This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
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. | |||||
|
2008-06-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Being a regular employee, Alipio enjoys security of tenure. Her services may be terminated only upon compliance with the substantive and procedural requisites for a valid dismissal: (1) the dismissal must be for any of the causes provided in Article 282[12] of the Labor Code; and (2) the employee must be given an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself.[13] | |||||
|
2007-12-04 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In a string of cases, [22] we have repeatedly said that the requirement of twin notices must be met. In the recent case of King of Kings Transport, Inc. v. Mamac, we explained:To clarify, the following should be considered in terminating the services of employees: | |||||