when the worker, relative to the employer, does
not furnish an independent business or professional
service, such work is a regular employment of such
employee and not an independent contractor. As
regular employees, respondents are entitled to the
benefits granted to all other regular employees of
petitioner under the CBA. Besides, only talent-artists
were excluded from the CBA and not production
assistants who are regular employees of the
respondents. Moreover, under Article 1702 of the
New Civil Code: “In case of doubt, all labor
legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed
in favor of the safety and decent living of the laborer.”
ALU-TUCP v. NLRC
FACTS
Petitioners plead that they had been employed by
respondent NSC in connection with its Five Year
Expansion Program for varying lengths of time when
they were separated from NSC's service. In 1990
petitioners filed separate complaints for unfair labor
practice, regularization and monetary benefits with
the NLRC. The LA held that the petitioners are
regular project employees who shall continue their
employment as such for as long as the activity
exists. NLRC modified the LA's decision. They are
indeed project employees but they should not enjoy
the same benefits of regular employees.
RULING
They are project employees. It is well established
by the facts and evidence on record that herein 13
complainants were hired and engaged for specific
activities or undertaking the period of which has
been determined at time of hiring or engagement. It
is of public knowledge and which this Commission
can safely take judicial notice that the expansion
program (FAYEP) of respondent NSC consist of
various phases [of] project components which are
being executed or implemented independently or
simultaneously from each other.
In other words, the employment of each "project
worker" is dependent and co-terminous with the
completion or termination of the specific activity or
undertaking [for which] he was hired which has been
pre-determined at the time of engagement. Since,
there is no showing that they (13 complainants) were
engaged to perform work-related activities to the
business of respondent which is steel-making, there
is no logical and legal sense of applying to them the
proviso under the second paragraph of Article 280 of
the Labor Code, as amended.
EQUIPMENT TECHNICAL SERVICES v. CA
FACTS
Petitioner is primarily engaged in the business of
sub-contracting plumbing words of on-going building
construction. Among its clients was Uniwide. One of
the petitioners during the time, was a manager of
ETS. ETS hired the services of private respondents
as pipe fitters, plumbers, or threaders.
 ETS experienced financial difficulties when
Uniwide failed to pay for the plumbing work
being done at its Coastal Mall. Thus, ETS was
only able to pay its employees 13th month pay
equivalent to two weeks salary.
 Unhappy because of ETS' failure to release the
balance of their 13th month pay, respondents
brought their case before the arbitration branch
of the NLRC.
 2 cases were filed against ETS for illegal
dismissal and payment of money claims when
the complainants thereat were refused work in
another ETC project.
LA: they are regular employees.
NLRC: they are not regular employees, but project
employees.
CA: THEY ARE REGULAR EMPLOYEES.
RULING
They are regular employees. It bears to stress at the
outset that ETS admits hiring or employing private
respondents to perform plumbing works for various
projects. Given this postulate, regular employment
may reasonably be presumed and it behooves ETS
to prove otherwise, that is, that the employment in
question was contractual in nature ending upon the
expiration of the term fixed in the contract or for a
specific project or undertaking. But the categorical
finding of the CA, confirmatory for the most part of
that of the labor arbiter, is that not a single written
contract of employment fixing the terms of
employment for the duration of the Uniwide project,
or any other project, was submitted by ETS despite
the latter's allegations that private respondents were
merely contractual employees.
The Court can allow that, in the instant case, private
respondents may have initially been hired for
specific projects or undertaking of petitioner ETS
and, hence, may be classified as project employees.
Their repeated rehiring to perform tasks necessary
to the usual trade or business of ETS changed the
legal situation altogether, for in the later instance,
their continuous rehiring took them out from the
scope of workers coterminus with specific projects
and had made them regular employees. We said as
much in Phesco, Inc. v. NLRC that where the
employment of project employees is extended long
after the supposed project had been finished, the
employees are removed from the scope of project
employees and they shall be considered regular
employees.
