G.R. No. 201247 - ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION OF ASIA [NOW FIRST BALFOUR, INCORPORATED], VS. SEGUNDINO PALLE, FELIX VELOSA, ALBERTO PAMPANGA, RANDY GALABO, MARCO GALAPIN AND GERARDO FELICITAS.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, [petitioner is] hereby directed to reinstate complainants to their former positions effective June 16, 2007 and to pay full backwages in the total amount of P3,655,328.82 [x x x]. [17] National Labor Relations Commission's Decision Aggrieved, ECCA filed an appeal with the NLRC. In its March 23, 2009 Decision, [18] the NLRC reversed the findings of the Labor Arbiter and granted ECCA's appeal. The NLRC cited the rulings in Cioco, Jr. v. C.E. Construction Corporation [19] and Filipinas Pre-Fabricated Building Systems (Filsystems), Inc. v. Puente [20] that repeated hiring does not change the status of one's employment as project employee or automatically makes one as a regular employee. [21] Thus, the NLRC held that respondents were not illegally terminated but that their employment ended in view of the completion of the projects. [22] The dispositive portion of said Decision reads: WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby GRANTED . The assailed decision of the Labor Arbiter dated 16 June 2007 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the complaint dismissed for lack of merit. [23] Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the foregoing Decision, which was denied in the NLRC's March 24, 2010 Resolution. [24] Court of Appeals' Decision Aggrieved, respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari [25] under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the CA. In its September 13, 2011 Decision, the CA held in favor of respondents and ruled that they were regular employees, and were therefore illegally dismissed. The appellate court pointed out that ECCA failed to present any written contract of employment to substantiate its claim before the court. Thus, the appellate court held that although the absence of a written contract does not by itself grant regular stat us to the employees, it is evidence that they were informed of the duration and scope of their work and their status as project employees at the start of their engagement. [26] The dispositive portion of said Decision reads: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED . The assailed March 23, 2009 Decision of public respondent NLRC in NLRC-NCR CA No. 00-002296-07 [NLRC Case No. NCR 00-09-10553-04] is REVERSED and SET ASIDE . In lieu thereof, a new judgment is rendered reinstating the Decision dated June 16, 2007 of the Labor Arbiter in NLRC-NCR Case Nos. 00-08-09014-04, 00-09-09960-04 and 00-09-10553-04 with the MODIFICATION that the liability of respondent Oscar Lopez for the payment of backwages and other monetary benefits in favor of [respondents] is DELETED . SO ORDERED.