10/8/2017 106600 : Syllabus

[Decision]

SYLLABUS
LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT PROJECT EMPLOYEES THE MERE FACT THAT A
PROJECT EMPLOYEE HAS WORKED ON THE SPECIAL PROJECT FOR MORE THAN ONE (1) YEAR DOES NOT
NECESSARY CHANGE HIS STATUSAS PROJECT EMPLOYEE. The mere fact that a project employee has worked on the
specificprojectformorethanone(1)year,doesnotnecessarychangehisstatusasprojectemployeeandconvertittoregularor
permanentemployment.ForitisobviousthatthesecondparagraphofArticle280oftheLaborCode,quotedabove,providingthat
anemployeewhohasservedforatleastone(1)year,shallbeconsideredaregularemployee,relatesonlytocasualemployees,
nottoprojectemployees.Consequently,privaterespondentsprotestationthathisperiodofemploymenthadexceededoneyear
andhencemustbeconvertedintoregularemploymentiscompletelybaselessbecausebeingaprojectemployee,hedoesnotfall
withintheambitofthepertinentprovisionabovestated.Clearly,therefore,privaterespondentbeingaprojectemployee,ortouse
thecorrectterm,seasonalemployee,consideringthathisemploymentwaslimitedtotheinstallationanddismantlingofpetitioners
annexplantmachinesafterwhichtherewasnomoreworktodo,hisemploymentlegallyendeduponcompletionoftheproject.
Thatbeingso,theterminationofhisemploymentcannotandshouldnotconstituteanillegaldismissal.Neithershoulditconstitute
retrenchmentasprivaterespondentwasaseasonalemployeewhoseserviceswerealreadyterminatedonMay21,1990priorto
theterminationoftheotherregularemployeesofCosmosbyreasonofretrenchment.
APPEARANCESOFCOUNSEL
M.V.Ampil,Jr.&Associatesforpetitioner.
TheSolicitorGeneralforpublicrespondent.
PublicAttorneysOfficeforprivaterespondent.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/syllabus/mar/106600_syl.htm 1/1