G.R. No. 170181 - HANJIN HEAVY INDUSTRIES AND CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD., HAK KON KIM AND/OR JHUNIE ADAJAR, VS. FELICITO IBAÑEZ, LIGWAS CAROLINO, ELMER GACULA, ENRIQUE DAGOTDOT AND RUEL CALDA..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows; 1) Declaring respondent HANJIN HEAVY INDUSTRIES CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. guilty of illegal dismissal 2) Ordering respondent to reinstate all the complainants to positions previously occupied by them with full backwages from the time compensation was withheld from them up to date of actual reinstatement in the following amount (as of date of this decision): 1. Felicito Ibañez P88,020.83 2. Elmer A. Gacula 88,020.83 3. Rizalino De Vera 88,020.83 4. Enrique Dagotdot 88,020.83 5. Carolino Aligwas 88,020.83 6. Ruel Calda 88,020.83 7. Roldan Lanojan 88,020.83 8. Pascual Caranguian 88,020.83 9. Carmelito Dalumangcad 88,020.83 Total P792, 187.47 3) In lieu of reinstatement, respondent is ordered to pay complainants their separation pay in the following sum: Felicito Ibañez P19,500.00 Elmer A. Gacula 71,500.00 Rizaliano De Vera 19,500.00 Enrique Dagotdot 52,000.00 Carolino Aligwas 58,500.00 Ruel Calda 45,500.00 Roldan Lanojan 19,500.00 Pascual Caranguian 26,000.00 Carmelito Dalumangcad 78,000.00 Total P390,000.00 4) Ordering respondent to pay each complainant P50,000.00 for moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, or the total sum of P450,000.00 and P270,000.00, respectively; and 5) Ordering respondent to pay complainants litigation expenses in the sum of P30,000.00 All other claims are DISMISSED for lack of merit. [15] Petitioners filed an appeal before the NLRC. In their Notice of Appeal/Memorandum Appeal [16] dated 5 July 2003, petitioners discarded their earlier claim that respondents signed employment contracts, unequivocally informing them of their status as project employees. Nonetheless, they still contended that the absence of respondents' contracts of employment does not vest the latter with regular status. The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter's Decision dated 30 April 2003, and pronounced that the respondents were project employees who were legally terminated from employment. [17] The NLRC gave probative value to the Termination Report submitted by HANJIN to the DOLE, receipts signed by respondents for their completion bonus upon phase completion, and the Quitclaims executed by the respondents in favor of HANJIN. The NLRC also observed that the records were devoid of any proof to support respondents' allegation that they were employed before 1997, the time when construction work on the MRT started. Lastly, it overruled the Labor Arbiter's award of moral and exemplary damages. [18] The dispositive part of the Decision dated 7 May 2004 of the NLCR states that: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision subject of appeal is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one is entered DISMISSING complainants' complaint for lack of merit. [19] On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC Decision, dated 7 May 2004. The appellate court looked with disfavor at the change in HANJIN's initial position before the Labor Arbiter--from its initial argument that respondents e