Hanjin vs. Ibanez 1.

Respondents filed an illegal dismissal complaint with reinstatement before the NLRC, against their employer Hanjin a foreign company engaged in construction business. 2. Respondents claim a. that they are regular employees of Hanjin and are part of the work pool of Hanjin which draws the workers to be dispatched to its various construction projects (North Harbor project, Manila International Port, Batangas Port, Batangas Pier, La Mesa Dam) b. projects (MRT II and III) were still ongoing when they were dismissed, and continued to hire employees to fill their vacated positions 3. Hanjin argues a. Respondents are project employees for MRT/LRT Line 2 & 3 b. Executed contracts of employment which stipulates that respondents are project employees for a period of 3 months only but deemed automatically renewed if no termination notice is sent. Moreover, the contract is automatically terminated at the completion of the project c. Respondents were duly informed of the terms of the contract d. Before termination, respondents were informed by the project director of the intended lay-off arising from the completion of the LRT project e. Completion bonus was paid to respondents as evidenced by the April 2002 payroll records f. Respondents executed Quitclaims 4. LA decision respondents are regular employees since Hanjin failed to present proof that respondents are project employees a. The termination report should be presented after completion of every project. In the case, one termination report only was presented. 5. NLRC decision respondents are project employees and were legally terminated a. Respondents failed to prove that they were employed before 1997, the time when construction work on the MRT started 6. CA decision respondents are regular employees Issue: WON respondents are regular employees Yes 1. Art 280 Labor Code on the distinction between project employee and regular employee a. Regular employee i. Perform activities usually necessary and desirable in the usual business b. Project employee i. Employment fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination determined at the time of the engagement of the employee ii. Work is seasonal, work duration only for the season iii. Duration and scope has been determined and made known to the employees at the time of employment

iv. Crucial: employees were informed of their status as project employees at the time of hiring (the importance of employees knowing consent to being engaged as project employees) 2. On the absence of employment contract a. Duty of Hanjin to present contract to prove that respondents are project employees b. Absence of written contract does not automatically make the employee regular BUT such absence places serious doubt on whether the employees were informed at the onset of their employment status as project employees c. Absent any other proof that project employees were performed of their status, it will be presumed that they are regular employees d. Clause 3.3(a), DO 19, Series of 1993 i. Project employees whose aggregate period of continuous employment in a construction company is at least 1 year shall be considered regular employees, in the absence of a day certain agreed upon by the parties for the termination of their relationship. 3. On Hanjins argument that they filed a termination report and gave out completion bonus 2 out of 6 requirements required by Sec. 2.2 of DO 19, Series of 1993 to indicate project employment a. Requirements: i. Duration of the specific/identified undertaking ii. Duration is defined at the time of hiring iii. Service performed in connection with the project iv. Employee, while not engaged, is free to offer services to other employer v. Termination report to DOLE vi. Undertaking of employer to pay completion bonus b. Termination report submitted is not convincing i. There should have been a termination report for every project assumed. In the case at bar, only one report is submitted contrary Hanjins claim that the respondents were engaged to various projects c. Completion bonus claimed to have been paid by Hanjin cannot be considered a completion bonus as contemplated in the DO i. Completion bonus usually amounts to employees month salary for every 12 months of service. But Hanjin gave the respondents is amount equivalent to 15 days wages, without consideration of the number of years of service rendered. 4. Quitclaims presented are void a. Conditions where a quitclaim is ineffective i. Proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person ii. Terms of settlement are unconscionable on their face b. Case at bar the quitclaims signed by respondents do not appear to have been made for valuable consideration