G.R. No. 106600
March 29, 1996
Facts
Cosmos Bottling Corp. hired the services of Gil Castro for a specific period from September 5, 1988 to October 4, 1988. He was re-hired for another specific period from May 30, 1989 to November 6, 1989. On December 22, 1989, he was re-hired and assigned to the Maintenance Division of the Davao Project and was tasked to install the private respondent’s annex plant machines in its Davao plant. However, on May 21, 1990, Castro’s employment was terminated due to the completion of the special project. Hence, Castro filed a case for illegal dismissal against Cosmos Bottling Corp, contending that being a regular employee, he could not be dismissed without a just and valid cause.
In contrast, Cosmos Bottling Corp. contended that Castro is a project employee whose employment was co-terminous with the project for which he was hired. The Labor Arbiter found Castro a regular employee but ruling that his employment was validly terminated because of retrenchment. On appeal, NLRC declared Cosmos Bottling Corp guilty of illegal dismissal and ordered that the plaintiff be reinstated. Hence, this petition for certiorari.
Issue
Whether or not private respondent Gil C. Castro is a regular employee or was a mere project employee of petitioner Cosmos Bottling Corporation.
Held
Respondent is a project employee.
Under Article 295 of the Labor Code, an employee is deemed regular where he is engaged in necessary or desirable activities in the usual trade or business of the employer. In contrast, a project employee has been defined to be 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.
To determine whether or not the person is a project employee, the principal test is whether or not the project employee was assigned to carry out a “specific project or undertaking,” the duration and scope of which were specified at the time the employee was engaged for that period.
In the realm of business and industry, “project” could refer to at least two (2) distinguishable types of activities. First, 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. Second, a project could also refer to 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.
In this case, the employment of Castro falls under the first type of project employee. The main business of Cosmos Bottling Corporation is the manufacture, production, bottling, sale and distribution of beverage. In the course of its business, it undertakes distinct identifiable projects as it did in the instant case when it formed special teams assigned to install and dismantle its annex plant machines in various plants all over the country. These projects are distinct and separate, and are identifiable as such, from its usual business of bottling beverage. Their duration and scope are made known prior to their undertaking and their specified goal and purpose are fulfilled once the projects are completed. Evidently, these projects or undertakings, the duration and scope of which had been determined and made known to private respondent at the time of his employment, can properly be treated as “projects” within the meaning of the “first” kind.
Moreover, there are appreciable gaps between the periods of time private respondent was hired and re-hired. He was hired on September 5, 1988 for a period of one (1) month. He was re-hired on May 30, 1989 or almost seven (7) months after the termination of his first job. He was re-hired almost two (2) months after his first reemployment. Certainly, the lengthy gaps between his employments, together with the fact that his services were contracted for specific undertakings, convincingly show that the services of private respondent were terminated upon completion of a particular project and were sought only when another one was undertaken.
Furthermore, the mere fact that a project employee has worked on the specific project for more than one (1) year, does not necessary change his status as project employee 13 and convert it to regular or permanent employment. For it is obvious that 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 only to casual employees, not to project employees.
Therefore, Gil Castro is a project employee.