G.R. No. 183250 - William Uy Construction Corp. vs. Trinidad

Respondent Jorge R. Trinidad had been engaged by petitioner William Uy Construction Corp. for 16 years (since 1988).
He was employed as a driver handling the company’s service vehicles, dump truck, and transit mixer.
Throughout his employment, Trinidad signed several contracts identifying him as a project employee.

Trinidad’s work was arranged on a project basis with each engagement tied to the completion of a specific construction project.
The employment contracts, titled “Appointment as Project Worker,” clearly delineated the duration and scope of work as co-terminous with each project.
Gaps or intervals between projects were inherent in the construction business, due to the nature of project work and funding factors outside the company’s control.

In December 2004, the petitioner terminated Trinidad’s engagement following the completion of the Boni Serrano-Katipunan Interchange Project.
Trinidad contended that despite the project's conclusion, his long and continuous service across multiple projects should have automatically conferred him regular employee status.
He subsequently filed a complaint on August 1, 2006, for illegal dismissal and unpaid benefits, arguing that he should have been rehired given his extensive service history.

The petitioner asserted that as a construction company, its hiring practice was inherently project-based with employment contracts terminating upon the completion of a project.
The employer maintained that the intervals between projects were normal and did not establish continuous or regular employment.
The company submitted an establishment termination report to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) in compliance with DOLE Order 19, which governs termination reports at the end of each project.

The Labor Arbiter, on December 23, 2006, dismissed Trinidad’s claim for unjust dismissal, ruling that his work ended with the project’s completion and ordering payment only for 1,500 pesos in service incentive leave.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed this decision on August 31, 2007.
The Court of Appeals (CA) later reversed the NLRC’s ruling on April 24, 2008, holding that repeated rehiring implied regular employment status.
The petitioner company’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied.

Whether petitioner company’s practice of repeatedly rehiring Trinidad as a project employee over several years and across multiple projects should automatically convert his employment status into that of a regular employee.

Whether the occurrence of gaps or intervals between projects can be disregarded when determining the continuity and nature of employment.
Whether termination by the natural completion of a project, as evidenced by compliance with DOLE reporting requirements, constitutes an illegal dismissal.