Dacuital vs. L.M. Camus Engineering Corp
FACTS
Respondent LMCEC is a domestic corporation
engaged in construction, engineering, and air-
conditioning business, while respondent Camus is
the company president. Petitioners were hired by the
respondent as welder, tinsmith, pipefitter, and
mechanical employees. From Jan - March 2001,
petitioners were required by LMCEC to surrender
their identification cards and ATM cards and were
ordered to execute contracts of employment. Most
petitioners did not comply as they believed that it
was merely a strategy to get rid of petitioners regular
status since they would become new employees
disregarding their length of service. They were later
dismissed from employment.
 A complaint for illegal dismissal and non-
payment of monetary benefits were filed by
petitioners and other LMCEC employees who
were similarly situated.
LA: They are regular, not project employees. This is
because of LMCEC's failure to present evidence
showing that petitioners contracts of employment
reflected the duration of each project for which they
were employed and that respondents duly reported
to the DOLE every termination of employment and
project.
NLRC: they were indeed illegally dismissed.
CA: THEY WERE NOT ILLEGALLY DISMISSED.
They are project employees as their ECs provided
that their respective tenures of employment were
dependent on the duration of the construction
projects.
RULING
They are regular employees. Respondents did not
present the employment contracts of petitioners
except that of Dacuital. They explained that it was no
longer necessary to present the other contracts
since petitioners were similarly situated. Having
presented one contract, respondents believed that
they sufficiently established petitioners status as
project employees.
Even though the absence of a written contract does
not by itself grant regular status to petitioners, such
a contract is evidence that petitioners 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 the
employment contracts raises a serious question of
whether the employees were properly informed at
the onset of their employment of their status as
project employees.
While it is true that respondents presented the
employment contract of Dacuital, the contract does
not show that he was informed of the nature, as well
as the duration of his employment. In fact, the
duration of the project for which he was allegedly
hired was not specified in the contract.
It is undisputed that petitioners had individual
employment contracts, yet respondents opted not to
present them on the lame excuse that they were
similarly situated as Dacuital. The non-presentation
of these contracts gives rise to the presumption that
the employees were not informed of the nature and
duration of their employment. It is doctrinally
entrenched that in illegal dismissal cases, the
employer has the burden of proving with clear,
accurate, consistent, and convincing evidence that
the dismissal was valid. Absent any other proof that
the project employees were informed of their status
as such, it will be presumed that they are regular
employees.
FILSYSTEMS v. PUENTE
FACTS
Respondent started working with petitioner as an
installer later promoted to mobile crane operator and
was stationed at the company premises. Since his
work was not dependent on any project, his
employment was without interruption for the past 10
years. He was dismissed from his employment
allegedly because he was a project employee. He
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the
petitioner.
LA: dismissed, he is a project employee.
NLRC: affirmed
CA: reversed LA and NLRC. The employment
contracts signed by petitioner Puente do not have
the specified duration for each project contrary to the
provision of Article 280 of the Labor Code, nor did
petitioner work in the project sites, but had always
been assigned at the company plant attending to the
maintenance of all mobile cranes of the company,
performing tasks vital and desirable in the employers
usual business for ten (10) continuous years.
RULING
He is a project employee. In the present case, the
contracts of employment of Puente attest to the fact
that he was hired for specific projects. His
employment was coterminous with the completion of
the projects for which he had been hired. Those
contracts expressly provided that his tenure of
employment depended on the duration of any phase
of the project or on the completion of the
construction projects. Furthermore, petitioners
regularly submitted to the labor department reports
of the termination of services of project workers.
Such compliance with the reportorial requirement
confirms that respondent was a project employee.
Evidently, although the employment contract did not
state a particular date, it did specify that the
termination of the parties employment relationship
was to be on a day certain -- the day when the phase
of work termed Lifting & Hauling of Materials for the
World Finance Plaza project would be completed.
