G.R. No. 156978 - Aboitiz Shipping Corporation vs. New India Assurance Co., Ltd.

The private respondent, Porciuncula, was employed by the Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC) as an oiler.
His employment commenced on November 4, 1973.
Throughout his tenure, he was re-hired after the completion of each project, evidencing a pattern of continuous employment.

Porciuncula was terminated on April 20, 1986, on the ground that the project to which he was assigned had ended.
The petitioner (PNCC) claimed that his dismissal was due to the completion of the project, implying a fixed-term or project-based employment relationship.
Conversely, Porciuncula alleged that the dismissal was not for cause but was due to the intervention of a newly designated supervisor, Reynaldo Bonifacio, who purportedly wanted to replace him with his own appointee.

Porciuncula filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, asserting that he was a member of the work pool and, by extension, a regular employee.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Porciuncula, ordering his reinstatement along with back wages.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) subsequently affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision in its judgment dated September 30, 1988.
The case eventually reached the First Division of the Supreme Court under G.R. No. 85323 with the petition for certiorari challenging the NLRC’s decision.

The central contention was whether Porciuncula was a member of the work pool (regular employee) or a project employee.
Evidence indicating repeated re-hiring after the conclusion of projects and the absence of official reporting regarding project completions were highlighted.
Policy Instruction No. 20, which requires employers to report the termination of project employees to the nearest Public Employment Office, was not followed by PNCC, undermining their claim that Porciuncula was strictly a project employee.

Whether Porciuncula should be considered a member of the work pool, thereby qualifying him as a regular employee under Article 280 of the Labor Code.
Alternatively, whether he was a project employee whose employment was naturally co-terminous with the duration of the assigned project.

Whether the dismissal of Porciuncula on April 20, 1986, was legitimate based on the grounds of project completion.
Whether the dismissal allegedly motivated by the desire of a newly designated supervisor to replace him constituted illegal dismissal.

Whether PNCC complied with Policy Instruction No. 20 by reporting termination at the nearest Public Employment Office upon the completion of its projects.
The implications of such non-compliance on the employer-employee relationship and the regularity of the employment status.