GR 209499; (January, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 209499 ; January 28, 2015
MA. CHARITO C. GADIA, ERNESTO M. PENAS, GEMMABELLE B. REMO, LORENA S. QUESEA, MARIE JOY FRANCISCO, BEVERLY A. CABINGAS, IVEE U. BALINGIT, ROMA ANGELICA O. BORJA, MARIE JOAN RAMOS, KIM GUEVARRA, LYNN S. DE LOS SANTOS, CAREN C. ENCANTO, EIDEN BALDOVINO, JACQUELINE B. CASTRENCE, MA. ESTRELLA V. LAPUZ, JOSELITO L. LORD, RAYMOND G. SANTOS, ABIGAIL M. VILORIA, ROMMEL C. ACOSTA, FRANCIS JAN S. BAYLON, ERIC O. PADIERNOS, MA. LENELL P. AARON, CRISNELL P. AARON, and LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER F. PAPA, Petitioners, vs. SYKES ASIA, INC./ CHUCK SYKES/ MIKE HINDS/ MICHAEL HENDERSON, Respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Sykes Asia, Inc. (Sykes Asia), a Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) company, was contracted by Alltel Communications, Inc. (Alltel) to provide support services for its postpaid and prepaid services (the Alltel Project). Petitioners were hired by Sykes Asia on different dates as customer service representatives, team leaders, and trainers specifically for the Alltel Project. Their respective employment contracts stated that their positions were “project-based” and “co-terminus to the project.” Alltel later terminated its service contract with Sykes Asia. Consequently, Sykes Asia sent petitioners end-of-life notices, dismissing them from employment due to the termination of the Alltel Project. Petitioners filed complaints for illegal dismissal, alleging lack of substantive and procedural due process. Respondents contended that petitioners were project-based employees whose employment was validly terminated upon the project’s completion.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly granted the certiorari petition, thereby setting aside the NLRC’s decision (which held petitioners were regular employees) and reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s ruling (which held petitioners were project-based employees and thus validly dismissed).
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the petition was without merit and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The CA correctly found that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion. The NLRC’s finding that petitioners were regular employees was not supported by substantial evidence. Petitioners were project-based employees as defined under Article 294 of the Labor Code. They were hired for a specific project or undertaking—the Alltel Project—and their employment contracts expressly stated their engagement was project-based and co-terminus with that project. The completion or termination of this specific project was determinable, as evidenced by the service contract between Sykes Asia and Alltel and the subsequent termination letters from Alltel. Therefore, petitioners’ employment was lawfully terminated upon the project’s cessation. The Court emphasized that for an employee to be considered project-based, the specific project and the fact that its duration was determined or determinable at the time of engagement must be established, which respondents successfully proved.