FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 239985. August 13, 2018.]
RICO CRIBE CAJAN, petitioner, vs.DATEM, INC. AND ARNOLD DE ASIS, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 13, 2018which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 239985 [formerly UDK-16204] — Rico Cribe Cajan v. Datem, Inc. and Arnold De Asis
The Court resolves to GRANT petitioner's Motions for Extension of Time seeking additional periods totaling 25 days from the expiration of the reglementary period on June 12, 2018 within which to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari of the December 18, 2017 Decision and May 17, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 152138, the Court resolves to DENY the same for: a) lack of a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the assailed CA Decision as only a machine copy of the same was attached to the Petition in violation of Sections 4 (d) and 5, Rule 45, in relation to Section 5 (d), Rule 56, of the Rules of Court; b) lack of a proper verification considering that the same was based on "personal knowledge and beliefs as well as based on authentic records" in violation of Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules; and c) failure of petitioner to show that the CA committed any reversible error in issuing the said assailed Decision and Resolution as to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
The Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the findings of the CA that petitioner was a project employee and was not illegally dismissed by respondents. In Omni Hauling Services, Inc. v. Bon, 1 it was held that the principal test for determining whether particular employees are properly characterized as "project employees" as distinguished from "regular employees," is whether or not the employees were assigned to carry out a "specific project or undertaking," the duration and scope of which were specified at the time they were engaged for that project. The CA is correct in observing that petitioner's contract clearly defined the period and the project for which he was engaged, which information was made known to him at the time of the engagement. Contrary to the NLRC's findings, petitioner's contract of employment stated clearly the date of the commencement of the specific task and the expected completion date thereof. It also contained a provision expressly stating that petitioner's employment shall end upon the arrival of the target completion date or upon the completion of such project. Hence, petitioner was fully apprised of the nature and scope of his work as project employee whose services were coterminous with the completion of the specific task indicated therein. aScITE
Moreover, the fact that petitioner's job as mason is usually necessary and desirable in the business operation of respondents did not impair the validity of the project employment contract stipulating a fixed duration of employment. 2 Neither did the repeated rehiring of petitioner as project-based employee qualify him as regular employee. 3 As aptly held by the CA, these circumstances do not necessarily imply regular employment.
Petitioner cannot find solace on respondents' alleged failure to submit Establishment Termination Reports to the DOLE for every project that petitioner was hired. In the case of William Uy Construction Corp., and/or Uy v. Trinidad, 4 the Court held that what the company has to show is only the last status of the employee's employment and the company's compliance with the reporting requirement for the termination of that employment. Here, respondents did not fail to satisfy such requirement.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the assailed December 18, 2017 Decision and May 17, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 152138.
Petitioner's motion to accept payment of docket fees and other legal fees is GRANTED.
Petitioner's counsel is directed to submit within five days from notice hereof the date of issuance of his MCLE Compliance V.
SO ORDERED." Peralta, J., designated as Acting Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2582 (Revised) dated August 8, 2018, Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. 742 Phil. 335, 344 (2014).
2.Palomares v. NLRC, 343 Phil. 213, 223 (1997).
3.Herma Shipyard, Inc. v. Oliveros, G.R. No. 208936, April 17, 2017, 822 SCRA 600, 626.
4. 629 Phil. 185, 191 (2010).