This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-11-26 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Although it is true that the length of time of the employee's service is not a controlling determinant of project employment, it is vital in determining whether he was hired for a specific undertaking or in fact tasked to perform functions vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer.[34] Petitioners' successive re-engagement in order to perform the same kind of work firmly manifested the necessity and desirability of their work in the usual business of TNS as a market research facility.[35] Undisputed also is the fact that the petitioners were assigned office-based tasks from 9:00 o'clock in the morning up to 6:00 o'clock in the evening, at the earliest, without any corresponding remuneration. | |||||
|
2014-02-26 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Under Article 281 of the Labor Code, however, "an employee who is allowed to work after a probationary period shall be considered a regular employee." When an employer renews a contract of employment after the lapse of the six-month probationary period, the employee thereby becomes a regular employee. No employer is allowed to determine indefinitely the fitness of its employees.[14] While length of time is not the controlling test for project employment, it is vital in determining if the employee was hired for a specific undertaking or tasked to perform functions vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business of trade of the employer.[15] Thus, in the earlier case of Maraguinot, Jr. v. NLRC,[16] it was ruled that a project or work pool employee, who has been: (1) continuously, as opposed to intermittently, rehired by the same employer for the same tasks or nature of tasks; and (2) those tasks are vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer, must be deemed a regular employee. Thus:x x x. Lest it be misunderstood, this ruling does not mean that simply because an employee is a project or work pool employee even outside the construction industry, he is deemed, ipso jure, a regular employee. All that we hold today is that once a project or work pool employee has been: (1) continuously, as opposed to intermittently, re-hired by the same employer for the same tasks or nature of tasks; and (2) these tasks are vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer, then the employee must be deemed a regular employee, pursuant to Article 280 of the Labor Code and jurisprudence. To rule otherwise would allow circumvention of labor laws in industries not falling within the ambit of Policy Instruction No. 20/Department Order No. 19, hence allowing the prevention of acquisition of tenurial security by project or work pool employees who have already gained the status of regular employees by the employer's conduct. | |||||
|
2012-04-18 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The CA considered the project employment contracts Jamin entered into with DMCI for almost 31 years not definitive of his actual status in the company. It stressed that the existence of such contracts is not always conclusive of a worker's employment status as this Court explained in Liganza v. RBL Shipyard Corporation, et al.[12] It found added support from Integrated Contractor and Plumbing Works, Inc. v. NLRC,[13] where the Court said that while there were several employment contracts between the worker and the employer, in all of them, the worker performed tasks which were usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer and, a review of the worker's assignments showed that he belonged to a work pool, making his employment regular. | |||||
|
2008-07-14 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In this regard, we hold that respondent Suarez was illegally terminated by petitioner. A project employee must be furnished a written notice of his impending dismissal and must be given the opportunity to dispute the legality of his removal.[21] In termination cases, the burden of proof rests on the employer to show that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause. Employers who hire project employees are mandated to state and prove the actual basis for the employee's dismissal once its veracity is challenged.[22] | |||||
|
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] | |||||