7/27/2019 Digest 3 Pager

1/3

Samson vs. NLRC (G.R. No. 113166, Feb. 1, 1966)

Facts:Petitioner has been employed with private respondent AGPC Manila in a various construction projects since April

1965. On November, petitioner filed a complaint for the conversion of his employment status from project employee

to regular employee. Petitioner alleged therein that on the basis of his considerable and continuous length of service

with AG&P, he should be considered a regular employee therefore entitled to the benefits and privileges appurtenant

thereto.

ISSUE: W/N Petitioner is a project or regular employee.

Ruling: While Solicitor General agrees with petitioner, with the observation that after a particular project has been

accomplished, petitioner would rehired immediately the following day save for a gap of one day to one week from

the last project, and that between 1965 to 1977, and there was 50 occasions wherein petitioner was hired by private

respondent for a continuous period of time.

The Court ruled, on the other hand, that it is not disputed that petitioner had been working for private respondent for

approximately twenty-eight (28) years as of the adjudication of his plaint by respondent NLRC, and that his

"project-to-project" employment was renewed several times. With the successive contracts of employment whereinpetitioner continued to perform virtually the same kind of work, i.e., as rigger, throughout his period of employment,

it is manifest that petitioner's assigned tasks were usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of

private respondent.8 The repeated re-hiring and continuing need for his services are sufficient evidence of the

necessity and indispensability of such services to private respondent's business or trade. 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 to public policy, morals, good customs or public order.

WHEREFORE, the questioned decision of respondent National Labor Relations Commission and the decision of

Labor Arbiter Felipe T. Garduque II is reinstated.

D.M. Consuji, Inc. vs . NLRC (G.R. No. 116572, Dec. 18, 2000)

Facts:The petitioner and respondents executed a contract by virtue of terms and conditions of employment which

stipulated for a period of (1) month. On March 2, 1993, private respondents terminated allegedly without regard to

the date of termination as specified in the contracts. The private respondents then filed a complaint for illegal

dismissal. Labor Arbiter and affirmed by NLRC rendering a decision finding the dismissal of the private

respondents without just cause. Petitioner maintains that the private respondents were project employees since they

were hired on a project-to-project basis. They cannot be regular employees because they were all employed for less

than six (6) months such that even assuming that they were not project employees, they have not attained that status

of regular employment

Issue: W/N private respondents were project employees.

W/N termination of their employment was illegal.

Ruling: 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 services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season. The

court held that the length of service of a project employee is not the controlling test of employment tenure but

whether or not the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination

of which has been determined at the time of engagement of the employee. The contracts of employment show that

the private respondents were employed with respect to specific project. The contracts of employment provide that

the term is one (1) month which was the estimated project to be finished. The court examined the evidence

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_113166_1996.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_113166_1996.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_113166_1996.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_113166_1996.html#fnt8

7/27/2019 Digest 3 Pager

2/3

presented, it was true that other respondents were terminated because their respective contracts were already

expired. But however, the contracts of Alexander Agraviador and Jovencio Mendrez had not expired when their

services were terminated on March 2, 1993. Petitioner, therefore, did not alleged that the premature termination of

the services of private respondents (Alexander Agraviador and Jovencio Mendrez) was due to the earlier completion

of the project or any phases thereof to which they were assigned or the services is unsatisfactory. In termination

cases, the burden of proving that an employee has been lawfully dismissed lies with the employer. The inescapable

conclusion is that Alexander Agraviador and Jovencio Mendrez were terminated prior to the expiration of the period

of their employment without just cause, hence termination is illegal.

Petitioner is ordered to pay private respondents, the unexpired portion of their contract.

Cioco vs. C.E. Construction Corp. (G.R. No. 156748)

Facts: Isaac Cioco, et al. were hired by C.E. Construction Corporation, a domestic corporation engaged in the

construction business, hired workers as carpenters and laborers in various construction projects from 1990 to 1999.

The latest of which was GTI Tower in Makati. Prior to the start of every project, the workers signed individual

employment contracts. The contract stipulated that the period of employment shall be co-terminus with the

completion of the project, unless sooner terminated by you prior to the completion of the projects.

May and June 1999, workers were terminated by the company on the ground of completion of the phases of the GTI

Tower project. Alleging that they were regular employees, they filed for illegal dismissal.

Issue: W/N the workers were regular employees of the company.

W/N the workers were illegally dismissed.

Ruling:The court is affirming the decision of LA, NLRC, CA. Finding that the workers were project employees.

They hold that fact the workers have been employed with company for several years, did not automatically make

them regular employees considering that the definition of regular employment in Article 280 of the Labor Code,

makes specific exception with respect to project employment. The re-hiring of petitioners on a project-to-project

basis did not confer upon them regular employment status. The practice was dictated by the practical consideration

that experienced construction workers are more preferred. It did not change their status as project employees.

On the other hand, the petitioner were complying with the procedural as well as the substantive requirements of dueprocess with respect to the WORKERS termination, as found by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC.

Therefore, the termination from employment of project employees Isaac Cioco, Jr., and their award of back wages

computed from the date of their termination is set aside.

Caseres vs. universal Robina Sugar Milling Corp. (G.R. No. 159343, September 28, 2007)

Facts: URSMC is a corporation engaged in the sugar cane milling business. The petitioner started working 1989 and

Andito Pael in 1993 to the respondent. At the start, they signed a contract of Employment for Specific Project or

Undertaking. It will be renewed from time to time, until May 1999, that they informed that they no longer be

renewed. Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, regularization and other claims.

August 24, 1999, LA dismissed the complaint for not being substantiated with clear and convincing evidence.

ISSUE: W/N petitioners are seasonal/ Project/ Term Employees not regular Employees of Respondents

W/N petioners were illegally dismissed and are entitled to back wages and other monetary benefits prayed

in the complaint.

Ruling: Petitioners' repeated and successive re-employment on the basis of a contract of employment for more than

one year cannot and does not make them regular employees. Length of service is not the controlling determinant of

the employment tenure of a project employee.

7/27/2019 Digest 3 Pager

3/3