This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-04-18 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| 1. The CA misapplied the phrase "usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer" when it considered Jamin a regular employee. The definition of a regular employee under Article 280 of the Labor Code does not apply to project employment or "employment which has been fixed for a specific project," as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Fernandez v. National Labor Relations Commission[17] and D.M. Consunji, Inc. v. NLRC.[18] It maintains the same project employment methodology in its business operations and it cannot understand why a different ruling or treatment would be handed down in the present case. | |||||
|
2007-01-26 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| Petitions for certiorari under Rules 43, 44 and 45 shall be filed with the Supreme Court. Before the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure became effective on July 1, 1997, the yardstick to determine the timeliness of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was the reasonableness of the time that had elapsed from receipt of notice of the assailed order/s of the trial court up to the filing of the appeal with the CA.[44] In a number of cases, the Court ruled that reasonable time can be pegged at three (3) months.[45] | |||||