Republic of the Philippines

Manila

FIFTEENTH DIVISION

ENRICO G. DE LEON, CA-G.R. SP No. 142016

MARK ANTHONY DAVID,
EDUARDO S. FLORES,
ALFER D. GARCIA, RAUL C.
LOZANO, JERRY M.
PAMINTUAN, MARTE D. Members:
CAYANAN, JUANITO A.
CANLAS, JR., EUGENE D. GARCIA, R. R.
LANDIZA, CONDRADO A. Chairperson,
DE GUZMAN, RICHARD DIMAGIBA, L. R., and
MADDALORA and LOPEZ, J. Y., JJ.
ANTONIO MADLA,
Petitioner,

- versus -

NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION-
SIXTH DIVISION,
PRIMEMOVERS MATERIAL
HANDLING & TRANSPORT
CORP., MR. FELIPE SON Promulgated:
(Operations Manager) SAN
MIGUEL BREWERY, INC.,
(SMBI), MR. NOEL
VILLANUEVA (SMBI Plant
Manager),
Respondents. February 29, 2016

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

DECISION

GARCIA, R. R., J.:

CA G.R. SP No. 142016 Page 2 of 15
Decision

Before Us is a Petition for Certiorari 1 under Rule 65 of the 1997

Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the Decision 2 dated April 28, 2015
of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Sixth Division,
which affirmed the Decision3 dated November 21, 2014 of the Labor
Arbiter dismissing petitioners' complaint for illegal dismissal; and
the Resolution4 dated June 15, 2015 denying the motion for
reconsideration5 thereof.

THE FACTS

The instant case stemmed from a complaint6 for constructive

dismissal, regularization, non-payment of 13 th month pay, payment of
wage differentials, moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees
filed by herein petitioners against private respondents Primemovers
Materials Handling & Transport Corp. (Primemovers, for brevity), its
Operations Manager Felipe Son, respondent San Miguel Brewery,
Inc. (SMBI, for brevity) and its Plant Manager Noel Villanueva.

In their Position Paper7, petitioners alleged that they were hired

as forklift operators by private respondent Primemovers and
assigned at SMBI's manufacturing plant in San Fernando City,
Pampanga. The details of their employment are as follows:

Employee Daily Date Hired Date Dismissed

Wage
1. Enrico G. de Leon P336.00 September 26, 2007 September 3, 2010
2. Mark Anthony David P420.00 October 1, 2007 November 11, 2012
3. Eduardo S. Flores P325.00 October 1, 2007 September 30, 2010
4. Alfer D. Garcia P319.00 October 1, 2007 September 30, 2010
5. Raul C. Lozano P336.00 October 1, 2007 September 30, 2010
6. Jerry M. Pamintuan P315.00 February 21, 2009 September 30, 2010
7. Marte D. Cayanan P336.00 October 3, 2007 September 30, 2010
8. Juanito A. Canlas, Jr. P319.00 October 10, 2007 September 30, 2010
9. Eugene D. Landiza P336.00 February 2, 2008 September 30, 2010

1
Rollo, pp. 2-48 .
2
Rollo, pp. 72-90.
3
Rollo, pp. 57-71.
4
Rollo, pp. 91-91B.
5
Rollo, pp. 92-105.
6
Amended Complaint, Rollo, pp. 843-844.
7
Rollo, pp. 244-265.
CA G.R. SP No. 142016 Page 3 of 15
Decision

10. Condrado A. De P336.00 October 1, 2007 September 30, 2010

Guzman
11. Richard Maddalora P420.00 October 1, 2010 April 4, 2013
12. Antonio Madla P336.00 September 26, 2007 October 1, 2010

Petitioners claim that they were summarily dismissed on

different dates when the management of private respondent
Primemovers informed them through telephone call that their
services were no longer needed. Moreover, private respondent
Primemovers is engaged in labor-only contracting not having
substantial capitalization nor forklifts of its own. As such, petitioners
should be considered regular employees of SMBI entitled to the
wages and benefits accorded to the latter's rank-and-file employees.

