3. CISELL A. KIAMCO vs.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL OIL COMPANY (PNOC) and PNOC-ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (PNOC-EDC)

Fac !: On 1 July 1992 private respondent PNOC through its Energy Research and Development Division PNOC!EDC hired petitioner Cisell "iamco as a pro#ect employee in its $eothermal %gro! &ndustrial Plant Pro#ect in 'alencia Negros Oriental( )he Contract of Employment stipulated among others that "iamco *as +eing hired +y the company as a technician ,or a period o, ,ive -./ months ,rom 1 July 1992 to 01 Novem+er 1992 or up to the completion o, the pro#ect *hichever *ould come ,irst at a monthly salary o, P0 .11(11( %,ter the termination o, the contract a second one *as entered into +y the parties containing +asically the same terms and conditions e2cept that the *or3!time *as reduced to t*enty!t*o days per month instead o, t*enty!si2 as stipulated in the ,irst contract( )he period o, employment *as ,rom 1 Decem+er 1992 to 01 %pril 1990( )herea,ter "iamco *as again re!hired( )his time the contract *as ,or si2 months spanning 1 4ay 1990 to 01 Novem+er 1990 *ith an increased salary o, P0 5.1(11 per month( 6o*ever on 21 Octo+er 1990 "iamco received a Memorandum ,rom the administration department demanding an e2planation ,rom him on certain in,ractions he allegedly committed such as misconduct %7O8 non!compliance o, admin procedures and unauthori9ed use o, company vehicles( "iamco tried to e2plain his side +ut private respondents ,ound his e2planation unsatis,actory( On 25 Octo+er 1990 "iamco received a memorandum placing him under preventive suspension ,rom 1 Novem+er 1990 to 01 Novem+er 1990 pending ,urther investigation( No investigation ho*ever *as ever conducted( Private respondents contended that an investigation *as not necessary since "iamco had ceased to +e an employee ipso facto upon the e2piration o, his employment contract on 01 Novem+er 1990( On 1 Decem+er 1990 "iamco reported +ac3 to *or3 +ut *as prevented +y security guards ,rom entering the company premises( On 2: 4ay 199; private respondent PNOC!EDC reported to the Department o, 8a+or and Employment that petitioner "iamco *as terminated on 1 Novem+er 1990 due to the e2piration o, his employment contract and the a+olition o, his position( )hus on 2. %pril 199; "iamco ,iled +e,ore the N8RC <u+!Regional %r+itration a Complaint ,or illegal suspension and dismissal against the PNOC( 6e prayed that he +e reinstated to his ,ormer position and paid +ac3 *ages( On 01 June 199. 8a+or %r+iter $eo,,rey P( 'illahermosa rendered a Decision dismissing the complaint ,or lac3 o, merit( %ccording to the 8a+or %r+iter the three employment contracts *ere ,reely and voluntarily signed +y "iamco and the PNOC representatives( )he contracts plainly stated that "iamco *as +eing hired ,or a speci,ic pro#ect and ,or a ,i2ed term( )here,ore "iamco could not =uestion his dismissal since it *as in accordance *ith his employment contract( "iamco appealed the decision o, the 8a+or %r+iter to pu+lic respondent National 8a+or Relations Commission -N8RC/ *hich reversed the 8a+or %r+iter and ruled that the complainant as a regular employee o, the respondents have +een illegally dismissed +y the latter( Private respondents ,iled a

4otion ,or Reconsideration o, the decision o, the N8RC *hich modi,ied its previous decision( 6ence this petition( I!!"#$ 7hether the herein petitioner is a pro#ect or a regular employee> *hether he is entitled to reinstatement and payment o, +ac3*ages( H#%d$ )he principal test ,or determining *hether particular employees are properly characteri9ed as ?pro#ect employees @ as distinguished ,rom ?regular employees @ is *hether or not the ?pro#ect employees@ *ere assigned to carry out a ?speci,ic pro#ect or underta3ing @ the duration -and scope/ o, *hich *ere speci,ied at the time the employees *ere engaged ,or that pro#ect( %s de,ined pro#ect employees are those *or3ers hired -1/ ,or a speci,ic pro#ect or underta3ing and -2/ the completion or termination o, such pro#ect or underta3ing has +een determined at the time o, engagement o, the employee( %ll the employment contracts *hich "iamco signed stipulated that he *as +eing employed +y private respondents in their $eothermal %gro!&ndustrial Demonstration Plant Pro#ect in 'alencia Negros Occidental( Aurthermore not only *as "iamco assigned to a speci,ic pro#ect +ut the duration and completion o, such pro#ect had also +een determined at the time o, his employment( Arom the ,oregoing discussion it is apparent that "iamco *as correctly la+eled +y the N8RC as a pro#ect employee( )he +asis ,or this conclusion is indeed *ell!,ounded( 6o*ever the argument o, private respondents that reinstatement and payment o, +ac3 *ages could not +e made since "iamco *as not a regular employee is apparently misplaced( %s =uoted a+ove the normal conse=uences o, an illegal dismissal are the reinstatement o, the aggrieved employee and the grant o, +ac3 *ages( T&#!# '()& ! *+ an #,-%*.## d* n* d#-#nd *n &# ! a "! *+ &(! #,-%*.,#n -'(*' * &(! d(!,(!!a% /" 'a &#' * &# %#)a%( . and 0a%(d( . *+ &(! #',(na (*n. T&# +ac &a an #,-%*.## (! n* a '#)"%a' #,-%*.## d*#! n* ,#an &a &# can /# d(!,(!!#d an. (,#, #0#n (%%#)a%%., /. &(! #,-%*.#'. Ind##d, !#c"'( . *+ #n"'# 1 &# '()& n* * /# '#,*0#d +'*, *n#2! 3*/ 4( &*" 0a%(d ca"!# and 0a%(d -'*c#d"'# 1 (! !* +"nda,#n a% ( #5 #nd! * '#)"%a' a! 4#%% a! n*n-'#)"%a' #,-%*.,#n . 6ence the Court ordered private respondents Philippine National Oil Company -PNOC/ and PNOC!Energy Development Corporation -PNOC!EDC/ to RE&N<)%)E petitioner Cisell immediately to his ,ormer position *ithout loss o, seniority rights and privileges *ith ,ull +ac3 *ages ,rom the date o, his dismissal until his actual reinstatement(