Thus, respondent cannot be considered to have
been a regular employee. He was a project
employee. That he was employed with Petitioner
Filsystems for ten years in various projects did not
ipso facto make him a regular employee,
considering that the definition of regular employment
in Article 280 of the Labor Code makes a specific
exception with respect to project employment. The
mere rehiring of respondent on a project-to-project
basis did not confer upon him regular employment
status. The practice was dictated by the practical
consideration that experienced construction workers
are more preferred. It did not change his status as a
project employee.
TOMAS LAO CONSTRUCTION v. NLRC
FACTS
Within the periods of their respective employments,
respondents alternately worked for petitioners.
Under their joint venture agreements, each one of
the three Lao Group of Companies would allow the
utilization of their employees by the other two. Thus,
workers were transferred whenever necessary to
on-going projects of the same company or of the
others, or where rehired after the completion of the
project or project phase to which they were
assigned. Soon only two companies stayed on. In
1989 they required all workers and company
personnel to sign EC forms and clearances for audit
purposes. To ensure compliance, there was an
order to withhold the salary of any employee who
refused to sign. The ECs denote that the
constructions workers are project employees whose
employments were for a definite period.
 Only Gomez signed, the others refused
because they contend that it is a scheme
designed by the employer to downgrade their
status from regular to project employees.
 Their salaries where withheld, and were
required to explain why they 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.
NLRC RAB VIII (LA): dismissed the complaints,
they were project employees.
NLRC: reversed. They are regular employees.
 main thrust of petitioners expostulation is that
respondents have no valid cause to complain
about their employment contracts since these
documents merely formalized their status as
project employees.
RULING
They are regular employees. 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.
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.
ABESCO CONSTRUCTION v. RAMIREZ
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, before the Labor
Arbiter. Petitioners allegedly dismissed them without
a valid reason and without due process of law. The
complaints also included claims for non-payment of
the 13th month pay, five days’ service incentive
leave pay, premium pay for holidays and rest days,
and moral and exemplary damages. The LA later on
ordered the consolidation of the two complaints.
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.

LA: they are regular employees because they
belonged to a work pool from which the company
drew workers for assignment to different projects at
its discretion.
NLRC: affirmed LA decision.
CA: dismissed petitioners appeal
RULING
They are regular employees. 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. 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.
ROY D. PASOS v. PNCC
FACTS
Petitioner started working for respondent as Clerk II
and was assigned to the NAIA-II project. It was
stated in his EC that he will be a project employee
for 3 months. If services are needed beyond the
validity of the contract, the company shall extend the
petitioner's services. Petitioner's employment was
extended until more than two years later. After being
re-employed over and over again, he took a sick
leave of 60 days because he contracted Koch's
diseases. After presenting his medical clearance, he
was informed that his services were already
terminated and he was already replaced due to the
expiration of his contract. He filed a case for illegal
dismissal.
LA: already attained regular status because of
repeated hiring and rehiring and that the services he
made were usual and necessary to PNCC's
business. He also had to work on other projects,
indicating that he is in fact a regular employee.
NLRC: reversed
CA: dismissed for lack of merit
RULING
He is a regular employee. The principal test used to
determine whether employees are project
employees is whether or not the employees were
assigned to carry out a specific project or
undertaking, the duration or scope of which was
specified at the time the employees were engaged
for that project.
In the case at bar, petitioner worked continuously for
more than two years after the supposed three-month
duration of his project employment for the NAIA II
Project. While his appointment for said project
allowed such extension since it specifically provided
that in case his "services are still needed beyond the
validity of the contract, the Company shall extend his
services," there was no subsequent contract or
appointment that specified a particular duration for
the extension. His services were just extended
indefinitely until "Personnel Action Form – Project
Employment" dated July 7, 1998 was issued to him
which provided that his employment will end a few
weeks later or on August 4, 1998. While for first three
months, petitioner can be considered a project
employee of PNCC, his employment thereafter,
when his services were extended without any
specification of as to the duration, made him a
regular employee of PNCC. And his status as a
regular employee was not affected by the fact that
he was assigned to several other projects and there
were intervals in between said projects since he
enjoys security of tenure.
