INTEGRATED CONTRACTOR AND PLUMBING WORKS, INC. vs.

NLRC and GLEN SOLON

G.R. No. 152427, August 5, 2005

Quisumbing, J.

Facts of the Case

 Petitioner is a plumbing contractor. Its business depends on the number and frequency of the projects it is able
to contract with its clients.
 Private respondent worked for petitioner and his employment record shows he has been employed on various
projects from 1994-1995.
 On February 23, 1988, he was informed by the warehouseman that he has been terminated from the company.
 He then went to petitioner’s office to verify his status, and indeed, he had been terminated.
 After a few days, he went back to petitioner’s office to sign a clearance should he claim his 13th month pay
and tax refunds, but after having second thoughts, he refused to sign the said clearance which indicated that he
resigned, and not terminated.
 He the filed a complaint alleging that he was illegally dismissal without just cause and without due process.

LA Ruling
 LA ruled that private respondent was a regular employee and could only be removed for cause.
 It also ordered the reinstatement of the petitioner to his former position with full back wages from the time his
salary was withheld until his actual reinstatement, pay him his other benefits.
 Petitioner then appealed to NLRC.
NLRC Ruling
 NLRC affirmed LA decision but with modification as to the payment of his 13th month pay (from 1997- and a
portion of 1998 only).
 Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied.
 Petitioner then appealed to the CA.
CA Ruling
 Petitioner alleged that the NLRC committed a grave abuse of discretion when it ruled in favor of the private
respondent.
 The petition was dismissed.
Factual Issues
 Petitioner asserts that the private respondent was a project employee, thus when the project was completed
and was not reassigned to another project, petitioner did not violate any law.
 According to the respondent court, the petitioner was indeed initially hired as a project employee.
 It also agreed with the NLRC that while there were several employment contracts between private respondent
and petitioner, in all of them, private respondent performed tasks which were usually necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade of petitioner.
 Private respondent's work assignments patently showed he belonged to a work pool tapped from
where workers are and assigned whenever their services were needed.
 The pattern of re-hiring and the recurring need for his services are sufficient evidence of the necessity
and indispensability of such services to petitioner's business or trade
Issue: WON the private respondent is a project employee of the petitioner or a regular
employee.
SC Ruling

 The test to determine whether employment is regular or not is the reasonable connection between the
particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer.
Also, if the employee has been performing the job for at least one year, even if the performance is not
continuous or merely intermittent, the law deems the repeated and continuing need for its performance
as sufficient evidence of the necessity, if not indispensability of that activity to the business. Thus, we
 held that where the employment of project employees is extended long after the supposed project has
been finished, the employees are removed from the scope of project employees and are considered
regular employees.

 While length of time may not be the controlling test for project employment, it is vital in determining if
the employee was hired for a specific undertaking or tasked to perform functions vital, necessary and
indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer. Here, private respondent had been a
project employee several times over. His employment ceased to be coterminous with specific projects
when he was repeatedly re-hired due to the demands of petitioner's business. Where from the
circumstances it is apparent that periods have been imposed to preclude the acquisition of tenurial
security by the employee, they should be struck down as contrary to public policy, morals, good
customs or public order.

 Further, Policy Instructions No. 20 requires employers to submit a report of an employee's termination
to the nearest public employment office every time his employment was terminated due to a
completion of a project. The failure of the employer to file termination reports is an indication that the
employee is not a project employee. Department Order No. 19 superseding Policy Instructions No. 20
also expressly provides that the report of termination is one of the indications of project
employment. In the case at bar, there was only one list of terminated workers submitted to the
Department of Labor and Employment. If private respondent was a project employee, petitioner should
have submitted a termination report for every completion of a project to which the former was
assigned.

PETITION AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION.