Understanding Regular Employment Status in Philippine Labor Law: Security of Tenure and Employee Rights

G.R. NO. 165910, April 10, 2006

TLDR: This Supreme Court case clarifies the distinction between regular and project employees in the Philippines, emphasizing that continuous re-hiring for similar tasks can lead to regular employment status, regardless of initial contractual designations. Employers must provide substantial evidence to prove project-based employment and comply with DOLE reporting requirements to avoid regularization of employees.

INTRODUCTION

Imagine hundreds of construction workers suddenly facing unemployment after years of service, simply because their employer claims they were ‘project employees.’ This is a harsh reality for many Filipino laborers whose employment status is often misclassified. The case of Hanjin Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. v. Court of Appeals sheds light on this critical issue, reminding employers and employees alike of the legal distinctions between project-based and regular employment under Philippine law. At the heart of this case is the question: When does a ‘project employee’ become a ‘regular employee’ and what are the implications for job security and employee rights?

LEGAL CONTEXT: REGULAR VS. PROJECT EMPLOYMENT

Philippine labor law distinguishes between regular and project employees, a distinction that carries significant weight in terms of employee rights, particularly security of tenure and entitlement to separation pay. The Labor Code of the Philippines, specifically Article 295 [formerly Article 280], defines a regular employee as one who performs work that is “usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer,” excluding specific categories like project employees.

Project employees, on the other hand, are defined by jurisprudence and Department Order No. 19, Series of 1993, as those “hired for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee.” This distinction is crucial because project employees’ employment is coterminous with the project, and they are generally not entitled to separation pay upon project completion, unlike regular employees who enjoy greater job security.

Department Order No. 19 outlines indicators of project employment, including:

• The duration of the specific undertaking for which the workers are hired is reasonably determinable.
• Such duration was made known to the employee at the time of engagement.
• The “project” is distinct from the ordinary and usual business of the employer.
• The undertaking is generally done for a specific customer, client, or principal.
• Manual workers, skilled or unskilled, are primarily hired, and
• The termination of employment is reported to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional Office.

Crucially, DOLE Department Order No. 19-93 emphasizes the reporting requirement for project employee terminations to the DOLE regional office within 30 days of separation. Failure to comply with this reporting requirement is often construed against the employer, suggesting that the employees were not truly project-based.

Previous Supreme Court rulings have established that repeated hiring for similar tasks, even under project-based contracts, can lead to regularization. The intent behind project employment is not to circumvent the security of tenure afforded to regular employees by continuously re-hiring them for task that are essential to the employer’s business.

CASE BREAKDOWN: HANJIN ENGINEERING CASE

In this case, hundreds of construction workers filed complaints for illegal dismissal against Hanjin Engineering and Construction Co., Ltd., a South Korean company engaged in various construction projects in the Philippines. These workers, ranging from carpenters to engineers, claimed they were regular employees and were illegally dismissed. Hanjin countered that they were merely project employees hired for the Malinao Dam project in Bohol.

Here’s a breakdown of the case’s journey:

• Labor Arbiter (LA): Ruled in favor of the workers, declaring them regular employees and ordering Hanjin to pay separation pay and attorney’s fees. The LA emphasized that the workers performed tasks “usually necessary or desirable” for Hanjin’s business.
• National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC): Affirmed the LA’s decision with modifications, dismissing some complainants but largely upholding the finding of regular employment and awarding monetary benefits. The NLRC highlighted Hanjin’s failure to present employment contracts or DOLE termination reports as proof of project employment. The NLRC stated: “In this particular case, the records do not show that a similar report was ever made by respondent to the Department of Labor and Employment. Such failure of respondent employer to report to the nearest employment office of the Department of Labor, the termination of the workers it claimed as project employees at the time it completed the project, is proof that complainants were not project employees.”
• Court of Appeals (CA): Dismissed Hanjin’s petition for certiorari and upheld the NLRC decision, affirming the workers’ regular employee status. The CA pointed out the “repeated re-hiring and the continuing need for their services over a long span of time” which contradicted the claim of project-based employment. The CA also noted Hanjin’s belated submission of machine copies of employment contracts, deeming them insufficient evidence. The CA stated: “While it may be allowed that in the instant case the workers were initially hired for specific projects or undertakings for a period of six (6) months or less, the repeated re-hiring and the continuing need for their services over a long span of time (from 1991 to 1995) have undeniably made them regular employees.”
• Supreme Court (SC): Dismissed Hanjin’s petition for certiorari, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the CA. The SC emphasized the procedural impropriety of Hanjin’s Rule 65 petition and reiterated the factual findings of the lower tribunals. The Supreme Court underscored the importance of substantial evidence to prove project employment and the employer’s burden to demonstrate lawful dismissal.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: WHAT THIS MEANS FOR EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES

The Hanjin case serves as a stark reminder for employers in the construction and other project-based industries to meticulously document and properly classify their employees. Misclassifying regular employees as project employees to avoid labor obligations is not only legally precarious but also ethically questionable.

