This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-03-07 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In a number of cases,[12] the Court has held that the length of service or the re-hiring of construction workers on a project-to-project basis does not confer upon them regular employment status, since their re-hiring is only a natural consequence of the fact that experienced construction workers are preferred. Employees who are hired for carrying out a separate job, distinct from the other undertakings of the company, the scope and duration of which has been determined and made known to the employees at the time of the employment , are properly treated as project employees and their services may be lawfully terminated upon the completion of a project.[13] Should the terms of their employment fail to comply with this standard, they cannot be considered project employees. | |||||
|
2010-09-01 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| A project employee is assigned to a project which begins and ends at determined or determinable times.[36] Employees who work under different project employment contracts for several years do not automatically become regular employees; they can remain as project employees regardless of the number of years they work. Length of service is not a controlling factor in determining the nature of one's employment.[37] Their rehiring is only a natural consequence of the fact that experienced construction workers are preferred.[38] In fact, employees who are members of a "work pool" from which a company draws workers for deployment to its different projects do not become regular employees by reason of that fact alone. The Court has consistently held that members of a "work pool" can either be project employees or regular employees.[39] | |||||
|
2009-02-13 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| With the finding that Interserve was engaged in prohibited labor-only contracting, petitioner shall be deemed the true employer of respondents. As regular employees of petitioner, respondents cannot be dismissed except for just or authorized causes, none of which were alleged or proven to exist in this case, the only defense of petitioner against the charge of illegal dismissal being that respondents were not its employees. Records also failed to show that petitioner afforded respondents the twin requirements of procedural due process, i.e., notice and hearing, prior to their dismissal. Respondents were not served notices informing them of the particular acts for which their dismissal was sought. Nor were they required to give their side regarding the charges made against them. Certainly, the respondents' dismissal was not carried out in accordance with law and, therefore, illegal.[48] | |||||
|
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] | |||||