10/14/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME.

591

Because petitioners in this case did not make such

deposit, the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over the
complaints.
Consequently, inasmuch as the tax sale was never
validly challenged, it remains legally binding.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.

Puno (C.J., Chairperson), Carpio, Leonardo-De Castro

and Bersamin, JJ., concur.

Petition denied.

Note.—The protest contemplated under Sec. 252 of R.A.

7160 is needed where there is a question as to the
reasonableness of the amount assessed, not where the
question raised is on the very authority and power of the
assessor to impose the assessment and of the treasurer to
collect the tax. (Ty vs. Trampe, 250 SCRA 500 [1995])
——o0o——

G.R. No. 164315. July 3, 2009.*

ALCATEL PHILIPPINES, INC., and YOLANDA DELOS

REYES, petitioners, vs. RENE R. RELOS, respondent.

Labor Law; Project Employees; Words and Phrases; “Project”

may refer to a particular job or undertaking that is within the
regular or usual business of the employer, but which is distinct
and separate and identifiable as such from the undertakings of the
company. Such job or undertaking begins and ends at determined
or determinable times.—The principal test for determining
whether a particular

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

531

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000166731dee25c660171d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/11
10/14/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME. 591

VOL. 591, JULY 3, 2009 531

Alcatel Philippines, Inc. vs. Relos

employee is a project employee or a regular employee is whether

the project employee was assigned to carry out a specific project or
undertaking, the duration and scope of which were specified at
the time the employee is engaged for the project. “Project” may
refer to a particular job or undertaking that is within the regular
or usual business of the employer, but which is distinct and
separate and identifiable as such from the undertakings of the
company. Such job or undertaking begins and ends at determined
or determinable times.
Same; Same; Even if a project employee performed tasks that
were clearly vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual
business or trade of an employer, he does not become a regular
employee if he was not continuously rehired after the cessation of
every project.—We do not agree with respondent that he became a
regular employee because he was continuously rehired by Alcatel
every termination of his contract. In Maraguinot, Jr. v. NLRC,
284 SCRA 539 (1998), we said: A project employee or a member of
a work pool may acquire the status of a regular employee when
the following concur: 1) There is a continuous rehiring of project
employees even after the cessation of a project; and 2) The tasks
performed by the alleged “project employee” are vital, necessary
and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer.
While respondent performed tasks that were clearly vital,
necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of
Alcatel, respondent was not continuously rehired by Alcatel after
the cessation of every project. Records show that respondent was
hired by Alcatel from 1988 to 1995 for three projects, namely the
PLDT X-5 project, the PLDT X-4 IOT project and the PLDT 1342
project. On 30 April 1988, upon the expiration of respondent’s
contract for the PLDT X-4 IOT project, Alcatel did not rehire
respondent until 1 February 1991, or after a lapse of 33
months, for the PLDT 1342 project. Alcatel’s continuous rehiring
of respondent in various capacities from February 1991 to
December 1995 was done entirely within the framework of one
and the same project―the PLDT 1342 project. This did not make
respondent a regular employee of Alcatel as respondent was not
continuously rehired after the cessation of a project. Respondent
remained a project employee of Alcatel working on the PLDT 1342
project.
Same; Same; The employment of a project employee ends on
the date specified in the employment contract.—The employment
of a project employee ends on the date specified in the
employment con-

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000166731dee25c660171d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/11
10/14/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME. 591

532

532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Alcatel Philippines, Inc. vs. Relos

tract. Therefore, respondent was not illegally dismissed but his

employment terminated upon the expiration of his employment
contract. Here, Alcatel employed respondent as a Site Inspector
until 31 December 1995.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
   The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
  Castillo, Laman, Tan, Pantaleon & San Jose for
petitioners.
  Tagle-Chua, Cruz & Aquino for respondent.

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

Before the Court is a petition for review1 of the 31

March 2004 Decision2 and 14 June 2004 Resolution3 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 75965. In its 31 March
2004 Decision, the Court of Appeals set aside the 20
February 2002 Decision4 of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) and reinstated the 24 September 1998
Decision5 of the Labor Arbiter which declared respondent
Rene R. Relos (respondent) a regular employee of petitioner
Alcatel Philippines, Inc. (Alcatel). In its 14 June 2004
Resolution, the Court

_______________

1 Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

2 Rollo, pp. 26-35. Penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico, with
Associate Justices Mariano C. Del Castillo and Vicente Q. Roxas,
concurring.
3 Id., at p. 37.
4 Id., at pp. 95-114. Penned by Commissioner Vicente S.E. Veloso (now
Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals), with Presiding Commissioner
Roy V. Señeres and Commissioner Alberto R. Quimpo, concurring.
5 Id., at pp. 72-77. Penned by Labor Arbiter Romulus S. Protacio.

