Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 201673 (UNITEC Resources, Inc. and Armando T. Po v. Ruel F. Visaya).

RESOLUTION 

After a judicious perusal of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in its assailed Decision finding that respondent Ruel F. Visaya was not a project employee, but a regular employee of petitioner UNITEC Resources, Inc. (UNITEC). While length of time may not be the controlling test for project employment, it is crucial in determining if the employee is hired for a specific undertaking to perform functions vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business of the company.^[1] In this case, records show that from the time respondent signed his first project employment contract with UNITEC on January 5, 2004, he had been continuously re-assigned to various projects without UNITEC requiring him to sign new contracts. The Court has consistently ruled that where the employment of project employees is extended long after the supposed project had been finished, the employees are removed from the scope of project employees and they shall be considered regular employees.^[2]

Consequently, in the absence of any just or authorized cause for respondent's dismissal, the termination of his employment is rendered illegal. UNITEC, therefore, is liable to pay his backwages and other benefits to which a regular employee is entitled under the law.^[3] (Abad, J., on official leave, Reyes, J., Acting Member per Special Order No. 1244 dated June 26, 2012.)cralaw

SO ORDERED. 

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] PLDT v. Ilagan, G.R. No. 155645, November 24, 2006, 508 SCRA 31, 37.

^[2] Equipment Technical Services v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 157680, October 8, 2008, 568 SCRA 122, 132. 

^[3] Article 286 of the Labor Code.