G.R. No. 167045 -

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the decision dated June 30, 2000 of the Labor Arbiter is VACATED and SET ASIDE and a new decision rendered declaring the Illegal Dismissal of the complainant (sic) and ordering respondent Susan Munro to pay the complainants the following: 1. Federico F. Visca P 288,816.53 2. Johnny G. Barredo P 211,058.47 3. Ronald Q. Tibus P 175,774.00 4. Richard C. Visca P 200,977.85 5. Raffie C. Visca P 211,058.47 P1,087,685.32 6. Attorney's fees (10%) P 108,768.53 Total Award P1,196,453.85 [9] Petitioners failed to convince the NLRC that respondent Visca was not an independent contractor and the other respondents were selected and hired by him. The NLRC held that respondents were regular employees of petitioners since all the factors determinative of employer-employee relationship were present and the work done by respondents was clearly related to petitioners' resort business. It took into account the following: (a) respondent Visca was reported by petitioners as an employee in the Quarterly Social Security System (SSS) report; (b) all of the respondents were certified to by petitioner Munro as workers and even commended for their satisfactory performance; (c) respondents were paid their holiday and overtime pay; and (d) respondents had been continuously in petitioners' employ from three to twelve years and were all paid by daily wage given weekly. On November 18, 2002, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that respondents were project employees. [10] Petitioners also filed a Supplemental to their Motion for Reconsideration. [11] No opposition or answer to petitioners' motion for reconsideration and supplement was filed by respondents despite due notice. [12] On February 27, 2003, the NLRC made a complete turnabout from its original decision and issued a Resolution [13] dismissing the complaint, holding that respondents were not regular employees but project employees, hired for a short period of time to do some repair jobs in petitioners' resort business. Nonetheless, it ordered payment of P10,000.00 to each complainant as financial assistance. Respondents then filed a Petition for Certiorari [14] with the CA raising three issues for resolution: (a) whether or not the respondents were project employees of petitioners; (b) whether or not the respondents' dismissal from work was based on valid grounds; (c) whether or not the NLRC had sufficient basis to overturn its own decision despite its overwhelming findings that respondents were illegally dismissed. On July 30, 2004, the CA rendered its assailed Decision, [15] the dispositve portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered by us REVERSING and SETTING ASIDE the NLRC Resolution dated February 28, 2003, REINSTATING the NLRC Decision dated August 29, 2000 [sic], and ORDERING the private respondents to pay damages in the amount of P50,000.00. The instant case is hereby REMANDED to the 4 th Division NLRC, Cebu City for the purpose of UPDATIN