Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FILIPINAS PRE-FABRICATED BUILDING SYSTEMS v. ROGER D. PUENTE

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 179546 2009-02-13	COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS. v. ALAN M. AGITO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As a general rule, factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding upon the Supreme Court. One exception to this rule is when the factual findings of the former are contrary to those of the trial court, or the lower administrative body, as the case may be. This Court is obliged to resolve an issue of fact herein due to the incongruent findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC and those of the Court of Appeals. [29]
	GR No. 170181 2008-06-26	HANJIN HEAVY INDUSTRIES v. FELICITO IBAÑEZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As a general rule, the factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding upon the Supreme Court. One exception to this rule is when the factual findings of the former are contrary to those of the trial court or the lower administrative body, as the case may be. The main question that needs to be settled--whether respondents were regular or project employees--is factual in nature. Nevertheless, this Court is obliged to resolve it due to the incongruent findings of the NLRC and those of the Labor Arbiter and the Court of Appeals. [23]
	GR NO. 169353 2007-04-13	PNOC-ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. NLRC CALLEJO, SR., J.
In Filipinas Pre-Fabricated Building Systems (Filsystems), Inc. v. Puente,[35] the Court ruled that "the length of service of a project employee is not the controlling test of employment tenure but whether or not the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee."[36] Indeed, while length of time may not be 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 or trade of the employer. Here, respondents had been project employees several times over. Their employment ceased to be coterminous with specific projects when they were repeatedly re-hired by petitioner.[37] Where the employment of project employees is extended long after the supposed project has been finished, the employees are removed from the scope of project employees and are considered regular employees.[38]
	GR NO. 167177 2006-09-27	ESTRELLA S. BAÑEZ v. DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In termination cases, the employer has the burden of proving that an employee has been lawfully dismissed.[35] Respondents have discharged the burden of proving serious misconduct in this case. As defined, "[m]isconduct is improper or wrongful conduct. It is the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment."[36] To be a just cause for dismissal under Art. 282 of the Labor Code, such misconduct (a) must be serious; (b) must relate to the performance of the employee's duties; and (c) must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer.[37]