SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 232943. November 27, 2017.]
MARLON T. MORALES, petitioner,vs. ULTRALITE ELECTRICAL COMPANY, INC./GEORGE YANG, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 27 November 2017 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 232943 — Marlon T. Morales versus Ultralite Electrical Company, Inc./George Yang
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, after reviewing the Petition and its annexes, including the Court of Appeals' (CA) Decision 1 dated February 15, 2017 and the Resolution 2 dated July 13, 2017, the Court RESOLVES to DENY the instant Petition and AFFIRM the February 15, 2017 Decision and July 13, 2017 Resolution of the CA.
The CA correctly ruled that the length of service of petitioner Morales is not the controlling determinant of his employment tenure as a project employee of respondent Ultralite Electrical Company, Inc.
The Court held in the case of D.M. Consunji, Inc. v. NLRC 3 that the fact that employees worked for the employer under different project employment contracts for several years cannot be made as a basis to consider them as regular employees, for they remain project employees regardless of the number of projects in which they have worked.
In the case of Malicdem v. Marulas Industrial Corp., 4 the Court ruled that since a project employee's work depends on the availability of projects, necessarily the duration of his employment is not permanent but co-terminous with the work to which he is assigned:
It is widely known that in the construction industry, a project employee's work depends on the availability of projects, necessarily the duration of his employment. It is not permanent but coterminous with the work to which he is assigned. It would be extremely burdensome for the employer, who depends on the availability of projects, to carry him as a permanent employee and pay him wages even if there are no projects for him to work on. The rationale behind this is that once the project is completed it would be unjust to require the employer to maintain these employees in their payroll. To do so would make the employee a privileged retainer who collects payment from his employer for work not done. This is extremely unfair to the employers and amounts to labor coddling at the expense of management. 5
Petitioner Morales signed his employment contracts, which provided the duration and scope of his employment, as well as the specific project, freely and voluntarily. In the absence of any showing that they have been executed to circumvent his security of tenure, we uphold the same as valid and binding.
Finally, the findings of fact of the Labor Arbiter (LA) and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) are generally conclusive on this Court unless: (1) petitioner Morales can show grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC, that is, when its factual findings are arrived at arbitrarily or in disregard of the evidence; or (2) if the findings of fact of the LA are in direct conflict with the NLRC. Petitioner Morales has failed to discharge this burden.
SO ORDERED. PERLAS-BERNABE, J., on leave."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 32-37. Penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, with Associate Justices Edwin D. Sorongon and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob concurring.
2.Id. at 39.
3. 401 Phil. 635 (2000).
4. 728 Phil. 264, 275 (2014).
5.Id., citing Archbuild Masters and Construction, Inc. v. NLRC, 321 Phil. 869 (1995); Mamansag v. NLRC, 291-A Phil. 764, 769 (1993); Cartegenas v. Romago, 258 Phil. 445 (1989) and De Ocampo, Jr. v. NLRC, 264 Phil. 728, 733 (1990).