G.R. No. 115920 - PCI AUTOMATION CENTER, INC., VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND HECTOR SANTELICES.

Ruling

Accordingly, Prime and private respondent executed and filed before the office of the Labor Arbiter a document entitled "Partial Satisfaction of Judgment and Waiver of Right." [11] On December 29, 1993, public respondent NLRC affirmed the Decision of the Labor Arbiter, but deleted the award of moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees. [12] PCI-AC filed the present petition on the following ground: ". . . the public respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it disregarded the substantial evidence in this case clearly showing that private respondent was not illegally dismissed by petitioner." [13] The petition must fail. Petitioner contends that private respondent, being a project employee, was validly dismissed when the project for which he was hired was completed on March 15, 1991. Petitioner avers that the 4th GL Environment Conversion Project involved a phase-by-phase conversion of PCIBs computer system. Private respondent was assigned to work as data encoder in the Consolidated Financing System/Budget Monitoring phase of the said computer conversion project. Allegedly, this phase was completed on March 15, 1991. Petitioner makes the submission that the completion of the work therein terminated further need for private respondents services. [14] The public respondent, however, held otherwise after assessing the evidence on record. It affirmed the findings of the Labor Arbiter, thus: "Going now to the second point of inquiry, which is the completion or non-completion of the 4GL conversion system project, the testimony of Danilo Calauag, the assistant vice-president and manager of International Operations of Prime Manpower is most explicit. He testified on July 22, 1992 as follows: Mr. Santelices was assigned initially to Tower 2; (p. 33 TSN.) then he was assigned to Tower I (Ibid) because there was work to be done in Tower I that necessitated his (complainants) transfer there (p. 35 Ibid) although the work he (complainant) was performing in Tower II was still existing (supra) and Tower II is still in progress (supra) meaning his original assignment is still on-going up to the present (p. 36 Ibid). The foregoing testimony expressly and clearly admitted that 4th conversion project, more particularly Tower II to which complainant was originally assigned is still an on-going project, and not yet completed as posited by respondents. There was therefore no reason for complainants dismissal on March 15, 1991 on the pretended ground which is completion of the project. xxx" [15] We find no valid reason to disturb public respondents findings. No less than the assistant vice-president and manager for International Operations of Prime testified that the project for which private respondent was hired was still existing at the time of his dismissal. It is settled that factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are generally accorded not only respect but even finali