FILIPINAS (PRE-FABRICATED BLDG.) SYSTEMS "FILSYSTEMS," INC. AND FELIPE A. CRUZ, JR., VS. ERNESTO GATLABAYAN, RICARDO P. ANTONIO, PAULINO C. FRANCISCO, ROGELIO E. BERTULFO, ANTONIO BELANGEL, JOEL B. BANDIALA, RONITO A. BAÑACIA, CARMELO EREDEROS, DELFIN E. TIMBAL, NELSON O. AQUINO, EDGARDO D. PARALEJA

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, let judgment be, as it is hereby rendered in favor of the complainants, and ordering respondent FILSYTEMS, INC. to comply with the following: 1. To pay complainants their full backwages, from the time of their dismissal up to the promulgation of this decision, as well as their separation pay, in the amounts opposite their respective names: NAMES BACKWAGES 13 th MONTHPAY SEPARATION PAY 1. E. Gatlabayan P67,759.90 P5,646.66 P34,866.00 2. R. Antonio 67,739.10 5,644.93 34,866.00 3. P. Francisco 68,439.37 5,703.28 58,110.00 4. R. Bertulfo 68,269.50 5,689.13 34,866.00 5. A. Belangel 65,648.70 5,470.73 52,299.00 6. J. Bandiala 67,245.10 5,603.76 29,055.00 7. R. Bañacia 67,759.90 5,646.66 46,488.00 8. C. Erederos 67,759.90 5,646.66 17,433.00 9. D. Timbal 67,245.10 5,603.76 23,244.00 10. N. Aquino 68,099.63 5,674.97 46,488.00 11. E. Paralejos 67,759.90 5,646.66 23,244.00 12. R. Ulpiano 68,269.50 5,689.13 34,866.00 13.G. Paralejas 67,759.90 5,646.66 23,244.00 Total P879,755.50 P73,312.79 P459,069.00 The complaint of Benito Lolito and Alfredo Bolledoir is hereby dismissed for failure to prosecute. Other claims are dismissal (sic) for lack of merit. [11] Filsystems appealed the decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) insisting that the complainants were project employees. On September 10, 2001, the NLRC rendered judgment, affirming the appealed decision and dismissing the appeal. [12] A motion for reconsideration was filed, which the NLRC also denied. [13] Filsystems and Cruz then sought relief from the CA via Petition for Certiorari alleging that: I WHETHER RESPONDENT NLRC ERRED AND COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN AFFIRMING THE LABOR ARBITER'S DECISION FINDING THAT THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS WERE REGULAR EMPLOYEES AND NOT PROJECT EMPLOYEES. II WHETHER RESPONDENT NLRC ERRED AND COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN AFFIRMING THE LABOR ARBITER'S DECISION FINDING THAT THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS WERE ILLEGALLY DISMISSED FROM EMPLOYMENT. III WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT NLRC ERRED AND COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN AFFIRMING THE LABOR ARBITER'S DECISION ORDERING THE PAYMENT OF MONETARY AWARDS TO THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS. [14] On November 21, 2003, the CA rendered judgment, affirming the decision of the NLRC with modifications. The fallo of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, on the basis of the above premises, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. The assailed resolutions of the NLRC, dated September 10, 2001 and November 27, 2001, respectively, are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION: the backwages due the private respondents should be computed from the time of their alleged dismissal up to the finality of this decision while their separation pay should be computed from the date of the dismissed employees' service until the finality of this decision. SO ORDERED.