Facts:

The case involves ALU-TUCP, representing Alan Barinque and thirteen other employees as the petitioners against the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the National Steel Corporation (NSC) as the respondents. The Petition for Certiorari arises from the NLRC’s Resolution dated January 8, 1993, which declared the petitioners to be project employees of NSC, along with a subsequent Resolution on February 15, 1993, denying the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. The employees, engaged with NSC in relation to its Five Year Expansion Program (FAYEP I & II), were hired at different times between 1981 and 1992, with varying positions such as Engineer, Utilityman, Warehouseman, and others. On July 5, 1990, they filed separate complaints concerning unfair labor practices, regularization, and monetary benefits with the NLRC Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch XII in Iligan City. These complaints were consolidated, and the Labor Arbiter sided with the petitioners in a decision

...

Facts:

Overview of the Case

• Petitioners, represented by Alan Barinque and 13 others employed by National Steel Corporation (NSC), filed complaints for unfair labor practice, regularization, and monetary benefits.
• The dispute arose from their classification as "project employees" by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) contrary to their claim of being "regular employees."
• The controversy centered on whether their engagement, related to NSC’s Five Year Expansion Program (FAYEP I & II), should be considered temporary project work or regular employment despite some petitioners accumulating long periods of service.

Employment and Project Details

• Petitioners were employed in connection with NSC’s Five Year Expansion Program, which comprised several component projects:
• Cold Rolling Mill Expansion Project
• Billet Steel-Making Plant (BSP)
• Acquisition and installation of a Five Stand TDM
• Cold Mill Peripherals Project
• The program was considered a distinct undertaking with a specific scope and predetermined duration, independent from NSC’s primary business of steel manufacturing.
• Detailed records of employment dates and positions (engineers, chainman, utilityman, etc.) were provided, highlighting that they were engaged solely for the project components.

Proceedings Before the NLRC

• On July 5, 1990, separate complaints were filed and subsequently consolidated.
• The Labor Arbiter issued a Decision on June 7, 1991, declaring the petitioners as “regular project employees” with continued employment tied to the existence of the project and ordering payment of salary differentials in line with the collective bargaining agreement.
• Both parties appealed the Arbiter’s decision before the NLRC, which modified the award by:
• Affirming the classification as project employees based on the specific project-based nature of the employment.
• Denying benefits accorded to regular employees due to lack of legal and factual basis.
• On January 8, 1993, the NLRC issued a Resolution upholding the project employment status, later reinforced by its decision denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on February 15, 1993.

Legal and Factual Context

• The case turns on the interpretation of Article 280 of the Labor Code which distinguishes between "regular" and "project" (or casual) employment.
• Regular employment is characterized by continuous engagement in activities necessary or desirable in the usual business.
• Employment fixed for a specific project or undertaking, with a predetermined time frame for completion or termination, qualifies as project employment.
• Petitioners contended:
• Their roles were integral to NSC’s main business (steelmaking) by being work-related and necessary.
• Their prolonged service, with some employment exceeding six years, should confer upon them the status of regular employees.
• NSC, conversely, argued that:
• The petitioners were hired exclusively for the component projects under the FAYEP, distinct from the ordinary operations of steel manufacturing.
• The engagement was strictly tied to a fixed project with a known period of completion, justifying the project worker classification.

Issue:

Principal Issue

• Whether petitioners, who were engaged for a defined project—the Five Year Expansion Program—should be classified as "project employees" or "regular employees" of NSC.

Sub-Issues

• Does the duration of service (with some petitioners serving more than six years) alter the characterization from project to regular employment?
• How should the provisions of Article 280 of the Labor Code be applied, specifically regarding the designation of project employees and the effect of the proviso that regularizes casual employees after one year of service?
• Is there any grave abuse of discretion or error on the part of the NLRC in affirming petitioners’ status as project employees?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)