PEDY CASERES and ANDITO G.R.NO.

159343
PAEL,Petitioners,

VS UNIVERSAL ROBINA SUGAR

MILLING CORPORATION
(URSUMCO) and/or RESIDENT MANAGER RENE CABATE
FACTS:
• PEDY CASERES and ANDITO PAEL, (petitioners) filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, regularization, incentive
leave pay, 13th month pay, damages and attorneys fees against UNIVERSAL ROBINA SUGAR MILLING
CORPORATION (URSUMCO), (respondent) a corporation engaged in the cane sugar milling business.

• At the start of their respective employments, they were made to sign a Contract of Employment for Specific
Project or Undertaking. They were made to understand that their employment would be co-terminus with the
phase of work which they would be assigned and thereafter they would be free to seek employment elsewhere.

• Petitioners' contracts were renewed from time to time, until May 1999 when they were informed that their
contracts will not be renewed anymore.

• Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the complaint for not being substantiated with clear and convincing evidence.

• The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed LA's dismissal, and the Court of Appeals (CA)
dismissed the petition filed before it.
 ISSUE:

1. WHTHER OR NOT THE (PETITIONERS) CASERES AND PAEL ARE PROJECT EMPLOYEES
2. WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONERS WERE ILLEGALLY DISMISSED AND ARE ENTITLED TO BACKWAGES
AND OTHER MONETARY BENEFITS PRAYED FOR IN THE COMPLAINT
RULING:
Yes, they are project employees, hence the petition is without merit.

The provision of Article 280 of the labor code as amended provides for three kinds of employees:

(a) regular employees or those who have been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer;

(b) project employees or those 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 services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the
season; and

(c) casual employees or those who are neither regular nor project employees.[9]

1. The principal test for determining whether an employee is a project employee or a regular employee is
whether the 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.[10]

1. 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.[11]

1. A true project employee should be assigned to a project which begins and ends at determined or
determinable times, and be informed thereof at the time of hiring.[12]
1. service is not the controlling determinant of the employment tenure of a project employee.

APPLICATION:
The fact that petitioners were constantly re-hired does not ipso facto establish that they became regular
employees. Their respective contracts with respondent show that there were intervals in their employment.
In petitioner Caseres's case, while his employment lasted from August 1989 to May 1999, the duration of
his employment ranged from one day to several months at a time, and such successive employments were not
continuous. With regard to petitioner Pael, his employment never lasted for more than a month at a time.
These support the conclusion that they were indeed project employees, and since their work depended on the
availability of such contracts or projects, necessarily the employment of respondents work force was not
permanent but co-terminous with the projects to which they were assigned and from whose payrolls they
were paid.

1. The proviso in Article 280, stating that an employee who has rendered service for at least one (1) year shall
be considered a regular employee, pertains to casual employees and not to project employees.

1. Accordingly, petitioners cannot complain of illegal dismissal inasmuch as the completion of the contract or
phase thereof for which they have been engaged automatically terminates their employment.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
*********************************************************************