Merigildo v. JDBEC, Inc.
This is a civil case decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines in November 2018. The case involves petitioners Bonifacio G. Merigildo, Darwin S. Misagal, Esperdion C. Bunuan, and Rolando Malig-on who filed a petition against JDBEC, Inc. and Juanitcho D. Bernardo after they were dismissed from employment. The petitioners claimed that they were illegally dismissed, but the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals and the National Labor Relations Commission, which held that the petitioners were project employees and their employment contracts had already ended upon the completion of the projects they were assigned to. The Supreme Court also held that their subsequent re-hiring did not confer upon them regular employment status. The findings of fact of the labor tribunals were found to be binding and no exceptions were obtained in this case.
ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241939. November 5, 2018.]
BONIFACIO G. MERIGILDO,1DARWIN S. MISAGAL, ESPERDION C. BUNUAN,2AND ROLANDO MALIG-ON, petitioners, vs.JDBEC, INC. AND JUANCHITO D. BERNARDO, 3respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated05 November 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241939 (Bonifacio G. Merigildo, Darwin S. Misagal, Esperdion C. Bunuan, and Rolando Malig-on v. JDBEC, Inc. and Juanchito D. Bernardo)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 4 and AFFIRM the March 7, 2018 Decision 5 and the August 1, 2018 Resolution 6 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 136461 for failure of petitioners Bonifacio Merigildo, Darwin S. Misagal, Esperdion Bunuan, and Rolando Malig-on (petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in finding that the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) did not gravely abuse its discretion when it held that they were project employees, and therefore, were not illegally dismissed from employment.
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioners' employment contracts, i.e., Kasunduan sa Pag-gawa, 7 clearly indicated that they were project employees because they were assigned to carry out specific projects or undertaking, and the duration and scope of which were specified at the time of their engagement. 8 This was further supported by respondents JDBEC, Inc. and Juanchito D. Bernardo's Establishment Employment Reports 9 submitted to the Department of Labor and Employment after the completion of the projects. Therefore, their employment ended not because of illegal dismissal but due to the completion of the project or phase they were assigned to as indicated in their contracts. 10 Moreover, petitioners' subsequent re-hiring did not confer upon them regular employment status despite their length of service. 11 Settled is the rule that findings of fact of the labor tribunals, as affirmed by the CA, are binding upon this Court, save for certain exceptions, 12 none of which are obtaining in this case. ETHIDa
SO ORDERED." (REYES, J., JR., J., designated Additional Member per Special Order No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018; on official leave.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. "Bonifacio G. Meregildo" in some parts of the rollo.
2. "Esperjohn C. Bunuan" or "Esperidion C. Bunuan" in some parts of the rollo.
3. "Juancho Bernardo" and "Juanita D. Bernardo" in some parts of the rollo.
4.Rollo, pp. 11-22.
5.Id. at 45-55. Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco with Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Rodil V. Zalameda, concurring.
6.Id. at 63-64.
7. Or "Kasunduan sa Paggawa." Id. at 59-62.
8. See Herma Shipyard, Inc. v. Oliveros, G.R. No. 208936, April 17, 2017, 822 SCRA 600, 613. See also rollo, p. 52.
9. See rollo, p. 31.
10. See id. at 54.
11. See id. at 53.
12. See Protective Maximum Security Agency, Inc. v. Fuentes, 753 Phil. 482, 504-505 (2015).
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU