G.R. NO. 141168 - ABESCO CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND MR. OSCAR BANZON, GENERAL MANAGER, VS. ALBERTO RAMIREZ, BERNARDO DIWA, MANUEL LOYOLA, REYNALDO P. ACODESIN, ALEXANDER BAUTISTA, EDGAR TAJONERA AND GARY DISON,*. R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring respondents guilty of illegal dismissal and ordering the latter to reinstate complainants to their former positions with backwages and other benefits from the time their compensation was withheld from them up to the time their actual reinstatement which as of the date of this decision amounted to: NAME 1. Alberto Ramirez P49,764.00 2. Manuel B. Loyola 46,695.22 3. Hernando Diwa 49,764.00 4. Reynaldo Acodesin 46,695.22 5. Alexander Bautista 45,285.24 6. Edgar Tajonera 62,985.00 7. Gary Dison 53,911.00 TOTAL P 355,099.68 However, if reinstatement is no longer feasible, a one-month salary shall be awarded as a form of separation pay, in addition to the aforementioned award. Respondents are likewise ordered to pay complainants the following: NAME UNPAID SALARY SALARY DIFFEREN TIAL 13 TH MONTH PAY 5 DAYS SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE SEPARATION PAY 1.Hernando iwa P765.00 P1,274.00 P4,147.00 2.Alexander Bautista P23,088.00 11,141.00 P2,005.00 45,617.00 3.Alberto Ramirez 11,141.00 2,005.00 74,646.00 4.Manuel B. Loyola 11,141.00 2,020.00 41,170.00 5.Reynaldo Acodesin 11,141.00 2,020.00 20,735.00 6.Edgardo Tajonera 19,500.00 3,750.00 130,000.00 7.Gary Dison 11,141.00 2,020.00 29,029.00 P765.00 P23,088.00 P76,479.00 P13,820.00 P345,344.00 xxx All other claims are hereby dismissed for lack of merit. [3] Petitioners appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which affirmed the LA's decision. [4] Subsequently, petitioners filed a petition for review in the Court of Appeals (CA) arguing that they were not liable for illegal dismissal since respondents' services were merely put on hold until the resumption of their business operations. They also averred that they had paid respondents their full wages and benefits as provided by law, hence, the latter had no more right to further benefits. The CA was not convinced and dismissed petitioners' appeal. It held: We note that the petitioners are taking a new tack in arguing, for the first time, that the [respondents] were not dismissed but their employment was merely suspended. Previous to this, their defense was that the [respondents] were project employees who were not entitled to security of tenure. The petitioners are barred from raising a new defense at this stage of the case. xxx xxx xxx WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby dismissed, for lack of merit. [5] Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but it was dismissed by the CA. [6] In this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioners raise the following issues for resolution: (1) whether respondents were project employees or regular employees and (2) whether respondents were illegally dismissed. On the first issue, we rule that respondents were regular employees. However, we take exception to the reasons cited by the LA (which both the NLRC and the CA affirmed) in considering respondents as regular employees and not as project employees. Contrary to the disquisi