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 wherein petitioner 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

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 due process 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.

By stressing the ruling in Villa v. National Labor Relations Commission that by entering into such contract, an employee is deemed to understand that his employment is coterminous with the project. He may not expect to be employed continuously beyond the completion of the project. 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. Moreover, even if petitioners were repeatedly and successively re-hired, still it did 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. Petition is denied.

Thomas Lao Construction vs. NLRC. (G.R. No. 116781) Facts: A complaint before the Labor Arbiter private respondents Mario O. Labendia Sr., et al., construction workers hired in different capacities for various periods, claimed they were illegally dismissed by petitioners Tomas Lao Construction (TLC), Thomas and James Developers (T & J) and LVM Construction Corporation (LVM), 1 Altogether informally referred to as the "Lao Group of Companies." for which private respondents alternatively worked. Petitioners came to us on certiorari questioning the reversal by the NLRC of the Labor Arbiter's Decision. On 5 September 1997 we dismissed the petition and affirmed the 5 August 1994 Decision of the NLRC ISSUE: W/N private respondents were illegally dismissed. Ruling: We held that private respondents were regular employees who were illegally dismissed. The repeated rehiring and the continuing need for private respondents' services over a long span of time (the shortest, at seven [7] years) undeniably made them 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. Moreover, if private respondents were indeed employed as project employees, petitioners should have submitted a report of termination to the nearest public employment office every time their employment was terminated due to completion of each construction project. The records show that they did not. Clearly, here was an attempt to circumvent labor laws on tenurial security. Settled is the rule that when periods have been imposed to preclude the acquisition of tenurial security by the employee, they should be struck down as contrary to public morals, good customs or public order. Thus, we ordered petitioners to reinstate private respondents to their former positions without loss of seniority rights and other privileges with full back wages, inclusive of allowances, computed from the time compensation was withheld up to the time of actual reinstatement. Art. 279 of the Labor Code which provides that "[a]n employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full back wages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.