Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROWELL INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 207888 2014-06-09	DIONARTO Q. NOBLEJAS v. ITALIAN MARITIME ACADEMY PHILS. MENDOZA, J.
Pursuant to Article 280 of the Labor Code, there are two kinds of regular employees, namely: (1) those who are engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer; and (2) those who have rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the activities in which they are employed.[13] Regular employees are further classified into (1) regular employees - by nature of work and (2) regular employees - by years of service.[14] The former refers to those employees who perform a particular function which is necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, regardless of their length of service; while the latter refers to those employees who have been performing the job, regardless of its nature thereof, for at least a year.[15]
	GR No. 163033 2009-10-02	SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. EDUARDO L. TEODOSIO PERALTA, J.
Thus, there are two kinds of regular employees, namely: (1) those who are engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer; and (2) those who have rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in which they are employed.[23] Simply stated, regular employees are classified into (1) regular employees - by nature of work and (2) regular employees - by years of service. The former refers to those employees who perform a particular activity which is necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, regardless of their length of service; while the latter refers to those employees who have been performing the job, regardless of the nature thereof, for at least a year.[24] If the employee has been performing the job for at least one year, even if the performance is not continuous or merely intermittent, the law deems the repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity, if not indispensability, of that activity to the business.[25]
	GR No. 178647 2009-02-13	GENERAL SANTOS COCA-COLA PLANT FREE WORKERS UNION-TUPAS v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS. NACHURA, J.
Moreover, factual findings of the NLRC, an administrative agency deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within its jurisdiction, are generally accorded not only respect but finality especially when such factual findings are affirmed by the CA.[14]
	GR No. 160905 2008-07-04	BIENVENIDO D. GOMA v. PAMPLONA PLANTATION INCORPORATED NACHURA, J.
employer; and (2) those who have rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in which they are employed.[27] Simply stated, regular employees are classified into: regular employees by nature of work; and regular employees by years of service. The former refers to those employees who perform a particular activity which is necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, regardless of their length of service; while the latter refers to those employees who have been performing the job, regardless of the nature thereof, for at least a year.[28] If the employee has been performing the job for at least one year, even if the performance is not continuous or merely intermittent, the law deems the repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity, if not indispensability, of that activity to the business.[29]