Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ALU-TUCP v. NLRC

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 176419 2013-11-27	GMA NETWORK v. CARLOS P. PABRIGA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
On the other hand, the activities of project employees may or may not be usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, as we have discussed in ALU-TUCP v. National Labor Relations Commission,[9] and recently reiterated in Leyte Geothermal Power Progressive Employees Union-ALU-TUCP v. Philippine National Oil Company-Energy Development Corporation.[10] In said cases, we clarified the term "project" in the test for determining whether an employee is a regular or project employee: It is evidently important to become clear about the meaning and scope of the term "project" in the present context. The "project" for the carrying out of which "project employees" are hired would ordinarily have some relationship to the usual business of the employer. Exceptionally, the "project" undertaking might not have an ordinary or normal relationship to the usual business of the employer. In this latter case, the determination of the scope and parameters of the "project" becomes fairly easy. It is unusual (but still conceivable) for a company to undertake a project which has absolutely no relationship to the usual business of the company; thus, for instance, it would be an unusual steel-making company which would undertake the breeding and production of fish or the cultivation of vegetables. From the viewpoint, however, of the legal characterization problem here presented to the Court, there should be no difficulty in designating the employees who are retained or hired for the purpose of undertaking fish culture or the production of vegetables as "project employees," as distinguished from ordinary or "regular employees," so long as the duration and scope of the project were determined or specified at the time of engagement of the "project employees." For, as is evident from the provisions of Article 280 of the Labor Code, quoted earlier, the principal test for determining whether particular employees are properly characterized as "project employees" as distinguished from "regular employees," is whether or not the "project employees" were assigned to carry out a "specific project or undertaking," the duration (and scope) of which were specified at the time the employees were engaged for that project.
	GR No. 159371 2013-07-29	D. M. CONSUNJI CORPORATION v. ROGELIO P. BELLO BERSAMIN, J.
It is settled that the extension of the employment of a project employee long after the supposed project has been completed removes the employee from the scope of a project employee and makes him a regular employee.[17] In this regard, the length of time of the employee's service, while not a controlling determinant of project employment, is a strong factor in determining whether he was hired for a specific undertaking or in fact tasked to perform functions vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer.[18] On the other hand, how DMCI chose to categorize the employment status of Bello was not decisive of his employment status. What were of consequence in that respect were his actual functions and the length of his stay with DMCI. Verily, the principal test for determining whether an employee is a project employee, as distinguished from a regular employee, is whether or not he is assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking, the duration and scope of which are specified at the time he is engaged for the project.[19]
	GR No. 174792 2012-03-07	WILFREDO ARO v. NLRC PERALTA, J.
x x x [T]he principal test for determining whether particular employees are properly characterized as "project employees" as distinguished from "regular employees" is whether or not the project employees were assigned to carry out a "specific project or undertaking," the duration and scope of which were specified at the time the employees were engaged for that project.[11]
	GR No. 170351 2011-03-30	LEYTE GEOTHERMAL POWER WORKERS UNION v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL OIL COMPANY - ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION NACHURA, J.
The landmark case of ALU-TUCP v. NLRC[17] instructs on the two (2) categories of project employees: It is evidently important to become clear about the meaning and scope of the term "project" in the present context. The "project" for the carrying out of which "project employees" are hired would ordinarily have some relationship to the usual business of the employer. Exceptionally, the "project" undertaking might not have an ordinary or normal relationship to the usual business of the employer. In this latter case, the determination of the scope and parameters of the "project" becomes fairly easy. x x x. From the viewpoint, however, of the legal characterization problem here presented to the Court, there should be no difficulty in designating the employees who are retained or hired for the purpose of undertaking fish culture or the production of vegetables as "project employees," as distinguished from ordinary or "regular employees," so long as the duration and scope of the project were determined or specified at the time of engagement of the "project employees." For, as is evident from the provisions of Article 280 of the Labor Code, quoted earlier, the principal test for determining whether particular employees are properly characterized as "project employees" as distinguished from "regular employees," is whether or not the "project employees" were assigned to carry out a "specific project or undertaking," the duration (and scope) of which were specified at the time the employees were engaged for that project.
	GR No. 183250 2010-03-10	WILLIAM UY CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. JORGE R. TRINIDAD ABAD, J.
But the test for distinguishing a "project employee" from a "regular employee" is whether or not he has been assigned to carry out a "specific project or undertaking," with the duration and scope of his engagement specified at the time his service is contracted.[5] Here, it is not disputed that petitioner company contracted respondent Trinidad's service by specific projects with the duration of his work clearly set out in his employment contracts.[6] He remained a project employee regardless of the number of years and the various projects he worked for the company.[7]
	GR No. 170181 2008-06-26	HANJIN HEAVY INDUSTRIES v. FELICITO IBAÑEZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
[24] ALU-TUCP v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 109902, 2 August 1994, 234 SCRA 678, 685.
	GR NO. 164156 2006-09-26	ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION v. MARLYN NAZARENO CALLEJO, SR., J.
The principal test is whether or not the project employees were assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking, the duration and scope of which were specified at the time the employees were engaged for that project.[39]