RAYCOR AIRCONTROL v. SAN PEDRO
FACTS
Raycor Aircontrol Systems, Inc. hired Mario San
Pedro as tinsmithoperator subject to the condition
that his employment shall commence “on August 24,
1995 and shall be effective only for the duration of
the contractat Uniwide LasPiñas after completion of
which on November 18, 1995, it automatically
terminates without necessity of further notice.” As
the Uniwide Las Piñas project (first project) lasted for
one year, Raycor extended respondent's contract
beyond November 18, 1995. When this first project
was finally completed, Raycor again extended San
Pedro's employment by assigning him to its Olivarez
Plaza, Biñan, Laguna project (second project) until
December 1996. Subsequently, Raycor rehired San
Pedro as ducting man and assigned him to its
Cabuyao, Laguna project (third project) until April
1997. Thereafter, Raycor transferred San Pedro to
its Llanas, Alabang project (fourth project) and later,
to its Uniwide Coastal project in Baclaran,
Paranaque (fifth project). Raycor did not anymore
issue new contracts to respondent each time his
employment was extended. In a Memorandum
dated October 30, 1997, Raycor declared that the
contract of employment of respondent was set to
expire on November 1, 1997, the same to take effect
on November 3, 1997. Thus, when respondent
reported for work on November 3, 1997, he was
informed by the company timekeeper that he had
been terminated. He filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal.
LA: he is a regular employee.
NLRC: he is a regular employee
CA: he is a regular employee
Ratio of three courts: considered respondent a
regular employee of petitioner because of the
existence of a reasonable connection between the
former's regular activity in relation to the latter's
business. They based this finding on the
uncontroverted fact that petitioner repeatedly rehired
respondent in five successive projects for 23
continuous months - nine months in the first project,
four months in the second, four months in the third,
four months in the fourth, and two months in the fifth
- which repeated rehiring is indicative of the
desirability and indispensability of the activity
performed by respondent to the usual business or
trade of petitioner.
RULING
He is a regular employee. Other than the 1995
employment contract it issued to respondent, which
contract we have held to be insufficient evidence of
project employment, petitioner utterly failed to
adduce additional evidence which would have
convinced us that: 1) each time it hired and rehired
respondent, it intended for him to accomplish
specific tasks in the particular project to which he
was assigned; 2) it intended for respondent to carry
out these specific tasks in accordance with the
project plan it had drawn out and within the limited
time it had to complete the same; and 3) it made
such restrictions on each engagement known to
respondent, and the same were freely accepted by
him. Petitioner's failure to present such evidence is
inexcusable, given its access to such documents as
project contracts, payment remittances, employment
records and pay slips.
MACARTHUR MALICDEM v. MARULAS
INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION
FACTS
Malicdem and Flores were first hired by Marulas as
extruder operators in 2006, as shown by their ECs.
They were responsible for the bagging of filament
yarn, the quality of yarn package and the cleanliness
of the work place area. Their ECs were for a period
of 1 year. Every year thereafter, they would sign a
Resig/Quitclaim in favor of Marulas a day after their
contracts ended, and then sign another contract for
1 year until one day Flores was told not to report for
work anymore after being asked to sign a paper by
the HR Head to the effect that he acknowledged the
completion of his contractual status. The same
happened to Malicdem on a later date. Thus, they
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
LA: there is no illegal dismissal, their employment
naturally ceased when their contracts expired.
NLRC: same
CA: repeated and successive rehiring of project
employees do not qualify them as regular
employees, as length of service is not the controlling
determinant of the employment tenure of a project
employee.
RULING
They are regular employees. In their EC, it was
revealed that there was a stipulated probationary
period of 6 mos from its commencement. It was
provided therein that in the event that they would be
able to comply with the company's standards and
criteria within such period, they shall be reclassified
as project employees with respect to the remaining
period of the effectivity of the contract (par. 3B).
