G.R. No. 20435 - Asiain vs. Jalandoni

Petitioners Macarthur Malicdem and Hermenigildo Flores filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, separation pay, money claims, and damages against respondents Marulas Industrial Corporation and Mike Mancilla.
The dispute centers on the interpretation of the employment status of the petitioners and whether the termination was merely the expiration of their fixed-term (project) contracts or an act of illegal dismissal.

Malicdem and Flores were hired in 2006 as extruder operators, with duties involving bagging filament yarn, ensuring the quality of packaged yarn, and maintaining workplace cleanliness.
Their employment was characterized by one-year fixed-term contracts, which were renewed annually by means of a Resignation/Quitclaim followed by a new one-year engagement.
The contracts included a probationary period of six (6) months during which compliance with company standards determined the transition to a “project employee” status for the remaining period.

On December 16, 2010, Flores was instructed not to report to work after signing a document acknowledging his contractual completion.
On February 1, 2011, Malicdem was similarly terminated after signing a similar document.
Both petitioners consequently brought a complaint alleging illegal dismissal among other claims.

The Labor Arbiter ruled on July 13, 2011, that the petitioners’ employment ceased naturally with the expiration of their contracts, dismissing the claim for illegal dismissal but awarding wage differentials.
The NLRC, in its December 19, 2011 decision, modified the Labor Arbiter’s award by adding claims for 13th month pay, service incentive leave, and holiday pay for three (3) years.
Both petitioners’ subsequent motion for reconsideration before the NLRC was denied.

On July 18, 2012, the CA denied the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed by the petitioners, upholding the decisions of the LA and NLRC on factual and legal grounds.
The CA affirmed that the repeated and successive rehiring did not amount to regularization as the petitioners were engaged on a fixed-term, project basis; this opinion was supported by precedents (e.g., William Uy Construction Corp. v. Trinidad).
A subsequent CA motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners was also denied on November 12, 2012.
The petitioners then elevated the case to the Supreme Court through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, arguing that their continuous rehiring logically should have led to their regularization.

Whether the petitioners should be considered regular employees instead of project employees, given their continuous rehiring by the same employer for the same position.
Whether the repeated practice of fixing short-term engagements and the subsequent resignations/quittings amounted to a deliberate circumvention of the petitioners’ security of tenure.
Whether the CA erred in upholding the NLRC decision that found no illegal dismissal by accepting the respondents’ argument that the petitioners’ contracts simply expired.
Whether the factual and legal bases provided by the respondents, particularly relying on industry-specific precedents, were sufficient to deny the petitioners’ claims for full backwages and benefits.