In its traverse8, private respondent Primemovers in its Position

Paper9 averred that none of the petitioners was constructively
dismissed. Petitioners' contracts of employment were co-terminus
with the Forklift Handling Operations Agreement 10 that it entered
into with SMBI which expired on September 30, 2010. Further, the
money claims of petitioners were already barred by prescription
having been filed beyond the three (3)-year period provided under
Article 291 of the Labor Code. In its Reply 11, private respondent
Primemovers attached its Audited Financial Statement 12 showing its
total assets of P51,491,060.0013. It also presented a Certificate 14 of
Registration as proof that it is a registered job contractor.

For their part, private respondent SMBI asserted that its core
business is manufacturing of beer and malt-based products. It
outsources its forklift operation and services to private respondent
Primemovers, a legitimate contractor with substantial capitalization.
It was private respondent Primemovers that engaged the services of
petitioners as forklift operators and assigned them at SMBI's
warehouse. Hence, petitioners are actually the employees of
respondent Primemovers and not that of SMBI. It thus prayed that
the complaint against it be dismissed.

In a Decision15 dated November 21, 2014, the Labor Arbiter

dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal. It ruled that petitioners

8
Respondent Primemovers Position Paper, Rollo, pp. 496-510.
9
Rollo, pp. 496-510.
10
Rollo, pp. 514-521.
11
Rollo, pp. 562-564.
12
Rollo, p. 567-597.
13
Rollo, pp. 574, 597.
14
Rollo, p. 600.
15
Rollo, pp. 57-71.
CA G.R. SP No. 142016 Page 4 of 15
Decision

are employees of private respondent Primemovers, it being a

legitimate job contractor having shown substantial capitalization in
terms of tools, equipment, machineries and implements in the
operation of its business. It has total assets worth P51 million, 21
hauler trucks, and several reach trucks and payloaders. As to the
issue of illegal dismissal, petitioners are fixed-term employees whose
contracts of employment are co-terminus with private respondent
Primemover's service agreement with SMBI. Consequently, upon the
expiration of the service agreement in September 2010, petitioners'
contracts of employment, except for David and Maddalora who
tendered their voluntary resignation, were also terminated. In regard
to petitioners' money claims, it was held the same were already
barred by prescription. The pertinent portions of the Decision read:

xxx

After a judicious examination of the records of the case, I

find Primemovers Materials Handling and Transport Corporation
as a legitimate job contractor. Records further show that the
complainants were employees of Primemovers.

xxx

As shown by the various employment contracts submitted,

respondent Primemovers engaged the services of all the
complainants during the effectivity of the Forklift Handling
Agreement they entered with respondent SMBI. Upon expiration of
each, the employment of the complainants who were then assigned
thereat also ceases. xxx

Moreover, the various service contracts indicate that it was

the obligation of Primemovers to control and supervise the work of
their employees. xxx. Too, they were also obligated to provide the
needed tools and equipment[s] for the accomplishment of the
purposes for which the handling agreement was entered into.
Records disclose that Primemovers complied with these principal
obligations under the service agreement. xxx

xxx

Here, the Audited Financial Statements submitted by

Primemovers reveals that they have total assets worth more than
Php51 Million consisting of cash, properties and equipment[s].
Records further show that they have in their possession about 116
forklifts, several reach trucks and payloaders in the various areas
they were servicing. They also have 21 hauler trucks with Official
Receipts and Certificates of Registration in their names, xxx.
Moreover, the Balance Sheets as of December 2013 of respondent
Primemovers show that they have more than Php35 Million in
retained earnings and paid about Php5 Million in taxes.
CA G.R. SP No. 142016 Page 5 of 15
Decision

xxx
This being so, I now proceed to determine the merits of the
complainants' complaint for illegal dismissal.

xxx

Except for complainants David and Maddalora who both

voluntarily resigned as shown by their respective resignation letters
xxx, all of the complainants' employment was terminated at the
expiration of the service agreement with SMBI as early as
September 2010. xxx
xxx

With regard to the money claims of complainants xxx,

records show that their employment ended as early as September
2010. From this date, the complainants have three (3) years within
which to file a complaint to recover unpaid benefits, otherwise, the
same will be barred by prescription pursuant to Article 291 of the
Labor Code, as amended. And considering that they only filed the
complaint on May 5, 2014 or three (3) years and eight (8) months
from September 2010, it is clear that their money claims are
already barred by prescription. As such, they could no longer
recover the same.
xxx

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered

DISMISSING the complaint filed against Primemovers Material
Handling & Transport Corporation for lack of merit.