Under Article 281 of the Labor Code, however, “an
employee who is allowed to work after a
probationary period shall be considered a regular
employee.” When an employer renews a contract of
employment after the lapse of the six–month
probationary period, the employee thereby becomes
a regular employee. No employer is allowed to
determine indefinitely the fitness of its employees.
This ruling does not mean that simply because an
employee is a project or work pool employee even
outside the construction industry, he is deemed, ipso
jure, a regular employee. All that we hold today is
that once a project or work pool employee has been:
(1) continuously, as opposed to intermittently, re–
hired 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.
To begin with, there is no actual project. The only
stipulations in the contracts were the dates of their
effectivity, the duties and responsibilities of the
petitioners as extruder operators, the rights and
obligations of the parties, and the petitioners’
compensation and allowances. As there was no
specific project or undertaking to speak of, the
respondents cannot invoke the exception in Article
280 of the Labor Code.

WILLIAM UY CONSTRUCTION v. JORGE
TRINIDAD
FACTS
Respondent had been working with the petitioner for
16 years since 1988 as driver of its service vehicle,
dump truck, and transit mixer. He had signed several
ECs with the company that identified him as a project
employee although he had always been assigned to
work on the one project after another with some
intervals. In 2004, he was terminated because the
company shut down due to lack of projects.
However, although the same opened up a project in
Batangas, it did not hire him back for that project.
 Company countered that it was in the
construction business and thus it had to hire
and engage the services of project
construction workers, including respondent
Trinidad, whose employments had to be co-
terminous with the completion of specific
company projects.
 Trinidad filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
and unpaid benefits against petitioner.
LA: dismissed illegal dismissal case
NLRC: merely affirmed the LA's ruling
CA: reversed NLRC ruling. The CA held that,
although respondent Trinidad initially worked as a
project employee, he should be deemed to have
acquired the status of a regular employee since
petitioner company repeatedly rehired him in its past
35 projects that lasted 16 years. The CA explained
that Trinidad's work as driver of the company's
service vehicle, dump truck, and transit mixer was
vital, necessary, and indispensable to the company's
construction business. The intervals between his
employment contracts were inconsequential since
stoppage in operations at the end of every
construction project was a foreseeable interruption
of work.
RULING
He is merely a project employee.
Generally, length of service provides a fair yardstick
for determining when an employee initially hired on
a temporary basis becomes a permanent one,
entitled to the security and benefits of regularization.
But this standard will not be fair, if applied to the
construction industry, simply because construction
firms cannot guarantee work and funding for its
payrolls beyond the life of each project. And getting
projects is not a matter of course. Construction
companies have no control over the decisions and
resources of project proponents or owners. There is
no construction company that does not wish it has
such control but the reality, understood by
construction workers, is that work depended on
decisions and developments over which
construction companies have no say.
It has been previously held that that the repeated
and successive rehiring of project employees do not
qualify them as regular employees, as length of
service is not the controlling determinant of the
employment tenure of a project employee, but
whether the employment has been fixed for a
specific project or undertaking, its completion has
been determined at the time of the engagement of
the employee.
In this case, respondent Trinidad's series of
employments with petitioner company were co-
terminous with its projects. When its Boni Serrano-
Katipunan Interchange Project was finished in
December 2004, Trinidad's employment ended with
it. He was not dismissed. His employment contract
simply ended with the project for which he had
signed up. His employment history belies the claim
that he continuously worked for the company.
Intervals or gaps separated one contract from
another.
BAJARO v. METRO STONERICH CORP
FACTS
In 2008, respondent hired petitioner as a concrete
pump operator, tasked with opening the pouring of
freshly mixed concrete on the former's construction
projects. Sometime in 2014, while petitioner was
working at the KCC Mall of Marbel in Koronadal, he
noticed that one of the pipes was filled with concrete.
