85
ALU-TUCP VS. NLRC
G.R. No. 109902, AUGUST 2, 1994
FACTS:
Alan Barinque and 13 other workers (petitioners) had been employed by National
Steel Corporation in connection with its Five Year Expansion Program (FAYEP I & II)
for varying lengths of time when they were separated from NSC's service.
Petitioners filed separate complaints for unfair labor practice, regularization and
monetary benefits with the NLRC, Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch XII, Iligan City.
Petitioners argue that they are "regular" employees of NSC because: (i) their jobs
are "necessary, desirable and work-related to private respondent's main business, steel-
making"; and (ii) they have rendered service for six (6) or more years to private
respondent NSC.
NSC claimed that petitioners are project employees as they were employed to
undertake a specific project — NSC's Five Year Expansion Program (FAYEP I & II).
ISSUE:
Whether or not Barinque and 13 other workers are project employees of NSC.
RULING:
LABOR ARBITER:
The Labor Arbiter declared petitioners regular project employees who shall
continue their employment as such for as long as such project activity exists.
NLRC:
The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's holding that petitioners were project
employees since they were hired to perform work in a specific undertaking — the Five
Years Expansion Program, the completion of which had been determined at the time of
their engagement and which operation was not directly related to the business of steel
manufacturing.
SUPREME COURT:
The Court ruled that the Barinque and 13 other workers are project employees of
NSC. The Court explained:
The law on the matter is Article 280 of the Labor Code which reads in full:
Art. 280. Regular and Casual Employment — The provisions of the
written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral
agreement of the parties, and employment shall be deemed to be regular where the
employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or
86
desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where 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 or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and
the employment is for the duration of the season.
An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the
preceding paragraph: Provided, That, any employee who has rendered at least one
year 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 actually exists.
There should be no difficulty in designating the employees who are retained as
"project employees," as distinguished from ordinary or "regular employees," so long as
the duration and scope of the project were determined or specified at the time of
engagement of the "project employees."
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.
We note that "project" could refer to one or the other of at least two (2)
distinguishable types of activities. Firstly, 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. Such job or undertaking begins and ends at determined or determinable times.
Secondly, 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 job or undertaking
also begins and ends at determined or determinable times. The case at bar presents what
appears to our mind as a typical example of this kind of "project."
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 workers) 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.
The simple fact that the employment of petitioners as project employees had gone
beyond one (1) year, does not detract from, or legally dissolve, their status as project
employees. The second paragraph of Article 280 of the Labor Code, quoted above,
providing that an employee who has served for at least one (1) year, shall be considered a
regular employee, relates to casual employees, not to project employees.
87
