This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-11-27 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| 2) It satisfactorily appears that the employer and the employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance exercised by the former or the latter. [28] (Citation omitted.) | |||||
|
2001-10-08 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Necessarily, this leads us to the issue of whether or not private respondents are regular employees. Article 280 of the Labor Code provides for three kinds of employees: (1) regular employees or those who have been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer; (2) project employees or those whose employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or service to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season; and (3) casual employees or those who are neither regular nor project employees.[3] The employees who are deemed regular are: (a) those who have been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual trade or business of the employer; and (b) those casual employees who have rendered at least one (1) year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, with respect to the activity in which they are employed.[4] Undeniably, private respondents were rendering services necessary to the day-to-day operations of petitioner PHCCI. This fact alone qualified them as regular employees. | |||||