SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 210730. March 10, 2014.]
HACIENDA LAG-ASAN/ELEANOR J. REGALADO, petitioners, vs. TOLENTINO T. DEMAPULA, EMILY B. TAPIO, JEFFREY T. CONSTANTINO, ANALIZA C. MASANGKAY, MERCY D. PAHILANGA, FELIZARDO CONSTANTINO, JOEL N. PIT, ARNEL R. SIPLAO, RICHARD F. TAPIO, SAMUEL P. PATROCENIO, ALVIN R. CORDERO, RENAN P. MENDOZA, SANNY MISSION, JOELSON F. TAPIO, CONCHITA S. CORDERO, MERCEDITA DEMAPULA, ARSENIO F. TAPIO, JOAN T. TAPIO, JENNY C. SIPLAO, MELINDA C. MISSION, JULIE N. PIT, PORFERIO M. PAHILANGA, AND FLORDELIZA J. PAHILANGA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 10 March 2014which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 210730 (Hacienda Lag-asan/Eleanor J. Regalado v. Tolentino T. Demapula, Emily B. Tapio, Jeffrey T. Constantino, Analiza C. Masangkay, Mercy D. Pahilanga, Felizardo Constantino, Joel N. Pit, Arnel R. Siplao, Richard F. Tapio, Samuel P. Patrocenio, Alvin R. Cordero, Renan P. Mendoza, Sanny Mission, Joelson F. Tapio, Conchita S. Cordero, Mercedita Demapula, Arsenio F. Tapio, Joan T. Tapio, Jenny C. Siplao, Melinda C. Mission, Julie N. Pit, Porferio M. Pahilanga, and Flordeliza J. Pahilanga).
After a judicious review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the August 8, 2012 Decision 1 and December 12, 2013 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 05246 for failure of Hacienda Lag-asan and its owner Eleanor J. Regalado (petitioners) to show that the CA committed any reversible error in holding that Tolentino T. Demapula, Emily B. Tapio, Jeffrey T. Constantino, Analiza C. Masangkay, Mercy D. Pahilanga, Felizardo Constantino, Joel N. Pit, Arnel R. Siplao, Richard F. Tapio, Samuel P. Patrocenio, Alvin R. Cordero, Renan P. Mendoza, Sanny Mission, Joelson F. Tapio, Conchita S. Cordero, Mercedita Demapula, Arsenio F. Tapio, Joan T. Tapio, Jenny C. Siplao, Melinda C. Mission, Julie N. Pit, Porferio M. Pahilanga, and Flordeliza J. Pahilanga (respondents) were regular employees and not project employees. ETIcHa
As correctly ruled by the CA, respondents performed tasks necessary to the sugarcane plantation business such as weeding, fertilizing, planting and cutting sugarcanes, and gathering trushes, among others. It is well-settled that the principal test for determining whether an employment is regular or project-based is whether the employees are assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking, the duration and scope of which are specified at the time they are engaged for that project, 3 elements which petitioners failed to prove.
Moreover, the petition suffers from procedural defect in that petitioners merely attached photocopies and not duplicate originals or certified true copies of the assailed CA Decision and Resolution as required under Section 4 (d), Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. AcSCaI
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 42-53. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, with Associate Justices Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, concurring.
2. Id. at 37-40. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, with Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos and Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan, concurring.
3. Abesco Construction and Development Corporation v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 141168, April 10, 2006, 487 SCRA 9, 14. (citations omitted)