For employers, the key takeaways are:

• Clear Contracts: Ensure employment contracts for project employees clearly specify the project, its duration, and the scope of work. However, contracts alone are not determinative; the actual nature of work and employment relationship matters more.
• DOLE Reporting is Mandatory: Comply with DOLE Department Order No. 19-93 by reporting the termination of project employees within 30 days of project completion. This is crucial documentary evidence to support project-based employment claims.
• Avoid Continuous Re-hiring for Essential Tasks: Repeatedly re-hiring employees for tasks essential to the business, even under project contracts, can lead to regularization. If the work is continuous and necessary, consider regularizing employees to avoid legal disputes.
• Burden of Proof: Employers bear the burden of proving project employment status. Vague claims and insufficient documentation will likely be construed against them.

For employees, this case reinforces their rights as workers in the Philippines:

• Regularization Rights: Be aware that prolonged service and continuous re-hiring for essential tasks can lead to regular employment status, regardless of what your contract initially states.
• Seek Legal Advice: If you believe you have been misclassified as a project employee or illegally dismissed, seek legal advice promptly. Document your employment history, contracts, and any relevant communications.

KEY LESSONS FROM HANJIN ENGINEERING CASE

• Substance Over Form: The label “project employee” is not conclusive. The actual nature of work performed and the duration of employment are critical factors in determining employment status.
• Documentation is Key: Employers must maintain thorough documentation, including employment contracts and DOLE reports, to substantiate project-based employment claims.
• Security of Tenure: Regular employees in the Philippines enjoy significant security of tenure. Employers cannot circumvent this by perpetually classifying employees as project-based when their work is essentially regular.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

Q: What is the main difference between a regular employee and a project employee in the Philippines?

A: Regular employees perform work that is usually necessary or desirable for the employer’s business and have security of tenure. Project employees are hired for a specific project, and their employment ends upon project completion. However, continuous re-hiring for essential tasks can blur this line, leading to regular employment status.

Q: What happens when a project employee is repeatedly re-hired after each project?

A: Repeated re-hiring for similar tasks, especially if these tasks are essential to the employer’s business, can lead to the employee being considered a regular employee, regardless of project-based contracts.

Q: What is DOLE Department Order No. 19-93 and why is it important in project employment?

A: DOLE Department Order No. 19-93 provides guidelines for project employment. It is crucial because it outlines the indicators of legitimate project employment, including the requirement to report project employee terminations to DOLE. Compliance with this DOLE order is strong evidence of valid project-based employment.

Q: What evidence should an employer present to prove that employees are project-based?

A: Employers should present clear employment contracts specifying the project and its duration, evidence that the employees were hired specifically for that project, and proof of reporting the termination to DOLE upon project completion. Payroll records alone are insufficient.

Q: Can an employer avoid regularizing employees by simply labeling them as ‘project employees’ in the contract?

A: No. The label in the contract is not the sole determinant. Philippine labor law looks at the substance of the employment relationship. If the work performed is continuous and necessary for the employer’s business, and the employee is repeatedly re-hired, they can be deemed regular employees despite contractual designations.

Q: What are the consequences for employers who misclassify regular employees as project employees?

A: Employers may face illegal dismissal cases, be ordered to regularize employees, and be required to pay back wages, separation pay, and other benefits due to regular employees. They may also face penalties for labor law violations.

Q: As an employee, what should I do if I believe I am wrongly classified as a project employee?

A: Document your employment history, contracts, and job duties. Consult with a labor lawyer to assess your situation and explore your legal options, which may include filing a case for regularization and illegal dismissal if you are terminated.

Q: Is it illegal to hire project employees in the Philippines?

A: No, project employment is legal and recognized in the Philippines, especially in industries like construction. However, it must be implemented legitimately, adhering to the guidelines and requirements set by law and jurisprudence to avoid misclassification and illegal dismissal issues.

ASG Law specializes in Labor Law and Employment disputes. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.