(Balingit), Roma Angelica O. Borja, Marie Joan Ramos, Kim Guevarra, Lynn S. De Los Santos, Caren C. Encanto, Eiden Baldovino, Jacqueline B. Castrence (Castrence), Ma. Estrella V. Lapuz (Lapuz), Joselito L. Lord (Lord), Raymond G. Santos, Abigail M. Viloria (Viloria), Rommel C. Acosta

Ruling

accordingly, dismissed petitioners complaints for lack of merit. [24] It found that petitioners are merely project-based employees, as their respective employment contracts indubitably provided for the duration and term of their employment, as well as the specific project to which they were assigned, i.e. , the Alltel Project. [25] Hence, the LA concluded that the cessation of the Alltel Project naturally resulted in the termination of petitioners employment in Sykes Asia. [26] Dissatisfied, petitioners appealed [27] to the NLRC. The NLRC Ruling In a Decision [28] dated November 15, 2010, the NLRC modified the LA Decision, ruling that petitioners are regular employees but were validly terminated due to redundancy. [29] Accordingly, petitioners, except Viloria and Acosta whose complaints were dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute, [30] were awarded their separation pay with interest of 12% per annum reckoned from the date of their actual dismissal until full payment, plus attorneys fees amounting to 10% of the total monetary award. In addition, the NLRC awarded nominal damages in the amount of ?10,000.00 each to petitioners Gadia, Remo, Quesea, Balingit, Castrence, Lapuz, and Lord for respondents failure to furnish them the required written notice of termination within the prescribed period. [31] Contrary to the LAs finding, the NLRC found that petitioners could not be properly characterized as project-based employees, ratiocinating that while it was made known to petitioners that their employment would be co-terminus to the Alltel Project, it was neither determined nor made known to petitioners, at the time of hiring, when the said project would end, be terminated, or be completed. [32] In this relation, the NLRC concluded that inasmuch as petitioners had been engaged to perform activities which are necessary or desirable in respondents usual business or trade of BPO, petitioners should be deemed regular employees of Sykes Asia. [33] This notwithstanding, and in view of the cessation of the Alltel Project, the NLRC found petitioners employment with Sykes Asia to be redundant; hence, declared that they were legally dismissed from service and were only entitled to receive their respective separation pay. [34] Respondents moved for reconsideration, [35] which was, however, denied in a Resolution [36] dated May 10, 2011. Unconvinced, Sykes Asia [37] elevated the case to the CA on certiorari . [38] The CA Ruling In a Decision [39] dated April 29, 2013, the CA annulled and set aside the ruling of the NLRC, and accordingly, reinstated that of the LA. [40] It held that a perusal of petitioners respective employment contracts readily shows that they were hired exclusively for the Alltel Project and that it was specifically stated therein that their employment would be project-based. [41] The CA further held that petitioners employment contracts need not state an actual date as to when their employment would end, opining that it is