G.R. No. 106090 February 28, 1994
RICARDO FERNANDEZ, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and D. M. CONSUNJI, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ricardo Fernandez was hired as a laborer by D.M. Consunji, Inc., a construction firm, on November 5, 1974. He later became a skilled welder and worked until March 23, 1986, when his employment was terminated on the ground that the project he was assigned to was completed. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, which was consolidated with three other similar complaints. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the complainants, declaring the terminations illegal, ordering reinstatement with one year backwages for those not yet of retirement age, and awarding retirement/separation benefits to those who were. The Labor Arbiter found they worked continuously for 5 to 20 years and belonged to a work pool. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, dismissing the complaints. The NLRC found the complainants were project employees, noting the intermittent nature of their work as shown by gaps in employment and different project contracts. The NLRC also noted the complainants’ motion for reconsideration was filed beyond the reglementary period. Petitioner alone assailed the NLRC decision via a petition for certiorari filed on July 21, 1992.

ISSUE

Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission acted with grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Labor Arbiter’s decision by dismissing the complaints for illegal dismissal on the finding that the complainants, including petitioner, were project employees.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. First, the petition was not filed within a reasonable time from receipt of the NLRC decision on November 13, 1989, or from receipt of the denial of the motion for reconsideration on August 2, 1991, rendering the questioned decision final. On the merits, the Court upheld the NLRC’s finding that petitioner was a project employee. Private respondent presented documents showing petitioner was hired for specific projects with dates of hiring, duration, and lay-offs, including termination reports submitted to the Ministry of Labor and Employment. The documentary evidence showed gaps between hirings for numerous projects, proving intermittent, not continuous, work. As a project employee in the construction industry, petitioner is governed by Policy Instruction No. 20, which states project employees are not entitled to termination pay upon project completion. The proviso in the second paragraph of Article 280 of the Labor Code, which deems casual employees with at least one year of service as regular, is not applicable to project employees, who are specifically exempted. Petitioner’s reliance on Policy Instruction No. 20 regarding work pool members was unavailing, as he failed to prove he was under an obligation to be always available on call and not free to offer services to others during times without a project. Notably, private respondent duly submitted lay-off and termination reports to the Ministry of Labor after each project completion, which distinguishes this case from others where the failure to report such termination led to a finding of regular employment. This faithful reporting proves the project employment nature.