He lifter the said pipe to empty and clean it. Upon
lifting, he suddenly felt an excruciating pain on his
thighs and since then, could not longer work
properly. He requested to be taken to the hospital
but he was ignored and was told to go home and
have himself treated. Respondent refused to pay for
his medical expenses. After recovery, he returned to
work but was informed to return to work the next day.
He was offered money in lieu of his employment. He
did not accept the money. He filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal with the LA.
LA: dismissed complaint, held that he was a project
employee as evidenced by the ECs he signed each
time he was engaged by Metro Stonerich. His
employment was coterminous with each project.
NLRC: echoed the ruling of the LA.
CA: CA agreed with NLRC
RULING
Bajaro is a project employee of Metro Stonerich.
In this case, it is undisputed that Bajaro was
adequately informed of his employment status (as a
project employee) at the time of his engagement.
This is clearly substantiated by his employment
contracts (Kasunduan Para sa Katungkulang
Serbisyo (Pamproyekto), stating that: (i) he was
hired as a project employee; and (ii) his employment
was for the indicated stmiing dates therein, and will
end on the completion of the project. The said
contracts that he signed sufficiently apprised him
that his security of tenure with Metro Stonerich would
only last as long as the specific phase for which he
was assigned. In fact, the target date of completion
was even indicated in each individual contract
clearly warning him of the period of his employment.
ALCATEL PHILIPPINES v. RELOS
FACTS
In 1988, Alcatel offered respondent "temporary
employment as Estimator/Draftsman" to assist in the
preparation of manholes and conduit design for a
specific project. The same was offered to
respondent multiple times, and on 1995, Alcatel
informed respondent that the project would be
completed on Dec. 31, 1995 and that his contract
would expire on the same day. Alcatel asked
respondent to settle all his accountabilities with the
company and advised him that he would be called if
it has future projects that require his expertise. He
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, among others.
LA: respondent is a regular employee of Alcatel,
respondent performed functions that were
necessary and desirable in the usual business or
trade of Alcatel. The Labor Arbiter concluded that
respondent belonged to the "work pool of non-
project employees" of Alcatel.
NLRC: reversed the LA and dismissed complaint for
illegal dismissal. The NLRC said respondent was
assigned to carry out a specific project or
undertaking and the duration of his services was
always stated in his employment contracts. The
NLRC also pointed out that, by the nature of Alcatel's
business, respondent would remain a project
employee regardless of the number of projects for
which he had been employed.
CA: reinstated the LA's decision. Respondent was a
regular employee of Alcatel because (1) respondent
was assigned to positions and performed tasks that
were necessary to the main line and business
operations of Alcatel; (2) respondent was repeatedly
hired and contracted, continuously and for
prolonged periods, with his employment contracts
renewed each time they fell due; and (3) Alcatel did
not report the termination of the projects with the
nearest public employment office.
RULING
He is a project employee. While respondent
performed tasks that were clearly vital, necessary
and indispensable to the usual business or trade of
Alcatel, respondent was not continuously rehired by
Alcatel after the cessation of every project. Records
show that respondent was hired by Alcatel from
1988 to 1995 for three projects, namely the PLDT X-
5 project, the PLDT X-4 IOT project and the PLDT
1342 project. On 30 April 1988, upon the expiration
of respondent's contract for the PLDT X-4 IOT
project, Alcatel did not rehire respondent until 1
February 1991, or after a lapse of 33 months, for the
PLDT 1342 project. Alcatel's continuous rehiring of
respondent in various capacities from February
1991 to December 1995 was done entirely within the
framework of one and the same project. The
employment of a project employee ends on the date
specified in the employment contract. Therefore,
respondent was not illegally dismissed but his
employment terminated upon the expiration of his
employment contract. Here, Alcatel employed
respondent as a Site Inspector until 31 December
1995.
CHERRY PRICE v. INNODATA PHILS
FACTS
Petitioners were employed as formatters by
INNODATA. The parties executed an EC stipulating
that the contract shall be for a period of one year.
