Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FORTUNATO MERCADO v. NLRC

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 170351 2011-03-30	LEYTE GEOTHERMAL POWER WORKERS UNION v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL OIL COMPANY - ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION NACHURA, J.
Petitioner Union's members' employment for more than a year does equate to their regular employment with respondent. In this regard, Mercado, Sr. v. NLRC[19] illuminates: The first paragraph [of Article 280 of the Labor Code] answers the question of who are regular employees. It states that, regardless of any written or oral agreement to the contrary, an employee is deemed regular where he is engaged in necessary or desirable activities in the usual business or trade of the employer, except for project employees.
	GR NO. 150658 2007-02-09	NOELITO FABELA v. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION CARPIO MORALES, J.
In Pure Foods Corp. v. NLRC,[9] this Court held that under the above-quoted provision, there are two kinds of regular employees, namely: (1) those who are engaged to perform activities which are necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, and (2) those casual employees who have rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in which they are employed.
	GR NO. 151827 2005-04-29	JOSEFINA BENARES v. JAIME PANCHO TINGA, J.
In Mercado v. NLRC,[16] the Court ruled that seasonal workers do not become regular employees by the mere fact that they have rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, because the proviso in the second paragraph of Article 280 demarcates as "casual" employees, all other employees who do not fall under the definition of the preceding paragraph. It deems as regular employees those "casual" employees who have rendered at least one year of service regardless of the fact that such service may be continuous or broken.
	GR NO. 150478 2005-04-15	HACIENDA BINO/HORTENCIA STARKE v. CANDIDO CUENCA CALLEJO, SR., J.
The CA ruled that the concept of stare decisis is not relevant to the present case. It held that the ruling in Mercado, Sr. v. NLRC[13] does not operate to abandon the settled doctrine that sugar workers are considered regular and permanent farm workers of a sugar plantation owner, considering that there are facts peculiar in that case which are not present in the case at bar. In the Mercado case, the farm laborers worked only for a definite period for a farm owner since the area of the land was comparatively small, after which they offer their services to other farm owners. In this case, the area of the hacienda, which is 236 hectares, simply does not allow for the respondents to work for a definite period only.