This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-03-07 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In Caramol v. National Labor Relations Commission,[15] and later reiterated in Salinas, Jr. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[16] the Court markedly stressed the importance of the employees' knowing consent to being engaged as project employees when it clarified that "there is no question that stipulation on employment contract providing for a fixed period of employment such as "project-to-project" contract is valid provided the period was agreed upon knowingly and voluntarily by the parties, without any force, duress or improper pressure being brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent x x x." | |||||
|
2008-06-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In this case, petitioners did not have that kind of agreement with respondents. Neither did they inform respondents of the nature of the latters' work at the time of hiring. Hence, for failure of petitioners to substantiate their claim that respondents were project employees, we are constrained to declare them as regular employees. In Caramol v. National Labor Relations Commission, [28] and later reiterated in Salinas, Jr. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[29] the Court markedly stressed the importance of the employees' knowing consent to being engaged as project employees when it clarified that "there is no question that stipulation on employment contract providing for a fixed period of employment such as `project-to-project' contract is valid provided the period was agreed upon knowingly and voluntarily by the parties, without any force, duress or improper pressure being brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent x x x." | |||||