HANJIN HEAVY INDUSTRIES vs.

IBANEZ| GR 170181 | June 26 2008FACTS

: Felicito Ibanez (tireman), Elmer Gacula (Crane Operator), ElmerDagotdot (Welder),
Aligwas Carolino (Welder), Ruel Calda (Warehouseman)filed a complaint at the
NLRC for illegal dismissal with prayer forreinstatement and payment of backwages.
 The group alleged that thecontract they have is good for three months, subject
to automatic renewalif there is no notice of termination from Hanjin, and that the
contract wouldautomatically terminate upon the completion of the project. They
f u r t h e ra v e rr e d t h at d u r i n g t h e ti m e t h e y
s ti l lo n g o in g a n d H n ji n h i re d p e o p le f o r t
we re d s m i s e d , p r o je c t w s
h p o s it io n s t h a t the y h a d v a ca ted.Lastly, they also
allege that they are entitled to a completion bonus as partof the industry
practice and this was substantiated by past payrollpayments. Hanjin failed to
furnish a copy of the contract agreements withthe dismissed group. Instead it
showed the quitclaims that had beenexecuted by the group that released
Hanjin and its representatives fromany claims with their employment. It
contained clearance certificates thatshow that respondents are free from
accountability.

ISSUE

: WON the members of the dismissed group are project employees?

HELD

: No, Hanjin was unable to prove they were not regular employees The rehiring
of construction workers on a project to project basis does notconfer upon them regular
employment status, since their re-hiring is only anatural consequence of the fact
that experienced construction workers arepreferred. Employees who are hired for
carrying out a separate job, distinctfrom the other undertakings of the company,
the scope and duration of which has been determined and made known to the
employees at the timeof the employment

, are properly treated as project employees and theirservices may be lawfully

terminated upon the completion of a project.Should the terms of their
employment fail to comply with this standard,they cannot be considered project
employees.
Hanjin was unable to showthe written contracts it had with the workers. White
the absence of thecontract does not grant permanent status it is the burden of
the
employerto prove that the employees were aware that their contract with
thecompany is for per project only. While Hanjin submitted a terminationreport
including the worker’s names to prove that the services of theirservices were
only contracted for a per project basis, Hanjin only submittedone report. It was
unable to disprove the allegation of the workers thatthey were part of a pool that
Hanjin contacts once a project is to becompleted. Employers cannot mislead their
employees, whose work isnecessary and desirable in the former's line of
business, by treating themas though they are part of a work pool from which
workers could becontinually drawn and then assigned to various projects and
thereafterdenied regular status at any time by the expedient act of filing a
Termination Report. This would constitute a practice in which an employeeis
unjustly precluded from acquiring security of tenure, contrary to publicpolicy,
morals, good customs and public order.Hanjin alleged that per Department Order
19, Series of 1993 of DOLE,
thepayment of completion bonus is further proof that the workers were
onlyproject employees as Hanjin is mandated by law to pay it to the
temporaryworkers whose contracts are about to end upon the completion of
theproject. SC views the completion bonus terminology here reflects the factthat
the project has already been completed and that is the premium theywished to
pay. Quitclaims are viewed with disfavor, especially when –a. There is clear proof
that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspectingor gullible personb. Where the
terms are unconscionable in its face. For quitclaims to bevalid, it must constitute
a reasonable settlement
commensurate to theirlegal rights. It does not preclude them from seeking
benefits they wereentitled to such as back wages. The respondents were also not
granted
thetwin requirements of notice and hearing.