G.R. No. 29512 - Ong Chua vs. Carr

Petitioner Innodata Knowledge Services, Inc. (IKSI) is a data processing company that entered into contracts with various respondents, who are lawyers or law graduates hired as senior and junior reviewers for a defined Content Supply Chain Project (ACT Project).
The employment contracts were project-based with a maximum duration of five (5) years.
The respondents were placed on indefinite forced leave effective January 7, 2010, citing changes in business conditions and client requirements.
IKSI later sent separate notices in May 2010 terminating respondents' project employment contracts due to lack of new work availability.

Respondents filed complaints for illegal dismissal, claiming dismissal without just cause.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the complaints, ruling that respondents were merely placed on forced leave as a cost-saving measure and were not illegally dismissed, ordering reinstatement once work became available.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the LA decision but modified that, in lieu of reinstatement, a monetary award of Php 563,500.00 be paid to certain respondents.
Respondents elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) Cebu, which reversed the NLRC ruling, declaring that respondents were illegally dismissed, and awarding backwages, separation pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees, remanding the case for computation.
IKSI filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied, leading to the instant petition to the Supreme Court.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the NLRC's ruling that respondents were project employees validly placed on floating status and not illegally dismissed.
Whether respondents’ employment contracts were valid project-based contracts or fixed-term contracts contrary to labor laws.
Whether there was a valid temporary layoff or forced leave justifying respondents’ forced leave placement.
Whether there was actual illegal dismissal and entitlement to backwages, separation pay, and damages.
Whether some respondents should be dropped from the case for failure to comply with procedural requirements (verification and certification against forum shopping).