ISAAC CIOCO, JR., REBIE A. MERCADO, BENITO V. GALVADORES, CECILIO SOLVER, CARMELO JUANZO

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is partially given DUE COURSE. The assailed Decision of the National Labor Relations Commission dated October 26, 2001 affirming the Decision of the Labor Arbiter dated April 17, 2000 dismissing the petitioners complaint for illegal dismissal and claims for under payment ( sic ) and non-payment of monetary benefits for lack of merit, and its Resolution of November 29, 2001 denying petitioners Motion for Reconsideration are hereby AFFIRMED, but MODIFIED, in that although petitioners were project employees, their dismissal as such project employees is hereby declared ILLEGAL, and private respondent C.E. Construction Corporation is directed to pay back wages computed from the date of termination, i.e., May 27, 1999 for petitioners Isaac Cioco, Jr., Carmelo Juanzo, Cecelio ( sic ) Soler and Benito Galvadores and from June 5, 1999 for petitioners Rebie Mercado, Baysa Benjamin ( sic ) and Rodrigo Napoles, up to the date of completion of the construction of the GTI Tower project. [10] The parties filed separate motions for reconsideration which were denied. Hence, the present petitions for review which we consolidated in our Resolution dated February 26, 2003. The WORKERS contend that they are regular employees of the COMPANY, hence, entitled to reinstatement and backwages from the time of their illegal dismissal up to the date of their actual reinstatement. The COMPANY, on the other hand, contends that the WORKERS are its project employees; that they were not illegally dismissed; and, that in ruling otherwise, the CA disregarded the documentary evidence, i.e. , Progress Billing and Notice of Termination Reports, clearly showing completion of the phases of the GTI Tower project for which the services of the WORKERS had been engaged. The issue of whether the WORKERS were regular or project employees of the COMPANY is a question of fact which shall no longer be dealt with in this petition for review, the Courts jurisdiction being limited to questions of law. The Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA, unanimously found that the WORKERS were project employees of the COMPANY. This finding is binding on this Court. We again hold that the fact that the WORKERS have been employed with the COMPANY for several years on various projects, the longest being nine (9) years, did not automatically make them regular employees considering that the definition of regular employment in Article 280 [11] of the Labor Code, makes specific exception with respect to project employment. The re-hiring of petitioners on a project-to-project basis did not confer upon them regular employment status. The practice was dictated by the practical consideration that experienced construction workers are more preferred. [12] It did not change their status as project employees. The next issue is whether the WORKERS were illegally dismissed. The CA ruled that they were illegally dismissed as there was no evidence presented by the COMPANY to