This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-02-18 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Private respondent's reliance on the case of Mercado v. NLRC is misplaced considering that since in said case of Mercado, although the respondent company therein consistently availed of the services of the petitioners therein from year to year, it was clear that petitioners therein were not in respondent company's regular employ. Petitioners therein performed different phases of agricultural work in a given year. However, during that period, they were free to contract their services to work for other farm owners, as in fact they did. Thus, the Court ruled in that case that their employment would naturally end upon the completion of each project or phase of farm work for which they have been contracted.[47] (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted) | |||||
|
2005-10-14 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| In any case, we find that the CA, the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter correctly categorized the respondents as regular employees of the petitioner company. In Abasolo v. National Labor Relations Commission,[40] the Court reiterated the test in determining whether one is a regular employee:The primary standard, therefore, of determining regular employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee in relation to the usual trade or business of the employer. The test is whether the former is usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. The connection can be determined by considering the nature of work performed and its relation to the scheme of the particular business or trade in its entirety. Also, 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.[41] | |||||
|
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] | |||||