PASOS v. PHIL CONSTRUCTION CORP - Moreover, DO No.

19 requires employers to submit report of employee’s termination to

Application of rule on reportorial requirement | 3 July 2013 | J. Villarama Jr nearest public employment office every time an employment is terminated due to
project completion. In this case, no report in relation to NAIA-II Project was made.
Nature of Case: Petition for review on certiorari
DOLE NCR also verified that Pasos was not included in list of affected workers based
Digest maker: Africa
on termination reports—a certification not disputed by PNCC. Citing Tomas Lao
SUMMARY: Pasos worked as clerk for PNCC in various projects. Despite set prospect Construction v. NLRC, failure to file termination reports after every project completion
deadlines, his work was repeatedly extended. When he was terminated, he filed an illegal proves that employees are not project employees.
dismissal complaint claiming that repeated extensions made him a regular employee. This - Since petitioner’s regular employment was terminated due to project completion,
was contended by PNCC which argued that he was rather a project employee. Court ruled
which was not among the just or authorised causes in the Labor Code, Pasos was
in Pasos’ favour.
illegally dismissed.
DOCTRINE: 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, while he contract allowed for extensions, there was no
subsequent contract that specified a particular duration for the extension.

FACTS:
1. Pasos started working for PNCC as clerk for the NAIA-II Project, which was supposed to
end on July 1996 but was extended until August 1998. When she was rehired and assigned
to SM-Project, no date on when his employment would end was specified but it was
provided that it would be “co-terminus with the project’s completion.” Per Action Form, it
was supposedly ended on August 1999.
2. Despite termination of employment, it was alleged that he was instructed to still report and
that he would again be reemployed. For purpose of reemployment, he underwent medical
examination where he was diagnosed with Koch’s disease which required him to take 60-
day leave.
3. When he returned, he was informed that his services were terminated, prompting Pasos to
file complaint for illegal dismissal. He argued that he is a regular employee due to
prolonged employment and failure of PNCC to report his termination every time a project
is completed.

ISSUE/S & RATIO:

1. WON Pasos was illegally dimissed. — YES
- 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, while he contract allowed for
extensions, there was no subsequent contract that specified a particular duration for
the extension.