MARIO CARTAGENAS, JESUS N. MIRABALLES, VICTOR C. MONSOD AND VICENTE BARROA, PETITIONERS, VS. ROMAGO ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (FIFTH DIVISION), …

The issue in this case is whether the petitioners are project
employees of the private respondent Romago Electric
Company, Inc., as found by the National Labor Relations Commission, or regular
employees as found by the Labor Arbiter.

The facts are recited in the decision of the NLRC as follows:

“Respondent Romago is a general
contractor engaged in contracting and sub-contracting of specific building
construction projects or undertaking such as electrical, mechanical and civil
engineering aspects in the repair of buildings and from other kindred services.

“Individual complainants are employed by the respondent in
connection with particular construction projects and they are as follows:

1.  Jesus N. Miraballes

(Annexes 1 to 25, respondent’s Position Paper)

2.  Victor C. Monsod

(Annexes 30 to 41, ibid)

3.  Vicente Barroa

(Annexes 42 to 47, ibid)

4.  Mario Cartagenas

(Annexes 52 to 54, ibid)

“Effective July
12, 1986, individual complainants and Lawrence
Deguit were temporarily laid-off by virtue of a
memorandum issued by the respondent.  In
said memorandum they were also informed that a meeting regarding the resumption
of operation will be held on July
16, 1986 and that they will be
notified as to when they will resume work.

“On July 28, 1986, complainants filed the instant case for
illegal dismissal but before the respondent could receive a copy of the
complaint and the notification and summons issued by the NLRC National Capital
Region (actually received only on August 22, 1986, page 4, records) individual
complainants re-applied with the respondent and were assigned to work with its
project at Robinson – EDSA, specifically on the following dates, to wit:

1.      Mirabelles and Monsod –  August
2/86

2.      Barroa                            August 11/86

3.      Cartagenas                    August 4/86

(Annexes 26 to 29-B; ‘39-41’; 48 to 51­-B; ’55 to 58-A’, ibid)

“In hiring the herein complainants to be assigned to a
particular project they have to fill up an employment application form and are
subjected to a pre-hiring examination. 
If evaluated to be qualified they sign at the end portion of their
employment application form that:

“AGREEMENT

“‘I hereby agree to the foregoing conditions and accept my
employment for a fixed period and from the above mentioned Project/Assignment
only.’

 The conditions of
employment to which the complainant agreed are mentioned in the right upper
portion of the same page of said application form, an example of which reads:

‘Assigned
to FEBTC G.P. FORNOSO

Project

Position         Electrician

Effectivity      7-14-81

Salary           P18.50/day & allowance

Conditions    Hired for above project only

Approved:                   Signed          

Personnel
Manager

7/14/81

Date’

(Employment Application Form of
MIRABALLES JESUS NIEVA dated July 14, 1981, Annex 16; 16-A and 16-B, ibid)

“Therereafter the hired employee
is given by the respondent an assignment slip, an example of which reads:

“ASSIGNMENT
SLIP

DATE:  July
14, 1981

Engr. C.A.
Castro

Project
In-Charge

F
E F T C      ___

Name
of Project

The bearer, Mr. Jesus N. Miraballes will work under you as electrician effective 14 July 81.  His employment will terminate upon
completion/stoppage of the project or terminated earlier for cause.

Signed

GUDIOSO PLATA

Chief Engineer

CONFORME:

SGD. JESUS
MIRABALLES’

(Assignment slip of Jesus N.

Miraballes, Annex 17,
ibid.)

“xxx                          xxx                              xxx

“x x x
Respondent introduced documentary exhibits that the complainant have invariably
been issued appointment from project to projects and were issued notice of
temporary lay-off when the PNB Finance Center project was suspended due to lack
of funds and that when work was available particularly respondent’s project at
Robinson – EDSA they were rehired and assigned to this project.” pp.
16-19; 21-22, Rollo.)

