This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-07-29 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The contention may be correct if each engagement of Bello as a mason over the span of eight years was to be treated separately. The contention cannot be upheld, however, simply because his successive re-engagement in order to perform the same kind of work as a mason firmly manifested the necessity and desirability of his work in DMCI's usual business of construction.[20] | |||||
|
2008-06-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It also bears to note that petitioners did not present other Termination Reports apart from that filed on 11 April 2002. The failure of an employer to file a Termination Report with the DOLE every time a project or a phase thereof is completed indicates that respondents were not project employees. [37] Employers cannot mislead their employees, whose work is necessary and desirable in the former's line of business, by treating them as though they are part of a work pool from which workers could be continually drawn and then assigned to various projects and thereafter denied regular status at any time by the expedient act of filing a Termination Report. This would constitute a practice in which an employee is unjustly precluded from acquiring security of tenure, contrary to public policy, morals, good customs and public order.[38] | |||||
|
2007-06-08 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| "[T]he primary standard for determining regular employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee vis-á-vis the usual trade or business of the employer. This connection can be determined by considering the nature of the work performed and its relation to the scheme of the particular business or trade in its entirety. If the employee has been performing the job for at least a year, even if the performance is not continuous and merely intermittent, the law deems repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity if not indispensability of that activity to the business. Hence, the employment is considered regular, but only with respect to such activity and while such activity exists.[33] In our view, the requisites for regularity of employment have been met in the instant case. Gleaned from the description of the scope of services aforementioned, petitioner's work was necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer which includes, as a pre-condition for its enfranchisement, its participation in the government's news and public information dissemination. In addition, her work was continuous for a period of four years. This repeated engagement under contract of hire is indicative of the necessity and desirability of the petitioner's work in private respondent ABC's business.[34] | |||||
|
2005-08-09 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| 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, private respondent had been a project employee several times over. His employment ceased to be coterminous with specific projects when he was repeatedly re-hired due to the demands of petitioner's business.[20] Where from the circumstances it is apparent that periods have been imposed to preclude the acquisition of tenurial security by the employee, they should be struck down as contrary to public policy, morals, good customs or public order.[21] | |||||