Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

KIMBERLY INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION FOR SOLIDARITY v. FRANKLIN M. DRILON

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 156668 2007-11-23	KIMBERLY-CLARK v. SECRETARY OF LABOR NACHURA, J.
The Court of Appeals also gravely erred in upholding the ruling of Labor Secretary that persons not party to the petition in G.R. No. 77629 were entitled to regularization differentials, thereby amending the Honorable Court's decision.[4] Kimberly, in this case, contends that the reckoning point in determining who among its casual employees are entitled to regularization should be April 21, 1986, the date KILUSAN-OLALIA filed a petition for certification election to challenge the incumbency of UKCEO-PTGWO. It posits that in the implementation of the May 9, 1990 Decision in G.R. No. 77629,[5] the DOLE should then exclude the employees who had not rendered at least one (1) year of service from the said date.[6]
	GR NOS. 149158-59 2007-07-24	KIMBERLY INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION FOR SOLIDARITY v. CA NACHURA, J.
G.R. Nos. 77629 and 78791 were eventually consolidated by this Court and decided on May 9, 1990.[9] The dispositive portion of the decision reads as follows: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in G.R. No. 77629: Ordering the med-arbiter in Case No. R04-OD-M-4-15-86 to open and count the 64 challenged votes, and that the union with the highest number of votes be thereafter declared as the duly elected certified bargaining representative of the regular employees of KIMBERLY;
	GR NOS. 149158-59 2007-07-24	KIMBERLY INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION FOR SOLIDARITY v. CA NACHURA, J.
G.R. Nos. 77629 and 78791 were eventually consolidated by this Court and decided on May 9, 1990.[9] The dispositive portion of the decision reads as follows: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in G.R. No. 77629: Ordering the med-arbiter in Case No. R04-OD-M-4-15-86 to open and count the 64 challenged votes, and that the union with the highest number of votes be thereafter declared as the duly elected certified bargaining representative of the regular employees of KIMBERLY;
	GR NO. 164156 2006-09-26	ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION v. MARLYN NAZARENO CALLEJO, SR., J.
The law overrides such conditions which are prejudicial to the interest of the worker whose weak bargaining situation necessitates the succor of the State. What determines whether a certain employment is regular or otherwise is not the will or word of the employer, to which the worker oftentimes acquiesces, much less the procedure of hiring the employee or the manner of paying the salary or the actual time spent at work. It is the character of the activities performed in relation to the particular trade or business taking into account all the circumstances, and in some cases the length of time of its performance and its continued existence.[36] It is obvious that one year after they were employed by petitioner, respondents became regular employees by operation of law.[37]
	GR No. 162472 2005-07-28	KAY PRODUCTS v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
While the actual regularization of these employees entails the mechanical act of issuing regular appointment papers and compliance with such other operating procedures as may be adopted by the employer, it is more in keeping with the intent and spirit of the law to rule that the status of regular employment attaches to the casual worker on the day immediately after the end of his first year of service. To rule otherwise, and to instead make their regularization dependent on the happening of some contingency or the fulfillment of certain requirements, is to impose a burden on the employee which is not sanctioned by law.[23]