533

VOL. 591, JULY 3, 2009 533

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000166731dee25c660171d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/11
10/14/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME. 591

Alcatel Philippines, Inc. vs. Relos

of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration of Alcatel

and petitioner Yolanda Delos Reyes (petitioner Delos
Reyes).

The Facts

Alcatel is a domestic corporation primarily engaged in

the business of installation and supply of
telecommunications equipment. Petitioner Delos Reyes was
a former Administrative Officer of Alcatel.
On 4 January 1988, Alcatel offered respondent
“temporary employment as Estimator/Draftsman—Civil
Works to assist in the preparation of manholes and conduit
design for the proposal preparation for PLDT X-5 project
for the period 4 January 1988 to 28 February 1988.”6 On 1
March 1988, Alcatel again offered respondent “temporary
employment as Estimator/Draftsman to assist in the
PLDT’s X-4 IOT project for the period 1 March 1988 to 30
April 1988.”7
Subsequently, Alcatel undertook the PLDT 1342 project
(project) which involved the installation of microwave
antennas and towers in Eastern Visayas and Eastern
Mindanao for the Philippine Long Distance Company. On 1
February 1991, Alcatel offered respondent “temporary
employment as Civil Works Inspector, to assist in the
implementation of the PLDT 1342 Project, for the period 1
February 1991 to 31 March 1991.”8 Upon the expiration of
his contract, respondent was again offered temporary
employment this time as Civil Works Engineer from 1 April
1991 to 30 September 1991.9 Respondent was offered
temporary employment in the same capacity five more
times from 1 October 1991 to 31 July 1992.10 Then, on 1
August 1992, Alcatel hired respondent as “project employee
for the PLDT 1342 project to work as Civil Engineer

_______________

6 Id., at pp. 246-247 (Annex “1”).

7 Id., at pp. 248-249 (Annex “2”).
8 Id., at p. 38 (Annex “C”).
9 Id., at pp. 39-40 (Annex “C-1”).
10 Id., at pp. 41-50 (Annexes “C-2” to “C-6”).

534

534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000166731dee25c660171d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/11
10/14/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME. 591

Alcatel Philippines, Inc. vs. Relos

from the period of 1 August 1992 to 31 July 1993.”11 Alcatel

renewed respondent’s contract twice from 1 August 1993 to
31 December 1993.12 In a letter dated 22 December 1993,13
Alcatel informed respondent that the civil works portion of
the project was near completion; however, the remaining
works encountered certain delays and had not been
completed as scheduled. Alcatel then extended respondent’s
employment for another three months or until 31 March
1994. Thereafter, Alcatel employed respondent as a Site
Inspector until 31 December 1995.14
On 11 December 1995, Alcatel informed respondent that
the project would be completed on 31 December 1995 and
that his contract with Alcatel would expire on the same
day.15 Alcatel asked respondent to settle all his
accountabilities with the company and advised him that he
would be called if it has future projects that require his
expertise.
In March 1997, respondent filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal, separation pay, unpaid wages, unpaid overtime
pay, damages, and attorney’s fees against Alcatel.
Respondent alleged that he was a regular employee of
Alcatel and that he was dismissed during the existence of
the project.
In its 24 September 1998 Decision, the Labor Arbiter
declared that respondent was a regular employee of
Alcatel. The Labor Arbiter also ruled that respondent was
illegally dismissed and, therefore, entitled to back wages.
The Labor Arbiter’s Decision provides:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby

rendered, finding that [sic] complainant to be a regular employee
and finding further that [sic] complainant to have been illegally

_______________

11 Id., at pp. 51-52 (Annex “C-7”).

12 Id., at pp. 53-56 (Annexes “C-8” and “C-9”).
13 Id., at pp. 57-58 (Annex “C-10”).
14 Id., at pp. 59-62 (Annexes “C-11” to “C-14”).
15 Id., at p. 63 (Annex “D”).

