Case citation Legal Issue Legal Facts
ALU-TUCP vs. National Whether or not the This case is a Petition for Certiorari, which
Labor Relations petitioners were properly assailed the Resolution of the National Labor
Commission and National characterized as “project Relations Commission (NLRC) declaring the
Steel Corporation, 234 employees” rather than petitioners as project employees of private
SCRA 678 “regular employees” of respondent National Steel Corporation (NSC).
National Steel Petitioners were employed by NSC in connection
Corporation. with its Five Year Expansion Program (FAYEP I
& II) for varying lengths of time when they were
separated from NSC's service thus they filed
complaints for unfair labor practice,
regularization and monetary benefits with the
NLRC. After the hearing, the Labor Arbiter
declared the petitioners as “regular project
employees” who shall continue their employment
as such for as long as the project exists and who
shall be entitled to the salary of a regular
employee. Both parties appealed the decision,
which was later affirmed with modifications by
the NLRC declaring that the petitioners were
“project employees” and set aside the award to
the petitioners of the same benefits enjoyed by
regular employees for lack of legal and factual
basis. The petitioners then invoke Article 280 of
the Labor Code arguing that they are “regular”
employees because their jobs are necessary,
desirable and work-related to NSC's main
business and also because they have rendered
service for six years or more to NSC.
Ruling of the Court
Yes, the petitioners were properly characterized as
“project employees”. A project employee is assigned to
carry out a specific project or undertaking wherein the
duration and scope of such is determined at the time the
employee was engaged for that project. The project or
undertaking referred to above may or may not be
within the regular business of the corporation but it
must be identifiably separate and distinct from the
ordinary or regular business operations of the
employer. The particular component projects embraced
in the FAYEP I and II, wherein the petitioners were
assigned, were distinguishable from the regular or
ordinary business of NSC, there work was limited to
one or another of the specific component projects
which made up the FAYEP I and II. There was nothing
in the record to show that the petitioners were hired for,
or in fact assigned to, other purposes such as for
operating or maintaining the old, or previously installed
and commissioned, steel-making machinery and
equipment, or for selling the finished steel products.
Moreover, the petitioners' claim that should be
qualified as regular employees because they have
rendered more that six years of service to NSC lacks
legal basis. The proviso in the second paragraph of
Article 280 of the Labor Code which states that an
employee who has served for at least one year shall be
considered a regular employee relates to casual
employees and not to project employees.