G.R. No. 182915 -

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises all considered, judgment is hereby rendered, as follows: Dismissing the complaint for lack of merit; and ordering the respondents to pay each complainant P5,000.00 by way of financial assistance. SO ORDERED . [22] Ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission The workers filed their appeal which was granted by the NLRC. The dispositive portion of the NLRC Decision [23] reads: WHEREFORE , premises considered, the appealed decision is hereby set aside and the dismissal of complainants is declared illegal. Respondents are, therefore, ordered to reinstate complainants to their original or equivalent position with full backwages with legal interests thereon from February 5, 2003, until actually reinstated and fully paid, with retention of seniority rights and are further ordered to pay solidarily to the complainants the difference of their underpaid/unpaid wages, unpaid holidays, unpaid 13 th month pays and unpaid service incentive leaves with legal interests thereon, to wit: x x x x In the event that reinstatement is not possible, respondents are ordered to pay solidarily to complainants their respective separation pays computed as follows: x x x x Respondents are likewise ordered to pay ten (10%) percent of the gross award as and by way of attorney's fees. SO ORDERED . [24] Hence, Atty. Geronimo filed a Motion for Reconsideration. [25] However, Fairland filed another Motion for Reconsideration [26] through Atty. Melina O. Tecson (Atty. Tecson) assailing the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC over it, claiming that it was never summoned to appear, attend or participate in all the proceedings conducted therein. It also denied that it engaged the services of Atty. Geronimo. The NLRC however, denied both motions for lack of merit. [27] Fairland and Susan thus filed their separate Petitions for Certiorari before the CA docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 93204 and CA-G.R. SP No. 93860, respectively. Ruling of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 93204 On July 25, 2007, the CA's First Division denied Fairland's petition. [28] It affirmed the NLRC's ruling that the workers were illegally dismissed and that Weesan and Fairland are solidarily liable to them as labor-only contractor and principal, respectively. Fairland filed its Motion for Reconsideration [29] as well as a Motion for Voluntary Inhibition [30] of Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Regalado E. Maambong from handling the case. As the Motion for Voluntary Inhibition was granted through a Resolution [31] dated November 8, 2007, the case was transferred to the CA's Special Ninth Division for resolution of Fairland's Motion for Reconsideration. [32] On May 9, 2008, the CA's Special Ninth Division reversed [33] the First Division's ruling. It held that the labor tribunals did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of Fairland, and even assuming they did, Fairland is not liable to the workers since Weesan is not a mere labor-only contractor but a bona fide