535

VOL. 591, JULY 3, 2009 535

Alcatel Philippines, Inc. vs. Relos

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000166731dee25c660171d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/11
10/14/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME. 591

dismissed from employment and ordering respondents, jointly and

severally, to pay complainant the following:

1. Backwages from the time he was illegally dismissed until his

actual reinstatement in the amount of THREE HUNDRED
FORTY EIGHT THOUSAND PESOS (P348,000.00). The award
of backwages shall be re-computed once this decision has become
final;
2. Money claims in the total amount of FOURTEEN THOUSAND
TWO HUNDRED FORTY PESOS (P14,240.00);
3. Attorney’s fees of ten (10%) percent of the total monetary award.
SO ORDERED.”16

Alcatel appealed to the NLRC.

In its 20 February 2002 Decision, the NLRC reversed
the Labor Arbiter’s Decision and dismissed respondent’s
complaint for illegal dismissal. The NLRC declared that
respondent was a project employee and that respondent
was not illegally dismissed but that his employment
contract expired.
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration. In its 19
December 2002 Order,17 the NLRC denied respondent’s
motion.
Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals.
In its 31 March 2004 Decision, the Court of Appeals set
aside the NLRC’s Decision and reinstated the Labor
Arbiter’s Decision.
Alcatel filed a motion for reconsideration. In its 14 June
2004 Resolution, the Court of Appeals denied Alcatel’s
motion.
Hence, this petition.

_______________

16 Id., at pp. 76-77.

17 Id., at pp. 141-143.

536

536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Alcatel Philippines, Inc. vs. Relos

The Ruling of the Labor Arbiter

The Labor Arbiter declared that, since respondent was
repeatedly hired by Alcatel, respondent performed
functions that were necessary and desirable in the usual
business or trade of Alcatel. The Labor Arbiter concluded

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000166731dee25c660171d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/11
10/14/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME. 591

that respondent belonged to the “work pool of non-project

employees” of Alcatel.
As to the project, the Labor Arbiter noted that
respondent’s employment contracts did not specify the
project’s completion date. The Labor Arbiter said that a
short extension of respondent’s employment contract was
believable, but an extension up to 1995, when respondent
was originally engaged only from 1 February to 31 March
1991, was unbelievable. The Labor Arbiter also said that
Alcatel’s unsubstantiated claim, that the project was
merely extended for “unavoidable causes,” was absurd. The
Labor Arbiter concluded that there was really no fixed
duration of the project and that Alcatel used the periods of
employment as a facade to show that respondent was only
a project employee.

The Ruling of the NLRC

The NLRC set aside the Labor Arbiter’s ruling and

declared that respondent was a project employee. The
NLRC said respondent was assigned to carry out a specific
project or undertaking and the duration of his services was
always stated in his employment contracts. The NLRC also
pointed out that, by the nature of Alcatel’s business,
respondent would remain a project employee regardless of
the number of projects for which he had been employed.
Since respondent was a project employee, the NLRC said
he was not illegally dismissed, but that his dismissal was
brought about by the expiration of his employment
contract.
537

VOL. 591, JULY 3, 2009 537

Alcatel Philippines, Inc. vs. Relos

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals set aside the NLRC’s decision and
reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s ruling. The Court of Appeals
declared that respondent was a regular employee of Alcatel
because (1) respondent was assigned to positions and
performed tasks that were necessary to the main line and
business operations of Alcatel; (2) respondent was
repeatedly hired and contracted, continuously and for
prolonged periods, with his employment contracts renewed
each time they fell due; and (3) Alcatel did not report the
termination of the projects with the nearest public
employment office. The Court of Appeals also said that,
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000166731dee25c660171d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/11
10/14/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME. 591

although respondent’s employment contracts specified that

he was being engaged for a specific period, there was no
clear provision on the actual scope of the project for which
respondent was engaged or the actual length of time that
the project was going to last. The Court of Appeals
concluded that Alcatel imposed the periods of employment
to preclude respondent from acquiring tenurial security.

The Issues

Alcatel raises the following issues:

1. Whether respondent was a regular employee or
a project employee; and
2. Whether respondent was illegally dismissed.

The Ruling of the Court

The petition is meritorious.

