G.R. No. 209822 - DIONISIO DACLES,*, VS. MILLENIUM ERECTORS CORPORATION AND/OR RAGAS TIU.

Ruling

Accordingly, the NLRC ruled that petitioner was a regular employee since he was originally employed in 1998 without a fixed period to perform tasks that were necessary and desirable to MEC's business, and which status cannot be altered by a subsequent contract stating otherwise. To this end, it pointed out that petitioner cannot be lawfully dismissed based on the completion of the last two (2) projects to which he was assigned and that the employment contracts and termination reports submitted by MEC were merely issued to circumvent the law on regularization of the employment of construction workers. [22] The NLRC, however, denied petitioner's other money claims for lack of legal basis. [23] In fine, respondents were ordered to reinstate petitioner with full back wages, plus attorney's fees. [24] Dissatisfied, respondents moved for reconsideration [25] which was denied in a Resolution [26] dated December 2, 2011. Hence, they filed a petition for review on certiorari [27] before the CA. The CA Ruling In a Decision [28] dated April 8, 2013, the CA annulled and set aside the NLRC's ruling and reinstated the LA's ruling. [29] It held that petitioner has not presented evidence to substantiate his claim of illegal dismissal. In this relation, it observed that the NLRC made a hasty conclusion that MEC has been operating without the benefit of registration as early as 1998, and in so doing, erroneously relied on the self-serving and unsubstantiated statement of petitioner. Therefore, the CA upheld the LA's finding that petitioner is a project employee who was first hired as a mason for the NECC Project from October 8, 2009 until its completion on March 3, 2010, and second, for the RCB-Malakas Project from April 15, 2010 also until its completion. It further gave emphasis on the fact that petitioner's termination was duly reported by respondents to the DOLE. [30] Petitioner moved for reconsideration [31] but was denied in a Resolution [32] dated October 11, 2013; hence, this petition. The Issue Before the Court The essential issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not theCA committed reversible error in holding that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in declaring that petitioner was a regular employee, and not a project employee. The Court's Ruling The petition is without merit. First, it must be stressed that to justify the grant of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari , petitioner must satisfactorily show that the court or quasi-judicial authority gravely abused the discretion conferred upon it. Grave abuse of discretion connotes judgment exercised in a capricious and whimsical manner that is tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. To be considered "grave," discretion must be exercised in a despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation oflaw. [33] In labor disputes, g