Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaSECOND DIVISION G.R. No. 115920 January 29, 1996PCI AUTOMATION CENTER, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSIONan !ECTOR SANTELICES, respondents. PUNO, J.: his is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule !" of the Revised Rules of Court forthe annul#ent of the Decision of the National $abor Relations Co##ission %N$RC& datedDece#ber '(, )((* 1 and its Resolution dated +pril )", )((,. 2In )(-", Philippine Co##ercial International .an/ %PCI.& co##enced its ,th 0$Environ#ent Conversion Pro1ect intended to lin/ all e2istin3 co#puter s4ste#s 5ithin PCI.and its various branches around the countr4. It entered into a Co#puter Services+3ree#ent 5ith petitioner PCI +uto#ation Center, Inc. %PCI6+C&, under 5hich petitionerobli3ated itself to direct, supervise and run the develop#ent of the soft5are, co#putersoft5are applications and co#puter s4ste# of PCI.. On the other hand, PCI. a3reed toprovide the petitioner 5ith encoders and co#puter attendants, a#on3 others. "o co#pl4 5ith its obli3ation to procure #anpo5er for the petitioner, PCI. en3a3ed theservices of Pri#e Manpo5er Resources Develop#ent, Inc. %Pri#e&. PCI. and Pri#e enteredinto an E2ternal 7ob Contract # 5hich provides8). Services 9 PRIME shall provide :ualified and ade:uate personnel servicesre:uired b4 the C$IEN 5ithin t5o %'& 5or/in3 da4s fro# ti#e of receipt ofthe notice of the C$IEN;s re:uisition.'. Selection 9 he C$IEN shall have the ri3ht to select, refuse, or chan3ean4 or all of the personnel assi3ned to deliver these services to the C$IENupon t5o %'& 5or/in3 da4s notice to PRIME.*.Supervision9 heC$IEN shall beresponsibleinsupervisin3all PRIMEpersonnel contracted and assi3ned to deliver such services to the C$IEN. le3al holida4, special holida4 or rest da4 is hereinattached as +nne2 . and shall beco#e an inte3ral part of this contract.PRIME shall bill the C$IEN for actual services rendered b4 sendin3 C$IENits state#ent of account on the )!th and on the last da4 of each #onth.C$IEN shall #a/e pa4#ent 5ithin seven %B& 5or/in3 da4s fro# receipt ofsaidstate#ent of account, unless theC$IEN,5ithinthesa#eperiod,co##unicates to PRIME its refusal to pa4 on so#e valid 3rounds, e.g. errorsin co#putation etc. In the latter case, C$IEN shall #a/e pa4#ent 5ithinseven %B& 5or/in3 da4s after the cause for non6pa4#ent is settled.(.!rovision for Rate Adjustment9 In the event that 5a3es are increasedand increased %sic& and additional frin3e benefits in favor of the e#plo4eesare pro#ul3ated b4 la5, decrees or re3ulation or 3ranted b4 #utuala3ree#ents bet5een PRIME and C$IEN, the above #entioned billin3 ratesshall be auto#aticall4 ad1usted to confor# 5ith the ne5 levels set b4 la5or b4 both parties.OnSepte#ber'?,)(-",privaterespondent*. P)?,???.?? as e2e#plar4 da#a3es> and,. P",???.?? as attorne4;s fees.+ll other clai#s are hereb4 denied for lac/ of #erit. 10Pri#e and PCI6+C appealed to the N$RC.On 7une )-, )((*, durin3 the pendenc4 of the appeal, Pri#e paid private respondent thea#ount of P',,,-?.??asseparationpa4inlieuof reinstate#ent. his5as inpartialsatisfaction of the 1ud3#ent rendered b4 the $abor +rbiter. Private respondent, for hispart,5aivedhisri3httobereinstatedtohisfor#erpositioninPri#eand=orPCI6+C.+ccordin3l4,Pri#eandprivaterespondente2ecutedandfiledbeforetheofficeofthe$abor +rbiter a docu#ent entitled EPartial Satisfaction of 7ud3#ent and Faiver of Ri3htE. 11OnDece#ber '())((*, public respondent N$RCaffir#edtheDecisionof the$abor+rbiter, but deleted the a5ard of #oral and e2e#plar4 da#a3es and attorne4;s fees. 12PCI6+C filed the present petition on the follo5in3 3round8. . . the public respondent acted 5ith 3rave abuse of discretion a#ountin3to lac/ of 1urisdiction 5hen it disre3arded the substantial evidence in thiscase clearl4 sho5in3 that private respondent 5as not ille3all4 dis#issed b4petitioner. 