Alcatel argues that respondent was a project employee
because he worked on distinct projects with the terms of
engagement and the specific project made known to him at
the time of the engagement. Alcatel clarifies that
respondent’s employment was coterminous with the project
for which he was hired and, therefore, respondent was not
illegally dismissed but was validly dismissed upon the
expiration of the

538

538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Alcatel Philippines, Inc. vs. Relos

term of his project employment. Alcatel explains that its

business relies mainly on the projects it enters into and
thus, it is constrained to hire project employees to meet the
demands of specific projects.
On the other hand, respondent insists that he is a
regular employee because he was assigned by Alcatel on its
various projects since 4 January 1988 performing functions
desirable or necessary to Alcatel’s business. Respondent
adds that his employment contracts were renewed
successively by Alcatel for seven years. Respondent
contends that, even assuming that he was a project
employee, he became a regular employee because he was
re-hired every termination of his employment contract and
he performed functions necessary to Alcatel’s business.
Respondent also claims that he was illegally dismissed
because he was dismissed during the existence of the
project.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000166731dee25c660171d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/11
10/14/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME. 591

The principal test for determining whether a particular

employee is a project employee or a regular employee is
whether the project employee was assigned to carry out a
specific project or undertaking, the duration and scope of
which were specified at the time the employee is engaged
for the project.18 “Project” may refer to a particular job or
undertaking that is within the regular or usual business of
the employer, but which is distinct and separate and
identifiable as such from the undertakings of the company.
Such job or undertaking begins and ends at determined or
determinable times.19
In our review of respondent’s employment contracts, we
are convinced that respondent was a project employee. The
specific projects for which respondent was hired and the
periods of employment were specified in his employment
contracts.

_______________

18 Imbuido v. National Labor Relations Commission, 385 Phil. 999; 329

SCRA 357 (2000).
19 Tomas Lao Construction v. National Labor Relations Commission,
344 Phil. 268; 278 SCRA 716 (1997).

539

VOL. 591, JULY 3, 2009 539

Alcatel Philippines, Inc. vs. Relos

The services he rendered, the duration and scope of each

employment are clear indications that respondent was
hired as a project employee.
We do not agree with respondent that he became a
regular employee because he was continuously rehired by
Alcatel every termination of his contract. In Maraguinot,
Jr. v. NLRC,20 we said:

“A project employee or a member of a work pool may acquire

the status of a regular employee when the following concur:
1) There is a continuous rehiring of project employees
even after the cessation of a project; and
2) The tasks performed by the alleged “project employee” are
vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade
of the employer.”21 (Emphasis ours)

While respondent performed tasks that were clearly vital,

necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade
of Alcatel, respondent was not continuously rehired by

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000166731dee25c660171d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/11
10/14/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME. 591

Alcatel after the cessation of every project. Records show

that respondent was hired by Alcatel from 1988 to 1995 for
three projects, namely the PLDT X-5 project, the PLDT X-4
IOT project and the PLDT 1342 project. On 30 April 1988,
upon the expiration of respondent’s contract for the PLDT
X-4 IOT project, Alcatel did not rehire respondent until 1
February 1991, or after a lapse of 33 months, for the
PLDT 1342 project. Alcatel’s continuous rehiring of
respondent in various capacities from February 1991 to
December 1995 was done entirely within the framework of
one and the same project―the PLDT 1342 project. This did
not make respondent a regular employee of Alcatel as
respondent was not continuously rehired after the
cessation of a project. Respondent remained a project
employee of Alcatel working on the PLDT 1342 project.

_______________

20 348 Phil. 580; 284 SCRA 539 (1998).

21 Id., at pp. 600-601; p. 556.

 
540

540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Alcatel Philippines, Inc. vs. Relos

The employment of a project employee ends on the date

specified in the employment contract. Therefore,
respondent was not illegally dismissed but his employment
terminated upon the expiration of his employment
contract. Here, Alcatel employed respondent as a Site
Inspector until 31 December 1995.
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE
the 31 March 2004 Decision and 14 June 2004 Resolution
of the Court of Appeals and REINSTATE the 20 February
2002 Decision and 19 December 2002 Order of the National
Labor Relations Commission.
SO ORDERED.

Puno (C.J., Chairperson), Corona, Leonardo-De Castro

and Bersamin, JJ., concur.

Petition granted, judgment and resolution set aside.

Note.—It is in the interest of justice to require

employers to state the reason for their project employees’
dismissal and prove this ground once its veracity is
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000166731dee25c660171d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/11
10/14/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME. 591

challenged. (D.M. Consunji, Inc. vs. National Labor

Relations Commission, 348 SCRA 441 [2000])
——o0o——

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000166731dee25c660171d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/11