G.R. No. 131889 - Gochan vs. Young

Petitioners claimed they were regular employees having continuously rendered services until September 2010 when they were no longer assigned work.
A letter dated September 28, 2010, was sent by Felipe and Velasco inquiring about their employment status and the lack of transfer to the Glorietta Project, which was purported to commence on September 17, 2010, based on a document known as the Manpower Requisition Form (MRF).
The respondents did not reply to the inquiry, heightening the dispute regarding the nature of their employment.

On October 12, 2010, petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of benefits (service incentive leave and 13th month pay) before the arbitration branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
Respondents argued that the petitioners were hired as project employees for particular tasks on specific construction projects and that their employment was inherently temporary.
Respondents presented various project employment contracts signed by petitioners, asserting that the contracts clearly indicated a determined duration and specific scope of work.
DDTKI maintained that the alleged MRF was merely a confidential internal document and did not constitute an employment contract to confer regular employee status.

Ruled that petitioners were engaged as project employees, as evidenced by their employment contracts that specifically mentioned the duration and project nature of their work.
Dismissed the complaint on the ground that the petitioners were not illegally dismissed since the contracts expired as stipulated.

Affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s ruling regarding the validity of the termination based on the expiration of the project contracts.
Modified the award to grant petitioners a proportionate 13th month pay, though the key finding on employment status was maintained.

In its assailed decision dated March 27, 2013, the CA reiterated and upheld that petitioners were hired for specific project-based undertakings, not as regular employees.
Emphasized that continuous or re-hiring on a project-to-project basis did not automatically confer regular status.
Upheld the termination on the grounds that the specific project (US Embassy New Office Annex 1 Project – MNOX-1) had expired.
Denied the petition for certiorari based on the sufficiency of the NLRC’s findings.

Filed by petitioners and denied in the CA Resolution dated March 26, 2015, as it reiterated arguments already dismissed in earlier proceedings.

Argued that due to four years of uninterrupted service and involvement in seven successive projects, they should be considered regular employees.
Contended that performing functions intrinsic to DDTKI’s usual business operations (i.e., as Formworks Aide and Warehouse Aide) entitled them to security of tenure.
Asserted that their dismissal was without just cause under Articles 282 and 283 of the Labor Code, and therefore, they were entitled to reinstatement, full back wages (inclusive of allowances), service incentive leave, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
Maintained that the denial of their petition for certiorari and motion for reconsideration amounted to grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA.

Asserted that petitioners were project employees hired for a specific task and period, making the termination legitimate upon the project’s completion.
Claimed that the nature of the work and the specific employment contracts precluded any inference that petitioners were regular employees.
Reiterated that continuous service or re-hiring does not automatically confer regular status.
Requested that petition be dismissed as grave abuse of discretion is not a proper subject matter under Rule 45 and that the factual findings favoring project employment should stand.

Whether or not petitioners were regular (work pool) employees of the private respondents.
Whether or not petitioners were illegally dismissed.
Whether or not petitioners are entitled to all their monetary claims, including moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for certiorari and the motion for reconsideration.