The complaint against San Miguel Brewery, Inc., Felipe Son

and Noel Villanueva, in their individual capacities as Operations
Manager and Plant Manager, respectively, is likewise DISMISSED
for lack of jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED.16

Unsatisfied, petitioners appealed to public respondent NLRC,

which in a Decision17 dated April 28, 2015, affirmed the ruling of the
Labor Arbiter. It was ratiocinated that private respondent
Primemovers was indeed engaged in an independent job contracting
having established substantial capitalization as evidenced by the
Audited Financial Statement showing total assets amounting to
P51,491,060.00 and ownership of several forklifts. Private
respondent Primemovers also exercised control, supervision and
disciplinary power over its employees. Further, the status of
petitioners as project employees is supported by the Project
Employment Contracts and the respective extensions thereof until
16
Rollo, pp. 63-71.
17
Supra, at Note 2.
CA G.R. SP No. 142016 Page 6 of 15
Decision

September 30, 2010 as well as the filing of private respondent

Primemovers of an Establishment Employment Report with the
DOLE. The pertinent portions of the assailed decision are quoted:

We agree with the findings of the Labor Arbiter that

Respondent-Primemovers is engaged in independent job
contracting. First, as shown in its Articles of Incorporation,
Respondent-Primemovers is primarily engaged in the business of
operating and maintaining warehousing and other handling
services. Forklift handling operations is included in its core
business. In pursuit of its business, Respondent-Primemovers
entered into a Forklift Handling Operations Agreement with
Respondent-San Miguel from 01 October 2007 to 30 September
2010. Complainants were hired by Respondent-Primemovers as
forklift operators and deployed at the warehouse owned by
Respondent-San Miguel. xxx Second, Respondent-Primemovers
is registered as an independent contractor with the Department of
Labor and Employment. The certification issued by a government
agency enjoys the presumption of regularity. xxx Third,
Respondent-Primemovers has sufficiently proven that it has
substantial capital, tools and equipment[s] necessary to carry out
its operations. The Audited Financial Statements as of 31
December 2013 of Respondent-Primemovers xxx shows that it has
property and equipment amounting P51,491,060.00. xxx Fourth,
Respondent-Primemovers complied with its obligation to submit
an Establishment Employment Report with the appropriate DOLE
Regional Office to report the termination of its employees,
including herein Complainants, due to the expiration of the
contract with Respondent-San Miguel on 30 September 2010.
Ultimately, the four-fold test in determining the existence of
employer-employee relationship is present between the
Complainants and Respondent-Primemovers. xxx Both the control
and supervision over Complainants at the warehouse was exercised
by Respondent-Primemovers, including the exercise of disciplinary
powers over them for infraction of company rules. xxx In fine,
Complainants are the employees of Respondent-Primemovers, not
Respondent-San Miguel.

Were the complainants illegally dismissed by Respondent-

Primemovers?
xxx

A close scrutiny of the Project Employment Contract signed

by the Complainants show that they were hired as forklift operators
for the period stated in the contract and assigned at the SMC
Brewery in San Fernando City, Pampanga. The specific project is to
undertake the forklift handling operations requirement of
Respondent- San Miguel in its warehouse in San Fernando City,
Pampanga. Their project employment was extended when the
forklift handling agreement with Respondent-Primemovers and
Respondent-San Miguel was extended until 30 September 2010.
xxx
CA G.R. SP No. 142016 Page 7 of 15
Decision

xxx

The status of the Complainants as project employees of

Respondent-Primemovers is further proven by the submission of
termination report on the cessation of Complainants' employment
to the appropriate DOLE Regional Office a month before the
expiration of the forklift handling agreement with Respondent-San
Miguel on 30 September 2010.

xxx Hence, there is no requirement for Respondent-

Primemovers to send notices to the Complainants as they have
already been made aware of the duration of their engagement right
from the start. Clearly, Respondent-Primemovers committed no
violation of Complainants right to due process-procedural or
substantive.

