WILLIAM GO QUE CONSTRUCTION AND/OR WILLIAM GO QUE, 

Petitioner, v. COURT OF
APPEALS AND DANNY SINGSON, RODOLFO PASAQUI, 1 LENDO LOMINIQUI, AND JUN
ANDALES, Respondents

FACTS:

Private respondents filed a case against Go Que for illegal dismissal at the NLRC claiming that they were
regular employees of the construction company and that they were not paid pay their monetary
benefits, such as service incentive leave pay, holiday pay, and 13th month pay. Petitioner however
contended that the private respondents are project employees and were hired only up to the time the
project is finished. While the construction was on going there were incidents of stealing construction
materials and the private respondents were the one who was suspected to have stolen such, private
respondents no longer went to work. Petitioner, thereafter, filed theft against the private respondents.

LA: PETITIONER ILLEGALLY DISMISSED THE EMPLOYEES, LACK OF CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT DOES
NOT PROVE THAT THERE IS NO EE-ER RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THEM. HOWEVER THEY WERE NOT
GRANTED THE ALLEGED LACK OF BENEFITS. Petitioner appealed to the NLRC, arguing, among others,
that Andales should not have been included as party litigant, considering the apparent falsification of his
signature in the complaint and Verification 18 attached to their Position Paper, and the fact that he could
not be contacted.

NLRC: REVERSED

CA: granted private respondents' motion but noted that the Affidavit of Service 29 and the
Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping 30 contained a defective jurat. Thus, private respondents
were directed to cure the defects within five (5) days from notice.