Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 178505 2008-09-30	CHERRY J. PRICE v. INNODATA PHILS. INC. CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The employment status of a person is defined and prescribed by law and not by what the parties say it should be.[19] Equally important to consider is that a contract of employment is impressed with public interest such that labor contracts must yield to the common good.[20] Thus, provisions of applicable statutes are deemed written into the contract, and the parties are not at liberty to insulate themselves and their relationships from the impact of labor laws and regulations by simply contracting with each other.[21]
	GR NO. 168052 2006-02-20	POSEIDON FISHING v. NLRC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
On the same tack as Brent, the Court in Pakistan International Airlines Corporation v. Ople,[17] ruled in this wise:It is apparent from Brent School that the critical consideration is the presence or absence of a substantial indication that the period specified in an employment agreement was designed to circumvent the security of tenure of regular employees which is provided for in Articles 280 and 281 of the Labor Code. This indication must ordinarily rest upon some aspect of the agreement other than the mere specification of a fixed term of the employment agreement, or upon evidence aliunde of the intent to evade.