Except for Complainants-David and Maddalora, the project

employment of the other Complainants ended on 30 September
2010. xxx
xxx

The money claims of the Complainants cannot likewise be

granted on the ground of prescription.

xxx

WHEREFORE, the Appeal filed by the Complainants is

hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision of the Labor
Arbiter dated 21 November 2014 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.18

A motion for reconsideration 19 was forthwith filed by

petitioners but the same was denied in a Resolution20 dated June 15,
2015.

Hence, the instant petition for certiorari raising the following

grounds21 for its allowance, to wit:

I.
PUBLIC RESPONDENT NLRC ACTED WITH
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO
LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN DECLARING
PRIVATE RESPONDENT PRIMEMOVERS AS A

18
Rollo, pp. 81-89.
19
Rollo, pp. 92-105.
20
Rollo, pp. 91-91B.
21
Rollo, pp. 12-13.
CA G.R. SP No. 142016 Page 8 of 15
Decision

LEGITIMATE CONTRACTOR NOTWITHSTANDING

THE FACT THAT:

A. THE FORKLIFT OPERATIONS SERVICES

AGREEMENT IS NOT WITHIN THE PURPOSE FOR
WHICH PRIVATE RESPONDENT PRIMEMOVERS
WAS INCORPORATED;

B. AT THE TIME OF THE DURATION OF SERVICE

CONTRACT, THE PAID-UP CAPITAL OF PRIVATE
RESPONDENT PRIMEMOVERS IS A MEASLY
PHP250,000.00;

C. PRIVATE RESPONDENT PRIMEMOVERS HAS

NO TOOLS, EQUIPMENT AND MACHINERIES
ACTUALLY AND DIRECTLY USED IN THE
PERFORMANCE OR COMPLETION OF THE JOB OR
SERVICE CONTRACTED WITH SMBI;

D. THE 2014 FINANCIAL STATEMENT PRESENTED

BY PRIVATE RESPONDENT PRIMEMOVERS
CANNOT CURE ITS ILLEGAL ACTS COMMITTED
SINCE 2006 UP TO 2011;

E. PRIVATE RESPONDENT PRIMEMOVERS HAS

NO OTHER CLIENTS.

II.
PUBLIC RESPONDENT NLRC ACTED WITH
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO
LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DID
NOT DECLARE THE SIMILARLY WORDED
PROVISIONS IN THE SERVICE CONTRACTS AS A
MERE LABOR-ONLY CONTRACTING
ARRANGEMENT.

III.
PUBLIC RESPONDENT NLRC ACTED WITH
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO
LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT
RULED THAT PETITIONERS WERE PROJECT
EMPLOYEES NOT REGULAR EMPLOYEES OF SMBI,
CONTRARY TO APPLICABLE LAWS AND SETTLED
JURISPRUDENCE, DESPITE THE ESTABLISHED
FACT THAT:
CA G.R. SP No. 142016 Page 9 of 15
Decision

A. THE CONTROL ON THE MANNER AND

METHOD ON HOW THE CONTRACTED SERVICES
WERE TO BE PERFORMED WAS EXERCISED BY
SMBI;

B. FORKLIFT OPERATIONS IS A NECESSARY AND

DESIRABLE PART OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT
SMBI'S BUSINESS, HENCE, ITS OUTSOURCING IS
ILLEGAL. THE JOBS OF PETITIONERS AS
FORKLIFT OPERATORS ARE CONSIDERED AS
REGULAR RANK-AND-FILE POSITIONS, THUS,
MAKING PETITIONERS ENTITLED TO CBA
BENEFITS;

C. PETITIONERS ARE NOT PROJECT EMPLOYEES

SINCE THE FORKLIFT OPERATION IS NOT A
SPECIFIC UNDERTAKING OF SMBI;

D. PETITIONERS ARE THEREFORE REGULAR

EMPLOYEE'S OF SMBI PURSUANT TO ARTICLE
106 OF THE LABOR CODE.

