This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2004-10-06 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| The Court of Appeals, citing Article 280 of the Labor Code,[26] declared that private respondents were all regular employees of the petitioner in relation to certain activities since they all worked either as masons, carpenters and fine graders in petitioner's various construction projects for at least one year, and that their work was necessary and desirable to petitioner's business which involved the construction of roads and bridges.[27] It cited the case of Mehitabel Furniture Company, Inc. v. NLRC,[28] particularly the ruling therein which states:By petitioner's own admission, the private respondents have been hired to work on certain special orders that as a matter of business policy it cannot decline. These projects are necessary or desirable in its usual business or trade, otherwise they would not have accepted …. Significantly, such special orders are not really seasonal but more or less regular, requiring the virtually continuous services of the "temporary workers." The NLRC also correctly observed that "if we were to accept respondent's theory, it would have no regular workers because all of its orders would be special undertakings or projects." The petitioner could then hire all its workers on a contract basis only and prevent them from attaining permanent status…. | |||||