1"he petition #ust fail.Petitioner contends that private respondent, bein3 a pro1ect e#plo4ee, 5as validl4dis#issed 5hen the pro1ect for 5hich he 5as hired 5as co#pleted on March )", )(().Petitioner aversthat the,th0$Environ#ent ConversionPro1ect involvedaphase6b46phase conversion of PCI.;s co#puter s4ste#. Private respondent 5as assi3ned to 5or/ asdata encoder in the Consolidated Cinancin3 S4ste#=.ud3et Monitorin3 phase of the saidco#puter conversionpro1ect.+lle3edl4,thisphase5asco#pletedonMarch)",)(().Petitioner #a/es thesub#issionthat theco#pletionof the5or/thereinter#inatedfurther need for private respondent;s services. 1#he public respondent, ho5ever, held other5ise after assessin3 the evidence on record. Itaffir#ed the findin3s of the $abor +rbiter, thus80oin3 no5 to the second point of in:uir4, 5hich is the co#pletion or non6co#pletion of the , 0$ conversion s4ste# pro1ect, the testi#on4 of DaniloCalaua3, the assistant vice6president and #ana3er of InternationalOperations of Pri#e Manpo5er is #ost e2plicit. %p. ** SN&thenhe5asassi3nedtoo5er)%ibid&becausethere5as5or/ to be done in o5er ) that necessitated his%co#plainant;s& transfer there %p. *" ibid& althou3h the 5or/he %co#plainant& 5as perfor#in3 in o5er II 5as still e2istin3%supra& and o5er IIis still in pro3ress %supra& #eanin3 hisori3inal assi3n#ent is still on63oin3 up to the present %p. *!ibid&.he fore3oin3 testi#on4 e2pressl4 and clearl4 ad#itted that , 0$conversionpro1ect,#oreparticularl4o5erII to5hichco#plainant 5asori3inall4assi3nedisstillanon63oin3pro1ect,and not 4et co#pletedaspositedb4respondents. here 5as thereforenoreason for co#plainant;sdis#issal on March )", )(() on the pretended 3round 5hich is co#pletion ofthe pro1ect. . . . 15Fe find no valid reason to disturb public respondent;s findin3s. No less than the assistantvice6president and #ana3er for International Operations of Pri#e testified that thepro1ect for 5hichprivaterespondent 5as hired5as still e2istin3at theti#eof hisdis#issal. It is settled that factual findin3s of :uasi61udicial a3encies li/e the $abor +rbiterand the N$RC are 3enerall4 accorded not onl4 respect but even finalit4 if such findin3s aresupported b4 substantial evidence. 16he petitioner also faults the public respondent in affir#in3 the disposition of the $abor+rbiter holdin3 it solidaril4 liable5ithPri#efor all the#onetar4clai#s of privaterespondent. It insists that it is not an e#plo4er of private respondent. It contends thatprivate respondent is an e#plo4ee of Pri#e and he 5as #erel4 assi3ned b4 Pri#e to thepetitioner to 5or/ on the ,th 0$ Environ#ent Conversion Pro1ect of PCI..Fe are not persuaded.he petitioner, throu3h PCI., contracted Pri#e to provide it 5ith :ualified personnel to5or/ on the co#puter conversion pro1ect of PCI..1$he E2ternal 7ob Contract bet5eenPri#eandPCI.#ust bereadincon1unction5iththeCo#puter Services +3ree#entbet5een PCI. and the petitioner. Gnder the Co#puter Services +3ree#ent, the petitionershall direct andsupervisetheco#puter conversionpro1ect of PCI.5hilePCI.shallprovidethepetitioner 5ithdataencoders andco#puter attendants to5or/onthepro1ect. Pursuant to said +3ree#ent, PCI. called on Pri#e to furnish the petitioner 5iththe needed personnel, one of 5ho# 5as private respondent. Capitol IndustrialConstruction 0roup vs. N$RC, '') SCR+ ,!( %)((*&> +.M. Oreta H Co.vs. N$RC, )B! SCR+ ')- %)((?&>