The NLRC held that the complainants were project employees because
their appointments were “co-terminus with the phase or item of work
assigned to them in said project.” It held further:

“The fact that the complainants worked for the respondent
under different project employment contracts for so many years could not be
made a basis to consider them as regular employees for they remain project
employees regardless of the number of projects in which they have worked.  (p. 22, Rollo.)

Article 280 of the Labor Code provides:

“ART. 280.  Regular
and Casual Employment.  – The
provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless
of the oral agreements of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be
regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are
usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except
where the employment has been fixed for a specific project undertaking the
completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the
engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is
seasonal in the nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.

“An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not
covered by the preceding paragraph: 
Provided, That, any employee who has rendered at least one year of
service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a
regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his
employment shall continue while such actually exists (Emphasis supplied).”
(p. 46, Rollo.)

As an electrical contractor, the private respondent depends for
its business on the contracts it is able to obtain from real estate developers
and builders of buildings.  Since its
work depends on the availability of such contracts or “projects,”
necessarily the duration of the employment of its work force is not permanent
but co-terminus with the projects to which they are assigned and from whose
payrolls they are paid.  It would be
extremely
burdensome for their employer who, like them, depends on the availability of
projects, if it would have to carry them as permanent employees and pay them
wages even if there are no projects for them to work on.  We hold, therefore, that the NLRC did not
abuse its discretion in finding, based on substantial evidence in the records,
that the petitioners are only project workers of the private respondent.

This case is similar to Sandoval Shipyards, Inc. vs. NLRC, 136
SCRA 675 (1985), where we held:

“We feel that there is merit in the contention of the
applicant corporation.  To our mind, the
employment of the employees concerned were fixed for a specific project or
undertaking.  For the nature of the
business the corporation is engaged into is one which will not allow it to
employ workers for an indefinite period.

“It is significant to note that the corporation does not
construct vessels for sale or otherwise which will demand continuous
productions of ships and will need permanent or regular workers.  It merely accepts contracts for shipbuilding
or for repair of vessels from third parties and, only, on occasion when it has
work contract of this nature that it hires workers to do the job which,
needless to say, lasts only for less than a year or longer.

“The completion of their work or project automatically
terminates their employment, in which case, the employer is, under the law,
only obliged to render a report on the termination of the employment.” (p. 48, Rollo.)

Petitioners’ invocation of the resolution of this Court in Romago Electric Company, Inc. vs. Romago
Electric United Workers Union-Christian Labor Organization, (REWU-CLOP), et
al., G.R. No. 79774, February 1, 1988,
where this Court dismissed the petition, is not well taken.  As pointed out by the public respondent, the
issue in that case was whether the members of the union may properly
participate in the holding of a certification election.  Since the petitioners in their complaint for
illegal dismissal dated July 28, 1986
(Annex A of petition) averred that they do not belong to any union, the ruling
in Romago vs. REWU-CLOP may not apply to them.  In their Reply to the public respondents’
Comment in this case, they disclosed that they are members and officers of a new,
union which they organized on March
13, 1988 (pp. 62?63, Rollo).  That supervening fact, however, has no
relevance to this case.

We find no reason to depart from the well-settled rule that
findings of fact of labor officials are generally conclusive and binding upon
this Court when supported by substantial evidence, as in this case (Edi-Staff
Builders International, Inc. vs. Leogardo, Jr., 152
SCRA 453; Asiaworld Publishing House, Inc. vs. Ople, 152 SCRA 219; National Federation of Labor Union vs. Ople, 143 SCRA 124; Dangan vs.
NLRC, 127 SCRA 706; Special Events & Central Shipping Office Workers Union
vs. San Miguel Corp., 122 SCRA 557; Mamerto vs. Inciong, 118 SCRA 265; Phil. Labor Alliance Council vs.
Bureau of Labor Relations, 75 SCRA 162).

WHEREFORE, the
petition for certiorari is dismissed for lack of merit.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Gancayco, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.