OMNI HAULING SERVICES, INC., LOLITA FRANCO, and ANICETO FRANCO, VS. BERNARDO BON, ROBERTO TORTOLES, ROMEO TORRES, RODELLO

Ruling

Accordingly, the CA ruled that respondents were illegally dismissed, and therefore, ordered their reinstatement or the payment of separation pay if such reinstatement is no longer feasible, with full backwages in either case. [25] Further, it remanded the instant case to the Computation and Examination Unit of the NLRC for an updated computation of the above-mentioned monetary awards in accordance with its Decision. [26] Aggrieved, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration [27] which was, however, denied by the CA in a Resolution [28] dated November 11, 2011, hence, this petition. The Issue Before the Court The core issue raised in the present petition is whether or not the CA erred in granting respondents petition for certiorari , thereby setting aside the NLRCs Decision holding that respondents were project employees. The Courts Ruling To justify the grant of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari , petitioners 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 of law. [29] In labor disputes, grave abuse of discretion may be ascribed to the NLRC when, inter alia , its findings and the conclusions reached thereby are not supported by substantial evidence. [30] This requirement of substantial evidence is clearly expressed in Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court which provides that [i]n cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. Guided by these considerations, the Court finds that the CA correctly granted respondents certiorari petition since the NLRC gravely abused its discretion when it held that respondents were project employees despite petitioners failure to establish their project employment status through substantial evidence. Article 280 of the Labor Code distinguishes a project employee from a regular employee in this wise: Art. 280. Regular and casual employment . The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of