This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-10-17 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The CA committed no reversible error in upholding the resolution of the NLRC which affirmed in toto the decision of the LA. Factual findings of labor administrative officials that are supported by substantial evidence are accorded great respect and finality, absent a showing that they arbitrarily disregarded or misapprehended evidence of such nature as to compel a contrary conclusion if properly appreciated.[16] The Supreme Court does not review supposed errors in the decisions of quasi-judicial agencies which raise factual issues because this Court is essentially not a trier of facts.[17] | |||||
|
2007-09-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Moreover, even if petitioners were repeatedly and successively re-hired, still it did not qualify them as regular employees, as length of service is not the controlling determinant of the employment tenure of a project employee,[19] but whether the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, its completion has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee.[20] Further, the proviso in Article 280, stating that an employee who has rendered service for at least one (1) year shall be considered a regular employee, pertains to casual employees and not to project employees.[21] | |||||