Case Digest (G.R. No. 209499)
Facts:
- Ma. Charito C. Gadia and 25 others filed a petition for review against Sykes Asia, Inc. and its executives.
- Sykes Asia entered into a service contract with Alltel Communications, Inc. on September 2, 2003, to provide customer service support.
- The petitioners were employed as customer service representatives, team leaders, and trainers for the Alltel Project.
- Alltel terminated support services related to the project on August 7 and September 9, 2009.
- Sykes Asia issued end-of-life notices to the petitioners, informing them of their termination.
- The petitioners claimed their dismissal lacked substantive and procedural due process.
- Respondents argued that the petitioners were project-based employees, making their termination valid.
- The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the respondents, confirming the petitioners as project-based employees.
- The NLRC modified the decision, declaring the petitioners as regular employees but validly terminated due to redundancy.
- The NLRC awarded separation pay and nominal damages for procedural lapses.
- Sykes Asia filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which annulled the NLRC's decision and reinstated the Labor Arbiter's ruling.
- The petitioners sought a review from the Supreme Court.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution.
- The Court held that the Court of Appeals correctly classified the petitioners as project-based emp...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The Supreme Court emphasized that to justify certiorari, petitioners must show grave abuse of discretion by the lower court or quasi-judicial authority.
- The Court found that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion by declaring the petitioners as regular employees despite substantial evidence indicating they were project-based employees.
- The distinction between regular and project-based employees is outlined in Article 294 of the Labor Code, which defines project-based employees as those engaged for a specific project with a ...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. 209499)
Facts:
The case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by Ma. Charito C. Gadia and 25 other petitioners against Sykes Asia, Inc. and its executives, Chuck Sykes, Mike Hinds, and Michael Henderson. The events leading to the case began on September 2, 2003, when Sykes Asia entered into a service contract with Alltel Communications, Inc., a U.S.-based telecommunications firm, to provide customer service support for the Alltel Project. The petitioners were hired as customer service representatives, team leaders, and trainers for this project. However, on August 7 and September 9, 2009, Alltel sent letters to Sykes Asia terminating all support services related to the Alltel Project. Consequently, Sykes Asia issued end-of-life notices to the petitioners, informing them of their termination due to the cessation of the project.
Dissatisfied with their dismissal, the petitioners filed separate complaints for illegal dismissal against Sykes Asia and its executives, claiming that their termination lacked both substantive and procedural due process. In response, the respondents argued that the petitioners were project-based employees, and their termination was valid due to the end of the Alltel Project. The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of the respondents, stating that the petitioners were indeed project-based employees, and their termination was justified. The petitioners then appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which modified the LA's decision, declaring the petitioners as regular employees but still validly terminated due to redundancy. The NLRC awarded them...