THE ISSUE

At the core of the present petition is whether or not the NLRC

committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction when it upheld the Labor Arbiter's finding that: (a)
private respondent Primemovers is an independent contractor; and
(b) petitioners are project employees whose employment expired on
September 30, 2010.

THE RULING

The petition is bereft of merit.

Petitioners contend that private respondent Primemovers is

engaged in labor-only contracting. At the time private respondent
Primemovers entered into a service agreement with SMBI in 2006, it
only had a paid up capital of P250,000.00. It does not own a single
forklift and neither does it have any other clients. It was SMBI that
exercised control and supervision over the means and methods on
the conduct of the forklift operations. It was further alleged that
CA G.R. SP No. 142016 Page 10 of 15
Decision

petitioners were summarily dismissed from their employment

without giving them any notice in violation of their right to due
process.

We are not persuaded.

Under Department Order No. 18-A, Series of 2011 issued by the

Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), a contractor is
considered engaged in legitimate job contracting or subcontracting if
the following conditions concur: (1) It carries on a distinct and
independent business and undertakes to perform the job, work or
service on its own account and under its own responsibility according
to its own manner and method, and free from the control and
direction of the principal in all matters connected with the
performance of the work except as to the results thereof; (2) It has
substantial capital or investment; and, (3) The agreement between
the principal and contractor or subcontractor assures the contractual
employees entitlement to all labor and occupational safety and health
standards, free exercise of the right to self-organization, security of
tenure, and social and welfare benefits.22

Labor-only contracting, on the other hand, exists when the

contractor or subcontractor merely recruits, supplies or places
workers to perform a job, work or service for a principal and if any of
the following elements are present: (1) The contractor or
subcontractor does not have substantial capital or investment which
relates to the job, work or service to be performed, and the employees
recruited, supplied or placed by such contractor or subcontractor are
performing activities which are directly related to the main business
of the principal; or (2) The contractor does not exercise the right of
control over the performance of the work of the contractual
employee.23

After a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of

the instant case, We find that private respondent Primemovers is
engaged in legitimate job contracting.

Private respondent Primemovers was able to prove its status as

such for having presented its Certificate of Incorporation 24 with the
SEC, as well as, the Certificate of Registration 25 with the DOLE as a
legitimate labor contractor after having complied with the

22
Almeda v. Asahi Glass, Phil., Inc., G.R. No. 177785, September 3, 2008; Fuji Television
Network, Inc. v. Espiritu, G.R. No. 204944-45, December 3, 2014; Fonterra Brands Phil., Inc. v.
Largado, G.R. No. 205300, March 18, 2015.
23
Ibid.
24
Rollo, p. 278.
25
Rollo, p. 600.
CA G.R. SP No. 142016 Page 11 of 15
Decision

requirements under the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules, as

well as, Department Order No. 18-02, Series of 2002. Furthermore,
the records reveal that private respondent Primemovers has
substantial capital, as shown by its current authorized capital stock of
P3,000,000.0026, paid-up capital of P2,000,000.0027 and total assets
of P13,429,893.0028 in 2009; P26,483,644.0029 in 2012; and
P134,280,735.2830 in 2013. Its Profit and Loss Statement31 for 2013
also reflected a net income (after tax) of P5,707,024.57 32. Its List33 of
Assets includes 69 forklifts and 2 reach trucks which are registered
under private respondent Primemovers' name as can be gleaned from
the certificates of registration and official receipts (OR/CR) 34 of the
said vehicles. It likewise adduced in evidence its Warehousing
Management Agreement35 with Magnolia Inc. and Ginebra San
Miguel, Inc. to rebut petitioners' claim that it has no other client but
SMBI. It was also able to show compliance with the provisions of its
Forklift Handling Operations Agreement36 with SMBI for the
payment of wages and salaries of its employees or workers, including
benefits, premiums and contributions to the proper government
entities of all withholding taxes, SSS, HDMF and Philhealth, in
accordance with relevant laws as evidenced by petitioners' payslips. 37

