This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2005-04-15 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Indeed, in a number of cases, the Court has recognized the peculiar facts attendant in the Mercado case. In Abasolo v. NLRC,[24] and earlier, in Philippine Tobacco Flue-Curing & Redrying Corporation v. NLRC,[25] the Court made the following observations:… In Mercado, although respondent constantly availed herself of the petitioners' services from year to year, it was clear from the facts therein that they were not in her regular employ. Petitioners therein performed different phases of agricultural work in a given year. However, during that period, they were free to work for other farm owners, and in fact they did. In other words, they worked for respondent, but were nevertheless free to contract their services with other farm owners. The Court was thus emphatic when it ruled that petitioners were mere project employees, who could be hired by other farm owners….[26] | |||||