Do scientists consider hypothesis as being a fact?

No. In science, facts are those phenomena which can be consistently observed and measured. A hypothesis is a testable, educated guess about what sort of rules might govern the behavior of the observed phenomena.

Once a hypothesis is formed, it is then tested to determine how well it fits teh phenomena, and whether it can therefore provide a useful means of predicting the behavior of similar phenomena. If the hypothesis fails to provide an explanation with verifiable predictive power, it is rejected, and a new hypothesis is formed, then that new hypothesis is tested.

If the hypothesis is verified -- testing shows that it does provide a useful explanation of teh phenomena with some predictive power -- then it may eventually become a _theory_, providing it stands up to repeated testing, and is not falsified (and therefore rejected). A theory represents a well-tested explanation for how a particular phenomenon or particular phenomena behave.

All of the "testing" refered to above will be carried out according to the _scientific method_.

So a "theory" is not a fact, but an -explanation- for observed facts. And a "Hypothesis" is a working model for a theory, a model awaiting testing, or in the process of being tested.