This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2005-03-18 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| In the present case, the contracts of employment[13] of Puente attest to the fact that he was hired for specific projects. His employment was coterminous with the completion of the projects for which he had been hired. Those contracts expressly provided that his tenure of employment depended on the duration of any phase of the project or on the completion of the construction projects. Furthermore, petitioners regularly submitted to the labor department reports of the termination of services of project workers. Such compliance with the reportorial requirement confirms that respondent was a project employee.[14] | |||||