During their employment as formatters, petitioners
were assigned to handle jobs for various clients of
INNODATA, among which were CAS, Retro,
Meridian, Adobe, Netlib, PSM, and Earthweb. Once
they finished the job for one client, they were
immediately assigned to do a new job for another
client. According to INNODATA, petitioners’
employment already ceased due to the end of their
contract. Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal and damages against respondents.
LA: they were illegally dismissed. They should be
considered as regular employees because they
occupied jobs which were necessary, desirable, and
indispensable.
NLRC: reversed LA decision. The NLRC found that
petitioners were not regular employees, but were
fixed-term employees as stipulated in their
respective contracts of employment.
CA: they are fixed term employees. Petitioners
admitted entering into contracts of employment with
INNODATA for a term of only one year and for a
project called Earthweb. According to the Court of
Appeals, there was no showing that petitioners
entered into the fixed-term contracts unknowingly
and involuntarily, or because INNODATA applied
force, duress or improper pressure on them. The
appellate court also observed that INNODATA and
petitioners dealt with each other on more or less
equal terms, with no moral dominance exercised by
the former on latter. In fixed-term contracts, the
stipulated period of employment is governing and
not the nature thereof. Consequently, even though
petitioners were performing functions that are
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade
of the employer, petitioners did not become regular
employees because their employment was for a
fixed term, which began on 16 February 1999 and
was predetermined to end on 16 February 2000.
RULING
They are regular employees. While this Court has
recognized the validity of fixed-term employment
contracts, it has consistently held that this is the
exception rather than the general rule. More
importantly, a fixed-term employment is valid only
under certain circumstances. In its oft-quoted
decision in Brent, also issued a stern admonition that
where, from the circumstances, it is apparent that
the period was imposed to preclude the acquisition
of tenurial security by the employee, then it should
be struck down as being contrary to law, morals,
good customs, public order and public policy.
The contracts of employment submitted by
respondents are highly suspect for not only being
ambiguous, but also for appearing to be tampered
with. The Court notes that the attempt to change the
beginning date of effectivity of petitioners’ contracts
was very crudely done. The alterations are very
obvious, and they have not been initialed by the
petitioners to indicate their assent to the same. If the
contracts were truly fixed-term contracts, then a
change in the term or period agreed upon is material
and would already constitute a novation of the
original contract.
Obviously, respondents wanted to make it appear
that petitioners worked for INNODATA for a period
of less than one year. The only reason the Court can
discern from such a move on respondents’ part is so
that they can preclude petitioners from acquiring
regular status based on their employment for one
year. Nonetheless, the Court emphasizes that it has
already found that petitioners should be considered
regular employees of INNODATA by the nature of
the work they performed as formatters, which was
necessary in the business or trade of INNODATA.
Hence, the total period of their employment
becomes irrelevant.
OLONGAPO MAINTENANCE SERVICES v.
CHANTENGO
FACTS
OMSI is a corporation engaged in the business of
providing janitorial and maintenance services to
various clients, including government-owned and
controlled corporations. On various dates beginning
1986, OMSI hired the respondents as janitors, grass
cutters, and degreasers, and assigned them at
NAIA. On 1999, MSI terminated respondents'
employment. They filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal among others against OMSI.
LA: dismissed the complaint.
NLRC: NLRC denied the motion.
CA: reversed the decision of the NLRC
RULING
They are regular, not project employees.
In the instant case, the record is bereft of proof that
the respondents' engagement as project employees
has been predetermined, as required by law. We
agree with the Court of Appeals that OMSI did not
provide convincing evidence that respondents were
informed that they were to be assigned to a "specific
project or undertaking" when OMSI hired them.
Notably, the employment contracts for the specific
project signed by the respondents were never
presented. All that OMSI submitted in the
proceedings a quo are the service contracts
between OMSI and the MIAA. Clearly, OMSI utterly
failed to establish by substantial evidence that,
indeed, respondents were project employees and
their employment was coterminous with the MIAA
contract.