The records further show that based on its Forklift Handling

Operations Agreement38 with SMBI, private respondent
Primemovers is free to choose the means and manner to accomplish
its contracted services without being subject to the the former's
control except only as to the results. It exercises control and
supervision over its employees and has its own officers and
employees who are not employees of SMBI. It also has its own Safety,
Health and Environment Management Plan39, Employee Handbook40
and Personnel Policies41. With regard to the engagement of herein
petitioners, it is undisputed that they were hired by Primemovers'
Recruitment Officer Mary Jane Alcantara who received and pre-
screened their personnel information sheet and their pre-

26
Rollo, p. 695.
27
Rollo, p. 697.
28
Rollo, p. 182.
29
Rollo, p. 404.
30
Rollo, p. 423.
31
Rollo, p. 424.
32
Rollo, p. 424.
33
Rollo, pp. 197-198.
34
Rollo, pp. 447-472.
35
Rollo, pp. 426-445.
36
Rollo, pp. 514-521.
37
Rollo, pp. 275-276.
38
Rollo, pp. 514-521.
39
Rollo, pp. 651-690.
40
Rollo, pp. 738-768.
41
Rollo, pp. 769-788.
CA G.R. SP No. 142016 Page 12 of 15
Decision

employment requirements. Anent the performance of their tasks, it

was shown that petitioners were under the direct control and
supervision of shift supervisors of Primemovers, who, in turn, were
under the direct control and supervision of Primemovers Area
Managers Eduardo Baroja and Angelo Gopez.42 Private respondent
Primemovers also exercises the power to impose disciplinary action
over petitioners as shown by the Notice of Charge and Request for
Written Response43 which it issued to petitioners Madla and Landiza.

All these sufficiently show that private respondent

Primemovers carries out its operations and business independent of
SMBI, making it a legitimate job contractor.

We now determine whether the dismissal from employment of

petitioners is valid.

This Court sustains the findings of the labor tribunals that the
termination of petitioners' employment with private respondent
Primemovers was brought about by the expiration of their
employment contracts.

In Gadia, et al. vs. Sykes Asia, Inc.44 the Supreme Court held
that for an employee to be considered project-based, the employer
must show compliance with two (2) requisites, namely that: (a) the
employee was assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking;
and (b) the duration and scope of which were specified at the time
they were engaged for such project.

A perusal of records discloses that private respondent

Primemovers entered into a Forklift Handling Operations
Agreement45 with SMBI for a duration of three (3) years starting from
October 1, 2007 to September 30, 2010. Accordingly, private
respondent Primemovers hired petitioners as forklift operators for an
initial period of one (1) year which was later extended up to the
termination of the Forklift Handling Operations Agreement on
September 30, 2010. Petitioners employment contracts 46 provide as
follows:

PROJECT EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT

xxx
42
Vide: Affidavit of Mary Jane Alcantara, Recruitment Officer of Primemovers, Rollo, pp. 698-
700.
43
Rollo, pp. 526-529.
44
G.R. No. 209499, January 28, 2015.
45
Rollo, pp. 514-521.
46
Rollo, pp. 701-737.
CA G.R. SP No. 142016 Page 13 of 15
Decision

We are pleased to advice you of your employment on a

PROJECT BASIS in this Company under the following terms and
conditions:

1. Position : Forklift Operator

2. Daily Rate : xxx
3. Name of Project : Forklift Handling Operations xxx
4. Division : SMC Brewery, San Fernando
City, Pampanga
5. xxx
6. Duration of Employment : 1 October 2007 to 30 September 2008

xxx
It is understood that this contract of employment is for an
existing project which has a one year contract with San Miguel
Corporation and is thereby coterminous with the project. xxx 47
(emphasis supplied)

