Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROLANDO SASAN v. NLRC 4TH DIVISION

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 172349 2012-06-13	POLYFOAM-RGC INTERNATIONAL v. EDGARDO CONCEPCION PERALTA, J.
In Sasan, Sr. v. National Labor Relations Commission 4th Division,[41] the Court distinguished permissible job contracting or subcontracting from "labor-only" contracting, to wit: Permissible job contracting or subcontracting refers to an arrangement whereby a principal agrees to put out or farm out to a contractor or subcontractor the performance or completion of a specific job, work or service within a definite or predetermined period, regardless of whether such job, work or service is to be performed or completed within or outside the premises of the principal. A person is considered engaged in legitimate job contracting or subcontracting if the following conditions concur:
	GR No. 174084 2010-08-25	SPIC N' SPAN SERVICES CORPORATION v. GLORIA PAJE BRION, J.
3. In order that a labor relationship can be categorized as legitimate/permissible job contracting or as prohibited labor-only contracting, the totality of the facts and the surrounding circumstances of the relationship ought to be considered.[32] Every case is unique and has to be assessed on the basis of its facts and of the features of the relationship in question. In permissible job contracting, the principal agrees to put out or farm out with a contractor or subcontractor the performance or completion of a specific job, work or service within a definite or predetermined period, regardless of whether such job, work or service is to be performed or completed within or outside the premises of the principal. The test is whether the independent contractor has contracted to do the work according to his own methods and without being subject to the principal's control except only as to the results, he has substantial capital, and he has assured the contractual employees entitlement to all labor and occupational safety and health standards, free exercise of the right to self-organization, security of tenure, and social and welfare benefits.[33]
	GR No. 186289 2010-06-29	ORIENTAL SHIPMANAGEMENT CO. v. ROMY B. BASTOL VELASCO JR., J.
In Dacut v. Court of Appeals, we held that the fact that the Labor Arbiter admitted the company's reply after the case had been submitted for decision did not make the proceedings before him irregular.[65] In Sasan, Sr. v. National Labor Relations Commission, we also held that the submission of additional evidence on appeal before the NLRC is not prohibited by its New Rules of Procedure; after all, rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity are not controlling in labor cases.[66] Indeed, technical rules of evidence do not apply if the decision to grant the petition proceeds from an examination of its sufficiency as well as a careful look into the arguments contained in position papers and other documents.[67]
	GR NO. 179807 2009-07-31	RAMY GALLEGO v. BAYER PHILIPPINES CARPIO MORALES, J.
In distinguishing between permissible job contracting and prohibited labor-only contracting,[27]the totality of the facts and the surrounding circumstances of the case are to be considered,[28] each case to be determined by its own facts, and all the features of the relationship assessed.[29]