G.R. No. 120969 - ALEJANDRO MARAGUINOT, JR. AND PAULINO ENERO, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION) COMPOSED OF PRESIDING COMMISSIONER RAUL T. AQUINO, COMMISSIONER ROGELIO I. RAYALA AND COMMISSIONER VICTORIANO R. CALAYCAY (PONENTE), VIC DEL ROSARIO AND VIVA FILMS.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring that complainants were illegally dismissed. Respondents are hereby ordered to reinstate complainants to their former positions without loss [of] seniority rights and pay their backwages starting July 21, 1992 to December 31, 1993 temporarily computed in the amount of P38,000.00 for complainant Paulino Enero and P46,000.00 for complainant Alejandro Maraguinot, Jr. and thereafter until actually reinstated. Respondents are ordered to pay also attorneys fees equivalent to ten (10%) and/or P8,400.00 on top of the award. [11] Private respondents appealed to the NLRC (docketed as NLRC NCR-CA No. 006195-94). In its decision [12] of 10 February 1995, the NLRC found the following circumstances of petitioners work clearly established: Complainants [petitioners herein] were hired for specific movie projects and their employment was co-terminus with each movie project the completion/termination of which are pre-determined, such fact being made known to complainants at the time of their engagement. x x x Each shooting unit works on one movie project at a time. And the work of the shooting units, which work independently from each other, are not continuous in nature but depends on the availability of movie projects. As a consequence of the non-continuous work of the shooting units, the total working hours logged by complainants in a month show extreme variations... For instance, complainant Maraguinot worked for only 1.45 hours in June 1991 but logged a total of 183.25 hours in January 1992. Complainant Enero logged a total of only 31.57 hours in September 1991 but worked for 183.35 hours the next month, October 1991. Further shown by respondents is the irregular work schedule of complainants on a daily basis. Complainant Maraguinot was supposed to report on 05 August 1991 but reported only on 30 August 1991, or a gap of 25 days. Complainant Enero worked on 10 September 1991 and his next scheduled working day was 28 September 1991, a gap of 18 days. The extremely irregular working days and hours of complainants work explain the lump sum payment for complainants services for each movie project. Hence, complainants were paid a standard weekly salary regardless of the number of working days and hours they logged in. Otherwise, if the principle of no work no pay was strictly applied, complainants earnings for certain weeks would be very negligible. Respondents also alleged that complainants were not prohibited from working with such movie companies like Regal, Seiko and FPJ Productions whenever they are not working for the independent movie producers engaged by respondents... This allegation was never rebutted by complainants and should be deemed admitted. The NLRC, in reversing the Labor Arbiter, then concluded that these circumstances, taken together, indicated that complainants (herein petitioners) were project employees. After their motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC in its Resolution [1