SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 234701. January 24, 2018.]
VIRGILIO BELNAS CALSADA, petitioner,vs. STEEL CENTRE PHILIPPINES, INC. AND IVAN ONG, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 24 January 2018 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 234701 (Virgilio Belnas Calsada v. Steel Centre Philippines, Inc. and Ivan Ong)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the June 29, 2016 Decision 1 and September 15, 2017 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 138920 for failure of petitioner Virgilio Belnas Calsada (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in: (a) upholding the dismissal of his complaint for illegal dismissal; and (b) denying his claims for moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees.
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner was a project employee since his engagement was undeniably shown to have been fixed for a specific project or undertaking and its completion was determined at the time of his engagement in accordance with Section 2.2 3 of Department Order No. 19-93 of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). Moreover, respondents Steel Centre Philippines, Inc. and Ivan Ong's submission of the required Establishment Employment Report to the DOLE on account of project completion bolstered petitioner's project employment. 4 Since a project employee's contract is automatically terminated upon completion of the project, as in this case, there can be no illegal dismissal and the denial of petitioner's money claims was in order.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 30-47. Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando with Associate Justices Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla and Socorro B. Inting concurring.
2.Id. at 49-50-A.
3. SEC. 2. Employment Status
xxx xxx xxx
2.2 Indicators of project employment — Either one or more of the following circumstances, among other, may be considered as indicators that an employee is a project employee.
(a) The duration of the specific/identified undertaking for which the worker is engaged is reasonably determinable.
(b) Such duration, as well as the specific work/service to be performed, is defined in an employment agreement and is made clear to the employee at the time of hiring.
(c) The work/service performed by the employee is in connection with the particular project/undertaking for which he is engaged.
(d) The employee, while not employed and awaiting engagement, is free to offer his services to any other employer.
(e) The termination of his employment in the particular project/undertaking is reported to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional Office having jurisdiction over the workplace within 30 days following the date of his separation from work, using the prescribed form on employees' terminations/dismissals/suspensions.
(f) An undertaking in the employment contract by the employer to pay completion bonus to the project employee as practiced by most construction companies. (Emphasis supplied)
4. See rollo, pp. 160-161. See also Dacles v. Millenium Erectors Corporation, 763 Phil. 550, 559-560 (2015); citations omitted.