PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION (PNCC), PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION) AND EMELITO P. PORCIUNCULA, RESPONDENTS.

Assailed in this petition for certiorari is the decision
dated September 30, 1988 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC),
affirming the decision dated August 21, 1987, of the Labor Arbiter ordering the
reinstatement with back wages of the private respondent on the ground that he
was not a project employee but a
member of the work pool and that
be was illegally dismissed on April
20, 1986.

The private respondent was employed by PNCC as an oiler from November
4, 1973 until
he was terminated on April 20, 1986,
on the ground of completion of
the project to which he was assigned.

The private respondent,
in his complaint for illegal dismissal, alleged that he was discharged not for
cause, but because the newly designated supervisor, Reynaldo Bonifacio, wanted to put in his own man.

The point in issue is
whether or not the private respondent was a member of the work pool, therefore,
considered a regular employee (Art. 280, Labor Code), or a project employee,
whose employment was co-terminus with the projects to which he was assigned.

After a careful
consideration of the petition and the comment filed by the Solicitor General
for the respondents, We hold that the NLRC did not
abuse its discretion in affirming the Labor Arbiter’s conclusion that the
private respondent was a member of the work pool and that he was illegally
dismissed from his job.

“Members of a work pool from which a construction
company draws its project employees, if considered employee of the construction
company while in the work pool, are non-project employees or employees for
an indefinite period.  If they are
employed in a particular project, the completion of the project or any phase
thereof will not mean severance of employer-employee relationship.”
(Policy Instruction No. 20, underscoring supplied.)

“x x x.  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 which he is employed and his
employment shall continue while such actually exists.” (Art. 280, Labor
Code.)

A project employee is one whose “employment has been fixed
for a specific project or 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 nature and the employment is
for the duration of the season.” (Sec. 280, Labor Code;
Sandoval Shipping, Inc. vs. NLRC, 136 SCRA 674.)

In finding that Porciuncula was a
regular employee, the Labor Arbiter noted that it was the petitioner’s practice
to re-hire him after the completion of every project and this re-hiring
continued throughout Porciuncula’s 13 years of
employment in the company.

The Labor Arbiter also observed that the petitioner never reported
the completion of its projects and the termination of the employees (like Porciuncula) in its finished projects, to the nearest
Public Employment Office as required by Policy Instruction No. 20 of the
Secretary of Labor.  In the case of Ochoco vs. NLRC, 120 SCRA 774, the
failure of the employer to report to the nearest employment office the
termination of the workers everytime it completed a project was considered by this Court as
proof that they were not project employees.

We, therefore,
find no grave abuse of
discretion in the Labor Arbiter’s holding so, nor in the NLRC’s
affirmance of the decision.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is dismissed
for lack of merit.  Costs
against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

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