G.R. No. 170351 - Leyte Geothermal Power Progressive Employees Union-ALU-TUCP vs. PNOC-EDC

Respondent Philippine National Oil Company - Energy Development Corporation (PNOC-EDC) is a government-owned and controlled corporation engaged in geothermal energy projects, including the Leyte Geothermal Power Project, which consists of the Tongonan 1 Geothermal Project (T1GP) and the Leyte Geothermal Production Field Project (LGPF).
Petitioner Leyte Geothermal Power Progressive Employees Union - ALU-TUCP (petitioner Union) is a legitimate labor organization registered with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional Office No. VIII, Tacloban City.
Respondent hired hundreds of employees on a contractual, project basis to work specifically on the Leyte Geothermal Power Projects. Their employment was limited to the duration or completion of specific phases or projects. Majority of these employees became members of the petitioner Union.

Petitioner Union demanded recognition as the collective bargaining agent and sought collective bargaining agreement (CBA) negotiation with respondent, which respondent refused.
As the project neared completion in 1998, respondent served notices of termination to petitioner Union members, leading the latter to file a Notice of Strike with DOLE on December 28, 1998, alleging unfair labor practices such as refusal to bargain, union busting, and mass termination.
On the same day, the petitioner declared and staged a strike. To avert stoppage, then Secretary of Labor Bienvenido E. Laguesma intervened with an Order dated January 4, 1999, certifying the labor dispute to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for compulsory arbitration. The striking workers were ordered to return to work within 12 hours, and both parties were directed to cease any exacerbating acts.
Despite efforts, the petitioner did not comply with the assumption order, causing the failure of negotiations. Consequently, on January 15, 1999, respondent filed a Complaint for Strike Illegality, declaration of loss of employment, and damages, along with a Petition for Cancellation of Petitioner's Certificate of Registration. The cases were consolidated and docketed as NLRC Certified Case No. V-02-99.

The NLRC 4th Division rendered a decision declaring petitioner Union officers and members as project employees, and that their termination upon project completion was valid and legal. The strike was declared illegal for non-compliance with mandatory legal requirements.
The NLRC nullified claims of unfair labor practice and dismissed other claims due to lack of merit or factual basis. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
Petitioner Union filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed the petition and affirmed the NLRC decision.
Petitioner Union then filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court raising several legal issues concerning the nature of employment, legality of the strike, and allegations of union busting.

Whether the officers and members of petitioner Union are project employees of respondent, as opposed to regular employees.
Whether the officers and members of petitioner Union engaged in an illegal strike.
Additional questions raised by petitioner include:

Whether project contracts designed to limit employees’ security of tenure are valid.
Whether continuous contracts without intervals negate project employment.
Whether the employer’s own estimate of unfinished work supports the claim that the project was not yet completed.
Whether dismissal under the guise of project completion is a form of union busting.
Whether protest activities without work stoppage should be considered a strike under Article 212(o) of the Labor Code.