G.R. No. 114671 - Salinas, Jr. vs. National Labor Relations Commission

The petitioners, namely Aurelio Salinas, Jr., Armando Samulde, Alejandro Alonzo, and Avelino Cortez, were employed by Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Company of Manila, Inc. (AG & P) in various capacities, performing essentially the same work under different job titles over several years.
Specifically, petitioner Alejandro Alonzo worked with AG & P from 1982 to 1989 in roles ranging from laborer to crane driver, while Avelino Cortez was employed from 1979 to 1988 as a carpenter/forklift operator; Armando Samulde served as a lubeman/stationary operator from 1982 to 1989; and Aurelio Salinas, Jr. rendered services as a carpenter/finishing carpenter from 1983 to 1988.

On separate dates in 1989 (May 29, June 6, July 4, and July 5), the petitioners filed complaints for illegal dismissal against AG & P.
The complaints were consolidated and jointly heard by Labor Arbiter Manuel P. Asuncion, who initially determined that the petitioners were project employees as indicated by their employment contracts and noted that each contract was for a specific project or phase thereof.

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s findings, dismissing the petitioners’ complaints for lack of merit.
The NLRC’s decision was based on the evidence showing that the petitioners were hired on a project basis and that their separations coincided with the completion of the projects, as mandated by Policy Instruction No. 20.

The petitioners contended that despite the employment contracts stating project employment, the nature of their work was continuous and involved similar tasks over long periods (ranging from five to nine years).
They argued that such continuity and the fact that their work was necessary and desirable to AG & P’s main line of business effectively made them regular employees.
They further emphasized that the failure of AG & P to file the termination reports to the public employment office, as required under Policy Instruction No. 20 and later Department Order No. 19, supported their claim of regularization.

AG & P maintained that the petitioners were indeed project employees, asserting that the NLRC’s findings were supported by substantial evidence.
The respondent argued that the petition should have been initiated under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court instead of Rule 45 and contended that there was non-exhaustion of administrative remedies since the petitioners did not file a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC decision.
AG & P also pointed to gaps between doctrinal cases and clarified distinctions with precedents such as the Magante and Baguio Country Club cases, while citing the De Leon case to bolster the validity of project employment, particularly in the construction industry.

Whether the petitioners, despite the existence of successive and renewed project contracts, should be reclassified as regular employees rather than project employees.
Whether the repetitive nature of the work performed, which was necessary and desirable in the usual business of AG & P, establishes a regular employment relationship.

Whether the petition for review, allegedly filed under Rule 45, should instead be treated as a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.
Whether the failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC decision constitutes a fatal defect, or if such procedural lapse may be disregarded given that the issue is purely one of law.

Whether the failure of AG & P to submit the required termination reports to the Public Employment Office under Policy Instruction No. 20 (and its amendment by Department Order No. 19) effectively negates its claim that the petitioners were project employees.