On the first issue, we rule that complainant is a non-

project employee. While it may be conceded that

respondent is engaged in construction projects, it
failed to present any evidence (in particular, the
employment contracts) that complainant was indeed
hired only for the duration of specific projects. Hence,
we cannot just rely on the self-serving allegation that
respondent’s last project was completed on 30
December 2003. For if it is true, respondent should
have complied with the reportorial requirement upon
completion of the project. That being the case, we are
constrained to rule that complainant is not project hired.
But (sic) a regular employee whose services can only be
terminated for just cause. In termination cases, the burden
of proof rests upon the employer to prove that the
dismissal is for just cause, otherwise, the employee’s
discharge is illegal. In the present case, the respondent
57
failed to discharge said burden.” (emphasis supplied)