This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2008-10-10 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| There is no dispute that the respondents' work as linemen was necessary or desirable in the usual business of ANECO. Additionally, the respondents have been performing the job for at least one year. 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. As held in Integrated Contractor and Plumbing Works, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission: [11] | |||||
|
2007-09-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The same provision, however, provides that a casual employee can be considered as regular employee if said casual employee has rendered at least one year of service regardless of the fact that such service may be continuous or broken. Section 3, Rule V, Book II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code clearly defines the term "at least one year of service" to mean service within 12 months, whether continuous or broken, reckoned from the date the employee started working, including authorized absences and paid regular holidays, unless the working days in the establishment as a matter of practice or policy, or that provided in the employment contract, is less than 12 months, in which case said period shall be considered one year.[26] 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 of the employer.[27] Applying the foregoing, respondent, who has performed actual stevedoring services for petitioners only for an accumulated period of 228.5 days does not fall under the classification of a casual turned regular employee after rendering at least one year of service, whether continuous or intermittent.[28] | |||||
|
2007-06-21 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The principal test in determining whether an employee is a project employee is whether he/she is assigned to carry out a "specific project or undertaking," the duration and scope of which are specified at the time the employee is engaged in the project,[7] or where the work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.[8] A true project employee should be assigned to a project which begins and ends at determined or determinable times, and be informed thereof at the time of hiring.[9] | |||||
|
2007-06-08 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The contention of the appellate court that the contract was characterized by a valid fixed-period employment is untenable. For such contract to be valid, it should be shown that the fixed period was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties. There should have been no force, duress or improper pressure brought to bear upon the employee; neither should there be any other circumstance that vitiates the employee's consent.[35] It should satisfactorily appear that the employer and the employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance being exercised by the employer over the employee.[36] Moreover, fixed-term employment will not be considered valid where, from the circumstances, it is apparent that periods have been imposed to preclude acquisition of tenurial security by the employee.[37] | |||||
|
2007-06-08 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the engagement of respondents for a period ranging from 2 to 25 years and the fact that their drama programs were aired not only in Bacolod City but also in the sister stations of DYWB in the Visayas and Mindanao areas, undoubtedly show that their work is necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of petitioner. The test to determine whether employment is regular or not is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual business or trade of the employer. Also, 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. Thus, even assuming that respondents were initially hired as project/contractual employees who were paid per drama or per project/contract, the engagement of their services for 2 to 25 years justify their classification as regular employees, their services being deemed indispensable to the business of petitioner.[19] | |||||
|
2006-02-20 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| [20] G.R. No. 152427, 09 August 2005, 466 SCRA 265, 273. | |||||