This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2007-09-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The Labor Code, which implements the foregoing Constitutional mandate, draws a fine line between regular and casual employees to protect the interests of labor.[19] "Its language evidently manifests the intent to safeguard the tenurial interest of the worker who may be denied the rights and benefits due a regular employee by virtue of lopsided agreements with the economically powerful employer who can maneuver to keep an employee on a casual status for as long as convenient."[20] Thus, the standards for determining whether an employee is a regular employee or a casual or project employee have been delineated in Article 280 of the Labor Code, to wit: Article 280. Regular and Casual Employment. -The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season. | |||||