FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 241612. December 3, 2018.]
RODERICK ROSALES SAN ESTEBAN, petitioner, vs.SOWA CONSTRUCTION AND WILLIAM ANG, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 3, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 241612 — Roderick Rosales San Esteban, Petitioner, v. Sowa Construction and William Ang, Respondents.
The Court hereby resolves to GRANT the Motion for Extension of Time filed by petitioner seeking an additional period of 30 days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file the Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari of the April 18, 2018 Decision and August 16, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 150102, the Court resolves to DENY the Petition for failure 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.
A careful consideration of the Petition further indicates petitioner's failure to show any cogent reason why the actions of the Labor Arbiter, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the CA, which have passed upon the same issue raised in the present Petition, should be reversed. Petitioner has failed to show that their decisions are contrary to applicable law and jurisprudence. DcHSEa
The Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the uniform findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and 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 three tribunals were correct in observing that petitioner's employment had been fixed for a specific project, the completion or termination of which had been determined at the time of engagement as shown by the Personnel Action Forms which petitioner duly signed each time his services were engaged. Contrary to petitioner's claim, the projects for which he was hired and the periods of his employment were clearly spelled out in the Personnel Action Forms. Hence, petitioner was fully apprised of the nature and scope of his work as project-based employee whose services were coterminous with the completion of the specific task indicated therein.
Moreover, the fact that petitioner's job as installer was 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 imply regular employment.
Finally, the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the CA were all satisfied that the fact of respondents' compliance with the DOLE Order requiring them to submit a report of termination for every completion of project had been proved in this case. On this score, the Court has held that factual findings, which are supported by substantial evidence, are already conclusive and binding and, therefore, entitled to respect by this Court.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the assailed April 18, 2018 Decision and August 16, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 150102. SCaITA
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision 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.