G.R. Nos. 115314-23 - RODRIGO BORDEOS, REYNALDO CERUMA, EDGAR CONCINA, SALVADOR CONSUELO, GODOFREDO CAS IV, LORENZO CLARINO, LORENZO BELO, ROMEO BUENO AND LEO CARULLO, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, PHILIPPINE GEOTHERMAL, INC., RODOLFO CERDENO, RICARDO DE LEON, AND AIDA BARBA.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. However, respondent Build-O-Weld Service Co., thru its responsible officials is hereby ordered to pay individual complainants their financial assistance within ten (10) days from receipt hereof thru this, Branch, as follows: 1. Rodrigo Bordeos P9,464.00 2. Lorenzo Belo 9,464.00 3. Romeo Bueno 17,628.00 4. Hermie Crucillo 3,328.00 5. Reynaldo Ceruma 12,324.00 6. Leo Cerullo 11,754.00 7. Salvador Consuelo 11,754.00 8. Edgar Concina 14,196.00 9. Godofredo Cas 4,732.00 10. Lorenzo Clariño 4,108.00 GRAND TOTAL P98,752.00 Other claims are dismissed for lack of merit." Dissatisfied, petitioners interposed an appeal to respondent. Commission which, in the now-assailed Resolution, dismissed the same for lack of merit and affirmed the decision of the arbiter. The financial assistance was upheld as BOWSC did not appeal from the arbiter's ruling. As their motion for, reconsideration was denied by respondent Commission in its Resolution of January 24, 1994, petitioners elevated the matter to this Court via the instant petition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The Issues Petitioners apprehend grave abuse of discretion by respondent Commission in the following respects: "I - The resolution of public respondent contains a finding not disclosed by the records. II. - Public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in concluding that BOWSC is a legitimate contractor. III - Public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in concluding that petitioners are project employees. IV - Public respondent committed; grave abuse of discretion in concluding that petitioners were legally dismissed." But the main issues in this case are whether BOWSC was an independent job contractor, or a labor-only contractor, (the answer to which will determine whether an employer-employee relationship exists between PGI and the petitioners), and whether petitioners were project employees, asfound by the arbiter and affirmed by respondent NLRC, or regular employees, as claimed by petitioners (which in turn determines the subsidiary question of the legality of their dismissal). [The first ground raised may be disregarded, as petitioners merely claim that the assailed Resolution contained a finding to the effect that private respondents de Leon and Barba, general manager and office manager respectively, of BOWSC had resigned from BOWSC, which fact was allegedly not disclosed by the records, and of which they were not informed. [8] The same, however, is immaterial as a cursory perusal of the assailed Resolution will reveal that this was nothing but an innocuous statement which had no bearing at all in respondent NLRC's determination of the case below. Hardly any grave abuse was, or could have been, committed by respondent Commission's taking cognizance of such resignations or making such a statement which, in any event, could not affect the cause of petitioners inasmuch as they had already been awa