G.R. No. 117983 - Uy vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Rizalino P. Uy, the petitioner, operated as a private contractor principally engaged in construction.
Private respondents were employed in various capacities—mason, laborer, carpenter—over several years.
Their employment spanned multiple businesses allegedly run by petitioner, including construction projects and other ventures such as gasoline stations and lumber yards.

On September 27, 1990, each private respondent filed separate complaints before the Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch No. VI, Iloilo City, alleging illegal dismissal.
They claimed entitlement to back wages, separation pay, overtime pay, 13th-month pay, service incentive leave, holiday pay, premium pay, and damages.
Specific allegations included:

Increases in wages before dismissal that were not reflected in subsequent rehiring practices—new workers were reportedly hired at lower wages.
Continuous employment without intervening lay-offs, implying a regular and ongoing employer-employee relationship.

Petitioner contended that the respondents were "project employees" hired on a “pakyaw” (daily wage) basis for specific construction projects.
He argued that once a project ended, the employment relationship ceased, allowing the workers to seek other opportunities.
Petitioner also asserted that his other evidence, such as the construction contracts with government agencies, supported his claim that his operations were modest and the engagements were project-specific.

The labor arbiter initially dismissed the complaints on the basis that the workers were project employees and their employment was tied to the completion of specific projects.
The Fourth Division of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, concluding that:

The respondents were regular employees given their continuous work over several years.
They were drawn from a “work pool” where they were not tied to a singular, identifiable project.

Payment of back wages computed from the date of illegal dismissal.
Award of separation pay calculated at one month’s salary for every year of service.
Payment of salary differentials for each respondent based on the wage differences purported between the prevailing minimum wage and the actual wages received.

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration as well as a Motion to Admit Additional Evidence (comprising construction contracts and related documents).
Both motions were denied by the NLRC on November 8, 1994.
The petitioner argued that:

The Commission abused its discretion by misconstruing the employment relationship, asserting that the respondents were project employees despite evidence of continuous employment.
The notion of a “work pool” was improperly applied since the respondents maintained a regular source of livelihood.
The computation of wage differentials was erroneous—awarded uniformly over three years and calculated on an incorrect basis.
The denial of his additional evidence further amounted to a denial of due process.

Article 280 of the Labor Code was cited to define “project employees” versus regular employees.
Petitioner’s failure to provide concrete employment contracts, termination reports, or records detailing project-specific engagements weakened his assertion that respondents were project employees.
Additional references included Policy Instructions No. 20 governing employment relations in the construction sector and pertinent jurisprudence (e.g., Mercado v. NLRC; AL U-TUCP v. NLRC).

Whether private respondents were project employees, whose employment was confined to a specific project or undertaking, or regular employees engaged continuously in petitioner’s business.
Whether the “work pool” concept properly described the employment relationship given the respondents’ continuous and ongoing work assignments.

Whether the dismissals of the private respondents were conducted with due process, including proper notice and a fair hearing.
Whether the dismissals were illegal, given that the respondents had maintained a regular and continuous employment relationship with the petitioner.

Whether the wage differentials awarded should be computed over the period starting three years prior to the filing of the complaints (i.e., from September 27, 1987 until dismissal) in accordance with Article 291 of the Labor Code.
Whether the computation should be based on the prevailing minimum wage rates and the correct multiplication factor—26 days per month as opposed to 30 days.

Whether petitioner’s additional evidence (typical construction contracts) should have been admitted and considered by the Commission.
Whether such evidence would substantiate the claim that the respondents were hired solely for specific projects, thereby affecting their classification as project employees.