In the same vein, the extension of petitioners' contracts

similarly stipulated that:

EXTENSION OF PROJECT EMPLOYMENT

xxx

We are pleased to inform you that your employment contract

with PRIMEMOVERS MATERIALS HANDLING CORPORATION
as a PROJECT-BASED Employee has been extended for another
period effective September 24, 2008 until termination of the
SMC Project as stated below under the same terms and conditions
provided in the previously signed contract of employment. xxx

xxx

It is understood that this project employment refers to the

project entered into between the Corporation and SMC which was
extended and will expire on September on September 15,
2010 and is thereby coterminous with the project. xxx48
(emphasis supplied)

From the foregoing, it clear that private respondent

Primemovers sufficiently complied with first requisite when it
adequately informed petitioners of their employment status at the
time of their engagement that they were hired on a “project basis” in
connection with the Forklift Handling Operations at SMBI Plant in
47
Rollo, pp. 708-709.
48
Rollo, pp. 702-703.
CA G.R. SP No. 142016 Page 14 of 15
Decision

San Fernando, Pampanga and that the same is “co-terminus with the
project”. Private respondent Primemovers Recruitment Officer Mary
Jane Alcantara further attested that petitioners went through an
orientation seminar wherein they were presented and informed of
the Forklift Operations Maintenance Manual, Company Code of
Discipline, the terms of their employment, and their salaries and
benefits.49

As to the second requisite, private respondent Primemovers

expressly indicated in petitioners' employment contracts and in the
respective extensions thereof the duration of their employment. It
likewise provided that their employment is "co-terminus with the
project." Consequently, when the Forklift Handling Operations
Agreement expired, petitioners were terminated from their
employment, with the exception of petitioners David and Maddalora
who voluntary tendered their resignation50.

Moreover, on August 26, 2010, private respondent

Primemovers duly filed with the DOLE an Establishment
Employment Report regarding the expiration of the Forklift
Handling Operations Agreement on September 30, 2010 and the list
of affected employees.51 Jurisprudence is replete that such
submission is an indication that petitioners are indeed project
employees52.

Pursuant to Section 2 (III), Rule XXIII, Book V of the Omnibus

Rules Implementing the Labor Code, if the termination is brought
about by the completion of the contract or phase thereof, the
employer need not furnish its employees with a notice of
termination. Petitioners cannot thus claim that private respondent
Primemovers violated their right to procedural due process when the
latter did not give them advance notice of termination.

Given the foregoing, no reason or justification exists for the

issuance of the writ of certiorari. For this extraordinary writ to issue,
it is a condition sine qua non that there be grave abuse of discretion
on the part of public respondent NLRC. Grave abuse of discretion
implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as to be
equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction. That is, power is
arbitrarily or despotically exercised by reason of passion, prejudice,
or personal hostility; and caprice is so patent or so gross as to
amount to an evasion of a positive duty, or to a virtual refusal to
49
Rollo, pp. 698-700.
50
Rollo, pp. 559-561.
51
Rollo, pp. 789-792.
52
Gadia vs. Sykes Asia, Inc, G.R. No. 209499, January 28, 2015 citing Goma v. Pamplona
Plantation, Incorporated, 579 Phil. 402, 413 (2008); Filsystems, Inc. v. Puente, 493 Phil. 923,
932 (2005); Association of Trade Unions v. Hon. Abella, 380 Phil. 6, 20 (2000).
CA G.R. SP No. 142016 Page 15 of 15
Decision

perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. 53

Such is not present here.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for

Certiorari is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

RAMON R. GARCIA
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

LEONCIA R. DIMAGIBA JHOSEP Y. LOPEZ

Associate Justice Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is

hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court.

RAMON R. GARCIA
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Fifteenth Division

53
Miguel, et al. vs. JCT Group, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 157752, March 16, 2005.