3) Wilfredo Aro vs.

NLRC Held:
1) Yes, this Court agrees with the findings of the CA that petitioners were
G.R. No. 174792
project employees. It is not disputed that petitioners were hired for the construction
March 7, 2012
Topic: Kinds: Project Employees of the Cordova Reef Village Resort in Cordova, Cebu. By the nature of the contract
alone, it is clear that petitioner's' employment was to carry out a specific project.
Facts (No other details on the project in the case): Several employees of private

respondent Benthel Development Corporation (Benthel), including the petitioners,

“x x x [T]he principal test for determining whether particular employees are
filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal with various money claims and prayer for properly characterized as “project employees” as distinguished from
damages against the latter, in the NLRC of Cebu City. Thereafter, Labor Arbiter “regular employees” is whether or not the project employees were assigned
Carreon rendered a decision finding private respondent guilty of illegal dismissal to carry out a “specific project or undertaking,” the duration and scope of

and ordering it to pay its thirty-six (36) employees P446,940.00 as separation pay. which were specified at the time the employees were engaged for that
project.
Private respondent Benthel, unsatisfied with the modification made by the NLRC,
filed a motion for reconsideration with the contention that, since it has been found
Article 280 of the Labor Code distinguishes a “project employee” from a “regular
by the Labor Arbiter and affirmed in the assailed decision that the employees were
employee,” thus: Article 280. Regular and Casual Employment.—The provisions of
project employees, the computation of backwages should be limited to the date of
written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral
the completion of the project and not to the finality of the decision. The NLRC,
agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the
however, denied the motion ruling that private respondent failed to establish the date
employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or
of the completion of the project.
desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the
As recourse, private respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, alleging
employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or
that public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in promulgating its
termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the
assailed decision and denying its motion for reconsideration. The CA granted the
employee or where the work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the
petition, therefore, annulling and setting aside the decision and resolution of the
employment is for the duration of the season. An employment shall be deemed to be
NLRC as to the award for backwages and remanded the case to the same public
casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, That, any employee
respondent for the proper computation of the backwages due to each of the
who has rendered at least one year service, whether such service is continuous or
petitioners herein. Hence, this petition to the Supreme Court.
broken, shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which
he is employed and his employment shall continue while such activity exists

Issue:
NOT THE TOPIC BUT INCASE HE WILL ASK.
1) Whether or not petitioners are project employees.
Private respondents are only entitled to payment of the same until the date of the
completion of the project. It is settled that, without a valid cause, the employment of
project employees cannot be terminated prior to expiration. Otherwise, they shall be
entitled to reinstatement with full backwages. However, if the project or work is
completed during the pendency of the ensuing suit for illegal dismissal, the
employees shall be entitled only to full backwages from the date of the termination
of their employment until the actual completion of the work. In utter disregard of the
law and prevailing jurisprudence, the public respondents capriciously and arbitrarily
ordered that the said backwages be computed until the finality of its decision instead
of only until the date of the project completion.
Therefore, being project employees, petitioners are only entitled to full backwages,
computed from the date of the termination of their employment until the actual
completion of the work. Illegally dismissed workers are entitled to the payment of
their salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of their employment where the
employment is for a definite period.