This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-11-27 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| We are not unaware of the decisions of the Court in Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. Ylagan[17] and ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. Nazareno[18] which held that the employer's failure to report the termination of employees upon project completion to the DOLE Regional Office having jurisdiction over the workplace within the period prescribed militates against the employer's claim of project employment, even outside the construction industry. We have also previously stated in another case that the Court should not allow circumvention of labor laws in industries not falling within the ambit of Policy Instruction No. 20/Department Order No. 19, thereby allowing the prevention of acquisition of tenurial security by project employees who have already gained the status of regular employees by the employer's conduct.[19] | |||||
|
2007-10-19 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Nonetheless, a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is the proper remedy for one who complains that the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions acted in total disregard of evidence material to or decisive of the controversy.[34] As this Court elucidated in Garcia v. National Labor Relations Commission[35] - | |||||
|
2005-08-09 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In Maraguinot, Jr. v. NLRC[17] we ruled that once a project or work pool employee has been: (1) continuously, as opposed to intermittently, re-hired by the same employer for the same tasks or nature of tasks; and (2) these tasks are vital, necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer, then the employee must be deemed a regular employee. | |||||